Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1

Origins

This page arose from a discussion at the Noticeboard. It is an attempt to created a style guide which can be included in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters or elsewhere in the style guide, so it can be used for future reference when creating and editing articles. Possibly a main page, with subheadings for each country whose project may be interested in creating their own style guide for similar topics. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the existing WP:AUSTYLE page, which was developed from previous discussions and may contain relevant material for this update. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dl2000. I was unaware of that page. I would like to see something within MOS, in the way that MOS:LAW points to different countries' legal style conventions, but I don't know whether this would be considered acceptable. I will forge ahead with creating a page trying to summarise the info from the various sources quoted in this draft soon and then we can go from there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stage one

Unnamed draft - not intended as final article format, but simply documenting various sources' recommendations. Lots of copyvios because mainly cut and pasted. The purpose at this point is for an overview from which can be distilled the many common threads. Comments, criticism and suggestions are welcome at any stage during the process! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I go through this version, it is becoming apparent that quite a bit of what ends up being recorded on the final MOS page should be included in the two man articles (Indigenous and Aboriginal Australians) and also some specific articles and DAB pages which might need blue links back to the articles (e.g. I have just added to the Elder DAB page). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, as I was skimming your work I was thinking it possibly deserved a main space article in its own right. Don't we humans make life complicated for ourselves!? I would say keep going and see where it leads you. Not a simple task I suggest. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am intending to create a completely new article, after which this one can be dumped. One simple question is whether to include citations in the style guide (in-line or listed below as Sources). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft document here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Single word noun?

Is there a single word noun that is acceptable to describe a mainland Australian Aboriginal person(s), when a more specific term can't be used because the person's group is not known? For a specific example, see this edit; it strikes me as being overly verbose to have to used two words - adjective and noun - to describe someone if there is a single word that I could use instead. Based on the various sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1:

"Aborigine" is considered offensive
"Aboriginal" should be used as an adjective not a noun
"Indigenous" is a an adjective

I did think about using the common noun "indigene", but I suspect that it wouldn't be acceptable because it's a common noun, and derived from the overly-broad "indigenous/Indigenous". Although given the context (specific people, a specific event that happened on mainland Australia), that word is neutral and specific, distinguishing an Aboriginal person from a European settler. (Note also that it is apparently acceptable to describe the settlers with a single common noun - I don't need to call them "European settlers".)

On a related matter, in general, can the name of a specific group or subgroup, eg Kulin/Boongerong, Noongar/Whadjuk be used as a (single-word) noun? Or only an adjective? Possible the answer depends on whether referring to a single person, or a group collectively.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitch Ames and thanks for raising these questions. From what I have gathered so far from the sources I've quoted on the first draft/scratchpad I created, they all point to having to use adjective + noun with regard to Aboriginal and Indigenous, I'm afraid. While the noun "indigene" has the correct meaning, it is not the preferred usage, and as I understand it, Wikipedia should follow commonly accepted sources for everything, including style guides.

I have not yet gathered enough information about the various types of groupings, but from my work on various articles relating to groups whose names derive from their languages (Kaurna, Ngarrindjeri, Warlpiri people), most but not all of the article names about the people do not have "people" affixed in their titles, and in the text often refer to, e.g. "the Kaurna". However I am not an expert on this and this might be another issue to discuss for inclusion in the MOS. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames: While a single word would be convenient, wouldn’t it be like looking for a single word to describe a person from Western Australia? (Instead of "a Western Australian", or "a Western Australian person".) Betterkeks (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Western Australian (person)" is not a good analogy because "Western Australian" is already two words. I was thinking more along the lines of "Italian" (instead of "Italian person"), Frenchman, Queenslander etc. "European" is probably a closer analogy (I don't know which European country the person is from, but I know that there is more than one such country). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Ames, a point of interest re your suggestion of "indigenes" above. I'm currently reading Bruce Pascoe's Convincing Ground, and he uses Indigenes several times, as well as Aboriginal people, Aborigines and Indigenous people. However, that was 2007, and none of the style guides have taken that one up, and I think that we need to follow the current style guides, probably AIATSIS first and foremost. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 edition of Pascoe's Dark Emu uses "Indigenes" (capitalised) twice.

This perhaps illustrates the difficulty we may have with this guideline. A search through the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Draft style guide1 finds no mention, either for or against, of "indigene" (I haven't searched of its references, but AIATSIS doesn't mention that word either. In my original post I opined that "indigene" might not be acceptable because it has the origins as the non-preferred indigenous, but in retrospect that's probably not a valid conclusion to draw. For example "Aborigine" (noun) is (according to at least sources) is not acceptable but "Aboriginal" (adjective) is OK in at least some contexts. Yet both words have the same root, so clearly variations of the same root word do not necessarily have the same degree of acceptability. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic from the single word noun question but along the same lines...

For a comparison so you can relate it to a Western perspective on identity:

Gadigal would be the equivalent of a nationality - eg. Gadigal = Italian = Australian.

Indigenous Peoples would be the equivalent of a broader grouping - eg. Indigenous Peoples = Europeans

If you were to call an Italian just simply European with no mention of their Italian identity when you know that they are Italian, while talking about their Italian culture, it's probably gonna be a bit misplaced and depending on the topic being discussed, it could even equate to cultural erasure.

I personally do not like the terms "Aboriginal Australian" or "Indigenous Australian" as they suggest 'Australian' ownership rather than independent people with history dating back long before the existence of 'Australia'. I know many people feel the same way. A simple swap from "Australian" to "Peoples" is better as it acknowledges the independence (eg. instead of "Indigenous Australian", use "Indigenous Peoples").

My preference would be "(Specific Location, eg. Gadigal)" first, or as specific as you can find (eg. "Eora Peoples" for the Sydney Region, "Saltwater Peoples" for Coastal Areas). If it needs to be a generic collective, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" is fine, while it is a mouthful, it is important to recognise that Torres Strait Islander Peoples are their own seperate identity too. If it needs to be a blanket simple generic collective, "Indigenous Peoples", not the "Australians" suffix (as above).

The AIATSIS guide is pretty much in line with my personal preferences, there is also a Canadian resource which, while not being specific to this part of the world, it touches on some of the same concerns and there is a somewhat shared colonial history - importantly, the resource includes a mention to always capitalise, you would never say australian or italian after all, the same applies here including when referring to 'Indigenous'.

Not sure if this is much help for the single word noun topic, but hopefully you can get some value out of it. Personally I'd never be offended if someone showed even a hint of effort towards using correct place names & terminology, because its better than no attempt at all.

GadigalGuy (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GadigalGuy - you have made some good points. I agree that the AIATSIS guide appears to represent best practice, and as we preference it for the spelling of articles about Aboriginal languages (albeit more by convention rather than a published guideline), there is a good precedent for putting this source above others, and perhaps this could even be written into the style guide somewhere?.

I think that the Terminology section more or less reflects what you have mentioned about using the most specific term, although restricts it to where mentioned in the source. (I myself make a habit of trying to find a source to reflect the specific language or group, wherever I come across a source that mentions "the Aboriginal word for", or "the local Aboriginal people.) That one source I cited said to only use terms like "saltwater people" when quoting...? If you can suggest better wording, please do.

I know and understand your objection to using "Australian" as the suffix in the article names, but we do need a descriptor to distinguish from other Indigenous peoples. I see that other article names are Indigenous peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, Indigenous peoples of Mexico, so perhaps that is an option for moving the articles? I often pipe the link to read "Indigenous people(s)" or "Aborginal people(s)" in articles about Australia. (We also have Aboriginal Victorians, Aboriginal Tasmanians, etc.) I am going to tweak the style guide slightly to make it clear that "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people(s)" is preferred over "Indigenous Australians", as a first step. (There was a discussion on the Indigenous Australians talk page about making that change, but I think it stalled. I was a bit hesitant because of the length, but could be persuaded.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it simple

Whatever is decided needs to be (1) simple, (2) useable without having to consult a particular group, and (3) clear about what is acceptable so as not to cause offence. I understand there is diversity, but if it’s too complicated it isn’t going to work and offensive stuff will keep appearing, and no reasonable editor wants that. Betterkeks (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs inline citations to reliable sources to support it. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of the above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stage two

As per my recent update to the first draft "dump", I have made a start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions/Indigenous draft. However, this might not change very much for a while, as I realised (again) that I need to review the main articles first and see if anything in them is useful and/or needs updating and/or more discussions on those talk pages about what belongs in which article. (And of course there's real life.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander editors in creating this style guide

Hi, I'm interested in getting some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander input and feedback on this style guide, I think it is important that the language we use isn't just imposed on Aboriginal people by non-Aboriginal editors as per the maxim "nothing about us without us". Mitch Ames sent me here : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia and I think this might be a good place to get feedback from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander editors? Bacondrum 04:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacondrum seems to have left Wikipedia, but I think this point is notable, and I would certainly like to hear from Aboriginal editors, although I only know of a couple and not sure if they're still active. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this discussion

Thanks for those who have commented so far (Dl2000, Betterkeks and Mitch Ames). I would like to revive this discussion so that it can move on to the next stage (i.e. achieving consensus on what the page looks like, inclusions and exclusions, etc., and where it should be parked), as in recent weeks and months I have come across various discussions and questions pertaining to the topic, with some very positive feedback about its usefulness. I will divide some of the issues that occur to me in separate sections below, and it would be great if others could comment on these and/or create new topics. (I will be posting about this discussion on the Australian Wikipedians noticeboard and also in the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, which I only stumbled upon by chance a couple of months ago.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name and category?

I have come across this Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, which includes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), so I'm thinking it probably belongs under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indigenous peoples of Australia), with a heading and link from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Conventions page.
And does it also merit a mention in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Vocabulary (or somewhere else on that page - perhaps a new heading?) so that it is accessible for non-Australians and also has another route to get to it? Anywhere else that navigation to get to the page would be useful? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content

This article provides all the background info I used, from which I distilled the first draft, although the present form as I left it was by no means anticipated to be its final form. I will get back to this and see if I can improve it myself, but I would really like others to do the same, and/or comment here. Does it need the citations on this page? Add a blurb with the background, main citations, etc. on the talk page?
The primary purpose as I see it is just to have something succinct, agreed on by consensus (subject to change in the future if necessary of course) and which can be used for easy reference for Australian and non-Australian editors. Having spent many hours (days) on it before, I would really like to see this through to completion, but obviously need consensus and happy to discuss further if anyone thinks it's a bad idea for some reason. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from swapping the "Indigenous Australians" to "Indigenous Peoples" as I mentioned above (although that is completely a subjective preference), I'd also suggest the 'definitions' make complete sense, but could be interpreted to be solely past tense as though Indigenous Peoples inhabited the place in the past but not now, obviously not the case, so perhaps a rephrasing of that to acknowledge 'inhabited pre-colonial and still do' somehow, not sure how best to phrase it though. Definitely keep going with this project though, it is a good idea. GadigalGuy (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GadigalGuy, hmmm, yes, I see what you mean, good point. What was in my head was expressing that the peoples were there before colonisation, but I will try to re-word it to make it clear that they are still here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People were here before colonisation, but those people are no longer here. Their descendants are but it is difficult to pigeon-hole them adequately if such an objective is desired. Are there Italian-Australians, or just Australians of Italian ancestry, for example? --Pete (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Pete - this is a difficult concept to frame and express. I think that one of the differences lies in how strongly Aboriginal identity is often maintained through many generations and family connections. In my (limited) experience, 2nd and 3rd generation Italians, particularly those who are not married to Italian-descended people, don't strongly identify as Italian or uphold particular features of Italian culture. And one huge defining feature of Indigenous peoples is connection to country (and language in many cases). But I need to think further on this, and as always, further commentary and ideas welcomed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Census figures show that most Australians identifying as having pre-colonial ancestry live in circumstances indistinguishable from the wider community. In suburbs, speaking English, buying groceries, having immigrant ancestry and so on. Going by the census, the one thing that sets these folk apart from the vast mass is that they are more likely to live in cities. That's going by the census, where the answers to questions are not subject to any sort of check for accuracy, and I'm not going to speculate.

Be that as it may, this is the English-language Wikipedia and there seems to be a plethora of ways to name such folk, none of them wholeheartedly supported. ATSI, Indigenous, Aboriginal Australian and on and on. My main concern is that even if whatever term we come up with might not be perfect and satisfactory to all, that it be unambiguous and not needing any sort of footnote or explanation. Whatever term or terms we come up with should not confuse or irritate our readers. --Pete (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last sentence; hence the guidelines I am proposing are very simple, and supported by information from many sources, pretty much all of which agree on the basics - some just have a few additional suggestions. ATSI is definitely not acceptable, and the use of initial capitals is across the board. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of what is acceptable to any individual editor. Names must be in general use with understood meanings. On that point, "Aboriginal" doesn't include Torres Strait Islanders. My preference is for an inclusive term. --Pete (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working with an organisation in this space this month and will see if I can get an answer on some of these terminology questions.

Like if the articles: Aboriginal Australians and Indigenous Australians should be renamed. My guess at present would be 'Aboriginal Peoples of Australia' and 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples'. First Nations and other terminology seems not widely used, but will inquire into it. Poketama (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC/NIAA source to add to the list

Communicating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Audiences (see "Some definitions and accepted terminology"). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work mate. Just a quick note, my professor recommended against using Creative Spirits a couple years ago, said there were a number of falsehoods. That's all I know about it. I read a good book yesterday that may be helpful.

Nganga: A Dictionary of Aboriginal Terms and Phrases

Fay Muir, Sue Lawson

Walker Books Australia Pty, Limited, 2018 Poketama (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Poketama. It would be nice to get this off the ground. I know that Creative Spirits is not 100% reliable, but I use it where it is well-cited. It's written by a German man who seems to have put a lot into developing the website and researching the information.

I don't know when I'll get back to this as I have quite a backlog, especially after being away, but I'll return when I see some activity happening. I have in the meantime requested Nganga from my local library (deferred for a couple of weeks). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I know it's been a while... but just on this issue of referring to Creative Spirits - the advice from First Nations people appears to be not to use it. This advice is in this Croakey article. And Dr Amy Thunig has been vocal about not using them on their Twitter. I think it may be offensive to see any references to the website so it would be great if these could be removed. Thanks. Brigid vW (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good mate, I grabbed a copy as well and started writing out relevant entries but have been sidetracked as well. Poketama (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing work for a couple weeks at Reconciliation Australia. They have advised First Nations/First Peoples is preferred over Indigenous, althought the full 'Australian and Torres Strait Islander' is always preferred if possible. Poketama (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]