Talk:Australia

Native languages in Infobox

I suggest that we add a "native languages" section in the Infobox like what is in the Infobox in the article about India. In this section it would say "250 languages" wiki linked to the Australian Aboriginal languages article. Would do you think? Zakary2012 (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted this because it has been discussed before and the consensus was that it is a complex issue which is best discussed in the article rather than the info box. Different sources give different estimates of the number of Indigenous languages because there is no agreement on what is a distinct language and what is a dialect. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you got a link to that discussion? I wasn't able to track it down from a cursory search.

With the obvious caveat that I haven't read the previous discussion mentioned though, I do think it would be worthwhile having some recognition to the presence of indigenous languages across the country. Perhaps if the number itself is the ambiguous part, we could mention a range (and include a note if necessary to explain that the total number is up for debate?) Turnagra (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is this supposed discussion then because I can't find it anywhere? It would be great if you could actually back up your claims and give a link to the discussion you have referenced. Zakary2012 (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia/Archive 21#Languages of Australia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's this discussion? That doesn't really seem like something super strong and worthy of protecting if there is a better discussion that results in an inclusion - I'm seeing a lot of single line comments from low-use accounts rather than actual discussion.

I totally understand the issue with the range of different figures, but I think that's easily remedied by giving a range in the infobox as mentioned and don't see that as grounds to not include something there. Turnagra (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Infobox will never contain full details of native languages. That's no what Infoboexs do. Create a brief but accurate summary of the situation, and propose it here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing full details. If you read my message, what I'm proposing is we give a range, and perhaps an explanatory note. For example, that section could say "250 - 363 languages" with a note that says something along the lines of "Different sources give widely differing figures, primarily based on how the terms "language" and "dialect" are defined and grouped", as per the equivalent in the infobox on the India article. Turnagra (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What about the tens of thousands who speak Mandarin almost exclusively as an actively used first language? Or Korean? Or...? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how that's relevant to a section of the infobox entitled "Native languages". Turnagra (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's relevant because if we put in a range of indigenous languages (not "native" languages) with a complicated footnote then someone else will insist that also add all the "community" languages spoken in Australia with a complicated footnote. This isn't speculation, it has happened in the recent past and was discussed and rejected. The info box is supposed to be a quick summary of key information from the article. It is not supposed to include complex information which is best explained in prose in the article. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. By the way, estimates of living indigenous languages actually ranges from about 20 upwards. The 250 figure is the estimated number of languages at the time of European settlement. The high number of 300 plus are mostly dialects and mostly not living languages. I just don't see the value of a ranged figure such as 20 to 300 plus. It's better to read the article to see the complications. But I tend to be an info box minimalist. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I was going off the section in the India page and didn't realise the term could be changed. But I don't think that's really a concern, there's a pretty clear delineation between indigenous languages and minority introduced languages of specific communities. As for the point about range, I'm sure there would be enough of an agreed upon main range - there will absolutely always be outliers in both directions, but we should look at the overall number. Alternatively we could just be clear that we're basing it off a single authoritative source but acknowledge that there is discrepancy and disagreement on the number - the 2018-19 National Indigenous Languages Survey seems like it could be a decent option, which found 123 languages being spoken. Turnagra (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding more language links meets infoboxpurpose, but if it is added I would not include the range. See Brazil for example, which provides a link without a number to its recognized indigenous languages. CMD (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zakary2012 I reverted your edit. Please don't try to force through your preferred version of the infobox while the issue is still under discussion. You have no consensus for your proposal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I support changing the infobox. There's no consensus here for excluding indigenous languages from it and referencing a prior discussion on it, while useful, doesn't mean that the discussion is closed or that the consensus has remained as it was. It's clear from the discussion here and prior that the consensus is not for it to remain as is, otherwise we wouldn't keep having the discussion.

I agree with the proposal for including an indigenous language estimate range, even if it took the lower figure and said upwards of twenty, that would be better than it as it is.

The discussion on including community languages isn't really relevant. The fact that it has come up previously doesn't change the proposal to include indigenous languages, it's an entirely separate issue. Cbrfield (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, @Turnagra and @Zakary2012 manage to ask the exact same question; of whether they can have a link to the discussion, but Turnagra asks it very politely and respectfully and Zakary asks it in an accusatory and rude way. Would be nice if we could all be respectful in discussions like this. GraziePrego (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

Request to add the Australian Royal Anthem, "God Save The King", underneath the already listed Australian National Anthem as they are both official anthems of Australia and thus should both be included. It is shown that they are both official anthems on this webpage on the official government website for the "Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: https://www.pmc.gov.au/honours-and-symbols/australian-national-symbols/australian-national-anthem

As Australia is still a Monarchy and does retain an official Royal Anthem I firmly believe that the Wikipedia article for it should include the Royal Anthem. Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The Royal Anthem is in the info box under note 1. Advance Australia Fair is the only official national anthem. God Save the King is only played at official functions when a member of the royal family is present. At official events, sporting events, schools, ceremonies etc. Advance Australia Fair would be played hundreds of times more often than God Save the King. Giving it equal prominence in the info box would be false balance WP:BALANCE. And the info box is only meant to summarise key facts.WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Area sources in Infobox needs fixing

Hello all

The same source is cited three times in the area section of the info box. I tried to fix it but I am no good at source code and I keep making mistakes which wreck the info box. The Geography Australia sources only needs to be cited once.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin: Yeah, there's a few repeated sources in the article (not surprising for an article that's developed over such a long period). I started working on this last night but want to get a working copy on a computer before I make a mess. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, I will leave it in your capable hands! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include an Indigenous name for Australia.

Previously titled: Place holder of information for future edit: Aboriginal Names for Australia

I would like to propose the inclusion of an Indigenous Australian name in the introductory summary and also hopefully a section within the main article.

If we are to keep the tradition of exonyms, a strong proposal is outlined later in the post. However, an endonym would be the strongest symbolically. All the strongest endonyms for Australia in the various languages are defined as "ground; land" and they are:

• Biik: referenced in 34,900 academic articles thus biggest candidate. (Melbourne nation)
  • Kurrek: 713 academic articles (rural Victoria).

• Barna: referenced almost equally at 34,600. However, upon review, it seems to have grown to become a reference specifically to the Nation of Western Australia, i.e. Perth coast until the western state boarder, the size of NSW).

• Uthuru: Strongest symbolic candidate as it is the word associated with the central inland nation around Uluru. But I can only find tabloid and social media references of this name, so far none in academia.

Torres Strait Islands Nations as the Primary Candidate for Exonym source:

Keo Deudai: (Out Back — Back Mainland)

• First Primary Candidate
  • Origin: Miriam language of The Torres Strait Islands
  • Meaning: Back Mainland, beyond the regions of the TSI'der people
  • Academic Recognition: Consensus Established. ~900 academic publications inclusive of variations (google scholar). Examples:
    • (Page 28), Sharp, Nonie., "Stars of Tagai: The Torres Strait Islanders", Aboriginal Studies Press, 1993. (ISBN: 9780855752385)
    • (Page 123, Document page 3) Shnukal, Anna. "From monolingualism to multilingualism in Australia’s Torres Strait island communities" International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 1995, no. 113, 1995, pp. 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1995.113.121
    • John Doolah: Lecturer in Indigenous Education @ Melbourne University
      • Doolah, John., "The Stories Behind the Torres Strait Islander Migration Myth: the journey of the sap/bethey." (2021). http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1432705
        • Explicit study of Keo Deudai
        • Keo Deudai / Kie Daudie (latter phonetically preferred): Greater backmainland beyond (inclusively) TSI ancestral territory
        • Zenadth Kes: Primary inhabited TSI ancestral Territory [islands] (Keo Deudai: backmainland, secondary TSI ancestral backmainland, Kie Daudie: backmainland beyond TSI ancestral territory)
      • Doolah, J., 2015. Decolonising the migration and urbanisation of Torres Strait Islanders (Ailan pipel) from the Torres Straits to mainland Australia between the 1960s and 1970s.
        • Kie Daudie: exclusively used
        • Page xvii, document page 17 | Page 47, document page 70

Context & follow up candidate for Keo Deudai:

• Daudai

Daudai (Daudie, Deudai/Deudie), is the primary word used among the Torres Strait Islands (TSI / TSI'der [islander]) people and neighbouring nations which means Mainland (ancestral), denoting the lands themselves. While Zenadth Kes is the territory/region inclusive of waters and lands. Then Papua New Guinea (PNG) is the Op Deudai — Face (front) mainland while Cape York (tip of Australian mainland) and beyond is Keo Daudai — back mainland, inclusive of the TSI ancestral territory of the mainland. Kie Daudie is sometimes used in reference to the mainland beyond the TSI ancestral nation, exclusively.

Keo Deudai (back mainland) and its variations is the primary variation used in publications to refer to Australia as a whole. The primary driver of variation is the micro-dialects and accents in competition with outside observers (whom lack phonetic-linguistic expertise) attempting to document local history using the english phonetic alphabet where linguistic accuracy is not the primary focus. Additionally, the micro-dialects/accents themselves are also still in revitalisation from the colonial genocide inflicted upon in the past whom are still yet to receive reparations.

Second Primary Candidate:

• Ladaigal: (phonetically easier and more inclusive, supported by John Doolah)
  • Meaning: Aboriginal people, non-TSI.
  • Use: Often used in myth telling of the TSI journey from PNG
    • Ladaigal Country: is the more accurate expression of aboriginal land, Ladaigal alone is and can be used interchangeably between aboriginal people and aboriginal land.
  • https://ia801603.us.archive.org/13/items/reportsofcambrid03hadd/reportsofcambrid03hadd.pdf
    • Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits (1898) and Hodes, Jeremy. Index to the Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits and Haddon, Alfred C. (Alfred Cort), 1855-1940 and Ray, Sidney Herbert, 1858-1939. Linguistics. Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits University Press Cambridge 1901
    • CATALOGUE PERSISTENT IDENTIFIER: https://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn458355

... to be continued Bro The Man (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bro The Man Hello there. This isn't the place to put notes or draft content. Please use your sandbox for this. If you have a specific proposal to improve this article please start a discussion here.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, that was the intention, to propose the inclusion of an Indigenous Australian name in the introductory summary and also hopefully a section within the main article. I'll take your advice onboard and re-edited the topic name to "Proposal to include an Indigenous name for Australia." Bro The Man (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no indigenous name for Australia and it's not our place to invent one. I T B F 📢 09:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I just provided evidence that there is one, I hope we can arrive to a consensus as to which one is more appropriate. Bro The Man (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bro The Man sounds interesting, however any of those choices would be us assigning a name when no one name exists. GraziePrego (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! I agree, a consensus needs to be achieved from available resources. Bro The Man (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand how this works. It is not up to editors to assign an Indigenous name to Australia out of a field of candidates proposed by an editor; Wikipedia is supposed to follow established practice. If a single Indigenous name for Australia ever emerges it will gain wide currency in official publications, the media and everyday use. We won't have to choose one; it will choose itself. Until this happens Australia will remain the only name for Australia in the English language Wikipedia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

But two names already have recognition is 35,000 publications each? Bro The Man (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The one you say is in 35,000 publications is just the "Melbourne nation", not even the whole of Australia. Aemilius is quite right, it is not up to us to weigh the options and choose a name- a name will only be suitable for this article when it is in common knowledge and use. GraziePrego (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Frontier wars paragraph

I made a change to the previously discussed sentence on the Frontier Wars in order to change the more passive word "Indigenous people died" to "Indigenous people were killed" and similarly change the passive "others were dispossessed" with the active "settlers dispossessed others" as I believe the active is clearer and reads better without changing the underlying meaning of the sentence. After this, there have been further changes by @pastelilac and @Willthorpe that I think deserve discussion.

While I supported the change to split the sentence to read "Those who survived were dispossessed by colonists of their traditional lands", I disagree with the more substantial change to "As settlement expanded, frontier conflicts claimed thousands of lives, predominantly those of Indigenous people." This sentence is much less clear than the previously stable version, "As settlement expanded, thousands of Indigenous people died[/were killed] in frontier conflicts". This sentence suggests causation between settlement expansion to people dying in frontier conflicts. The suggested sentence however, suggests that settlement expansion created the abstract notion of "frontier conflicts" which was the cause of deaths. This is less clear because the phrase "frontier conflicts" is simply an abstract way of describing the process of settlement expansion and resulting fighting. It's clearer to simply describe the process and define it as "frontier conflict" as opposed to giving agency to an abstract concept, rather than the participants. Instead of using a metaphor and winding our way to the issue, it is much clearer to simply state that people were killed. Safes007 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007 My main interest was to also acknowledge the deaths of settlers in the frontier conflicts, given that they were a formative – and deadly – experience for Australians of both backgrounds; I sought to do this whilst also acknowledging that the larger share of deaths were Aboriginal Australians. I don't hold any contention beyond this. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Willthorpe. I might avoid mention of casualties altogether. "Thousands" isn't a very helpful indicator of the scale of things. I'd rather an educated estimate as to total deaths rather than just "thousands". One approach sans casualties: "As settlement expanded, frontier conflicts intensified, further displacing Indigenous people from their traditional lands." - PastelLilac (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing of the relevant section is dated (Bain Atwood 2003.) This is the most researched area of Australian History in the past 20 years and we can do better than this. Henry Reynolds, who is one of the most respected historians in the field, has recently published a second edition of Forgotten War (2022) and concluded that at least 30,000 Indigenous people were killed in fontier conflicts compared with 2,500 settlers. So I think we would be justified in stating "As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers died in frontier conflicts while settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land." Or words to that effect.

The sourcing of the entire article is poor and I doubt that the article would retain its featured article status if it were reviewed today. I would be happy to work with other interested editors to progressively improve the sourcing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this wording, with the replacement of "died" with "were killed" to keep the active voice. Safes007 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)