This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ethnic groups Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Australia: Indigenous peoples Top‑importance Aboriginal Australians is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The absence of an article specifically on Australian Aborigines, who in fact exist as a legal class/category in Australian law .. was recently discussed here .. following which it was found to be useful and necessary to initiate this stub. Bruceanthro (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for proposed narrative:

1898': Colonial Delegates meet at Conventions to draft a consitution for the new Commonwealth^[1]:

"The Aborigines .. surfaced in the endless debates surrounding the population quota that would govern the distribution of seats for the House of Representatives and the proposed Commonwealth’s rights to make laws that would guarantee a White Australia. As Edmund Barton rather patiently explained to Isaac Isaacs at the Melbourne Convention in 1898, the quota for each electorate was established after the number of Indigenous people (along with ‘aliens not naturalised’) had been subtracted from the total population. (Debates 1898, 4, 713-4). Finally, it was decided to exclude Indigenous Australians from any population count used for either the financial or electoral purposes included in the constitution. And to handle the rather vexed question of the Commonwealth’s power to legislate on matters of race and immigration, the Aborigines were excluded from the proposed section. These decisions were enshrined in Section 51 and Section 127 of the new constitution."(Page 3)

1910: Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics seeks to estimate the size of the Australian Aboriginal population, at time of decentenial population census^[1]

1925: Conference of Commonwealth Statisticians recommends, and Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics announces annual census^[1]

For two decades Aboriginal population figures were collected annually by Aboriginal administors (often patrol officers and policemen) classifiying people as full blood or half-caste^[1]

1945 Conference of Commonwealth and State Statisticians recommended, and Aborignal population figures ceased to be collected^[1]

1967: The 1967 Referendum changed section 127 of the Constitution to allow Aboriginal people to be included in official Census population counts ^[2]

1971: The 1971 Censuses asked each indigenous person's racial origin^[3].

1976: The 1976 Censuses asked each indigenous person's racial origin^[4]

1981: Since the 1981 Census the word 'racial' has been dropped from the indigenous status question^[5].

1996: The 1996 Census was the first Census to allow people's origins to be recorded as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; prior to this only one or the other could be recorded^[6].

Bruceanthro (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Australian Law Reform Commission (2003) "Kinship & Identity. Chapter 36 of Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia Accessed from AustLii Website 12 June 2008

• Trewin, D(2006) Census Dictionary Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Canberra Accessed 22 May 2008

Bruceanthro (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been cut and pasted from the article page .. being a new section discussing a DNA project investigating Australian Aboriginal 'racial' heritage ... Does not seem to fit in its current form, but does seem to invite section on genetics & Aboriginality .. which might make mention of research of this kind and include external links. What do you think?? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Cultural Sensitivity WARNING

In accordance with established Cultural Protocols - and to ensure that any disclosure of information contained herewith is consistent with the views and sensitivities of Australia's Indigenous peoples - ALL Indigenous Aboriginal Persons are WARNED that the AboriginalTribesAustralia-DNA-Project [5] may contain images and include the names of deceased persons which might cause sadness or distress, particularly to the relatives of these people.

Project Goals

The Goals of the AboriginalTribesAustralia-DNA-Project [6] are to:

1. Look for, and identify any patterns or similarities between Haplogroups and sub-Clades in an endeavour to find and confirm any distant relatedness between Participants.

2. Verify the relatedness and migratory paths of families, and where possible to identify their Patriarch/Matriarch [Common - or Alpha - Male/Female] from whom all Participants herald from.

3. To identify and confirm the Indigenous Aboriginal Australian Ancestry and the traditional hereditary affilation of participants and their: Families; Hordes; Clans; Tribes and the Tribal Nations encompassing same - i.e. Kinship Bonds.

Indigenous Australians are a mixed ethnic group, as with all indigenous people, through out the world. The use of class to describe indigenous Austalians is not acceptable because the common use of class, takes several different aspects into account, brb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.229.8 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will see the emphasis in this article is the legal criteria which by which a category or class of people is clearly defined within Australian law .. and how people prefer to label this category/class. The main article on indigenous Australians can be found here.

Please, before shifting the emphasis, perhaps I should clarify by expanding article to include Australian Bureau of Statisitcs use and understanding of Aboriginal Australian/Australian Aborigines etc (with proper referencing) .. and 194.66.229.8 can have another look? Bruceanthro (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following unreferenced material has been cut and paste from the main article .. being dimensions of the legal class or category of indigenous peoples (plural) in Australia .. which might be expanded upon (recalling the main article is here:

Aboriginal genetic traits

People of Aboriginal descent have been noted as having shorter life spans than that of other humans.

The Fight for Australia

Aboriginal descendants claim Australia as their home land, They claim Australia as an indigenous country to call their own, however recent studies have indicated that this may not be true. While some people claim that Australian Aborigines and Europeans evolved from the same wave of African migrants that went out of Africa more than 50,000 years ago. This research led by Toomas Kivisild of the University of Cambridge revealed the same founders for both racial types. Other scientific studies have shown the same information with only a slight deviation proven by DNA that Australia's Aborigines were formed from a single group of migrants who left Africa about 55,000 years ago.

Unemployment rates

Data on income source in show the changes in employment status of the Indigenous population. A large proportion of Indigenous respondents main income source in 2002 (39% compared to 33% in 1994). Government pensions and allowances was the main income source for 50% of Indigenous respondents in 2002 (compared to 55% in 1994). there are now 500,000 Aboriginals within Australia, each year costing Tax payers 340 Billion Australian Dollars.

I have added the expand tag: This article should be about Australian Aborigines, not a discussion about the politically way the name them---which is all the article is at the moment. 88.77.152.180 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be good to expand this article including, possibly, discussion about Australian Aborigines as constitutionally prescribed etc .. however, please note, from the beginning of the article:

This article is about the class of people as identified and defined by Australian law. For more general information, see Indigenous Australians.

Bruceanthro (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Australian, but to provide a bit of an outsider's perspective: I question the choice of images. Three of the four seem to be athletes, and the other person shown (Ernie Dingo) is a TV personality whose page talks a fair bit about his love of rugby and such. Maybe a little more variety? Some famous academics, scientists, or authors? --GenkiNeko (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. An important Aboriginal activist and poet (Oodgeroo Noonuccal) has been added. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 12:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There still weren't images of Noonuccal or Nicholls, and the image of Dingo didn't fit. I took out Jade North because he isn't a prominent figure and three male footballers seemed at least one too many. Many others, at least as or more famous than these, would be obviously suitable for inclusion - Cathy Freeman, Charlie Perkins, Emily Kngwarreye, Patrick and Mick Dodson, to mention just a few - but availability of images and copyrights could be a problem. At least now the images match the names and the selection is equally male and female. --Wikiain (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a short article only about the legal definition of this class. Why not fold it into the Indigenous Australians article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.182.112 (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not merged for the reasons contained within the article .. though there is plenty of room to expand this article to include particularly discussion on Australian Aborigines as identified within the Australian constitution; plus Bureau of statistics collection practices in relation to Australian Aborigines; and possibly even the Aboriginal Australian flag as a specifically Aboriginal (captital A) flag . and more .. all of which would love to find the time to properly work on .. (should you/ anyone be interested?!) Bruceanthro (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Aboriginal Flag now seems to be discussed ok, in this article and in its own. --Wikiain (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to my edit that was reverted, I find the hatnote at the top of this article convoluted and overlinked. Quoting from WP guidelines, "hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". Applied to this article, it means that the hatnote is not the place for explaining what 'class' means in philosophy (see Extraneous links), also considering that 'class' is already wiki-linked right in the opening sentence. Equally inappropriate is the use of two words ("identified and defined") where one would be plenty - if needed at all. Is there a good reason why this article should deviate from the guidelines? --Giuliopp (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better now. --Giuliopp (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have cut and pasted the following from the article, along with suggestion that these sections be started and/or more comprehensively discussed and completed her .. prior to being put in the article? Bruceanthro (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Aboriginal Organisations:

Notable Aborigines:

The following notable aborigines have been listed according to the category of their fame, although some (most) should be listed in multiple categories.

Entertainment

• Ernie Dingo

Politics

• Fred Maynard

Sports

• Adam Goodes
• Douglas Nicholls
• Oodgeroo Noonuccal
• Jade North
• David Wirrpanda

Uncategorised

• Trugernanner

The word "Aborigine" is now considered outdated and offensive to many Aboriginal Australians. See here for one of many references backing this up http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/working_with_aboriginal.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexyhex (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for the reasons given in the document linked to. --Wikiain (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge instead? To me the problem is that we already have an article called Indigenous Australians. I've never quite understood the demarcation line between the two articles. My leaning right now is towards a merge of the two into a single article called Aboriginal Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: I am puzzled. The document linked to advice that to call Torres Strait Islanders "Aboriginal" is offensive both to themselves and to Aboriginal peoples. The reason why it is offensive is itself independently a reason not to merge - since the reason is that Australian Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples are very different. I had thought that advice to be correct. However, you identify yourself as Aboriginal. Is the advice wrong? We might remove the article "Indigenous Australians" (transferring its content) and keep separate articles for "Aboriginal Australians" and "Torres Strait Islanders". --Wikiain (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about any confusion. I'm not Aboriginal (that I'm aware of) but closely associated with a few. I think we are actually on the same wavelength. You final sentence is exactly what I want to do too. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My clanger - I should have looked up "ngamudji" and have now found it. Relieved not to have caused offence. I am also one. --Wikiain (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise against merging into "Aboriginal Australians", for the reasons given relating to Torres Strait Islanders. I'm happy with keeping three articles, as all three terms are in common usage and have different meanings (Indigenous Australian being an umbrella term some prefer as "Aboriginal" is thought to have colonialist history, but with many people within the community retaining a strong preference for "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people") although I think some of the content needs to be moved around. If people are really set on deleting a page, though, I'd settle for keeping Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders, shifting the content from Indigenous Australians to Aboriginal Australians and leaving Indigenous Australians as a redirect. Hexyhex (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all three names are in common use. The terms "Indigenous" seems to be inappropriate when it gets actually substituted for the others. For example, the University of New South Wales has a active Indigenous Law Centre which publishes an Indigenous Law Bulletin and an Australian Indigenous Law Review but is careful not to let the name "Indigenous" mask differences (its director is Aboriginal). We might keep the article Indigenous Australians but shift from it the material that is specifically about Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. --Wikiain (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

im australian indigenous and the way i see it we have wide variety or terms for different people. my country is big so our mobs have different views on whats the right term i prefer to be called australian indigenous if you are directly addressing me or if your addressing my people(mob) people of bundjalung country aboriginal is an outdated world but not as offensive as other dirogatory words. though to some of us it is considered extremely offensive comparable to the word to define african americans as slaves(i dont wish to write the word) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just had someone tweak the start of the Songline article to say The First Nations People of ‘Australia’ - rather than Aboriginal Australian - but I don't see that name mentioned in this article - is that something that should be there - should that be the article name - is there a MOS for which term to use where - etc etc ? EdwardLane (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IgnorantArmies - I think we are on the same wavelength. However, to me the word "explicitly" suggests that there is some sort of specific implication, which I think would be mistaken. The preamble references to "people" refer, indeed, to all the people of the colonies mentioned - including, one might suppose, their "aboriginal natives". Yet, until 1967, those same people were not to be counted in any census, nor therefore would have counted as part of the population of a state for the purpose of assessing its representation in the House. Nor were Aboriginal Australians specifically consulted in framing the Constitution. Indeed, I haven't heard of any Aboriginal Australian being at all involved in the framing process - they were all excluded from it. Would you agree on "specifically mentioned" instead of "explicitly mentioned"? If you would, please feel free to make the change. This matter concerns only the federal constitution - I am thinking of adding, separately, references to the mentions of Aboriginal Australians that have been added into some of the state constitutions. --Wikiain (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we're on the same wavelength, too. I'm happy to change it to "specifically mentioned", though I think a footnote saying basically what I said in my last edit summmary might also be a good idea. If its not already mentioned, it might be a good idea to refer to the calls for a better preamble which mentions Indigenous Australians, if I can find a source. Cheers, I♦A 04:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? I♦A 04:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done, I♦A - however, it is already out of date. See YouMeUnity and the report due in December. I will think of separating the discussion of the current state of judicially authoritative constitutional interpretation, which we have been discussing, from the current debate on constitutional reform. This is very complex territory, legally and politically. --Wikiain (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)--Wikiain (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the cue for me to step back in favour of someone who knows what they're doing :) I♦A 11:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Douglas nicholls.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Douglas nicholls.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the population statistic in the infobox didn't align with the source provided. It turns out the figure (670,000) was a rounded amount of 669,881 - the total number of Indigenous Australians (which includes Torres Strait Islanders). I've changed it to the "Aboriginal only" population. I'm not sure if the number listed as "both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" should be added to this figure or not? If so, it would increase it by a further 25,583. -- Chuq (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a mention of the "Stolen generations" somewhere in the aritcle?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

216.146.231.6 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Dave[reply]

Are there more australian aborigenes than Papuan people before colonisation?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The portrait gallery has been quickly removed by Iryna Harpy, applying the very recently adopted policy WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. While I note the misgivings of some users about the origin of the RfC that has produced this policy, it appears to be a current general policy which has been produced through a huge discussion that came to a clear predominance of view.

So that the present article may be taken forward from this point, I reproduce first the RfC decision and next the gallery in its final form (it had many forms), which may be used as inspiration for including further portraits of notable people at specifically relevant places in the body of the article. (I have done the same with Indigenous Australians.) Wikiain (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this following a request at WP:AN. The result of this RfC is that there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well. Sandstein 10:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox ethnic group |image =
1st row: Windradyne, David Gulpilil, Albert Namatjira, David Unaipon, Mandawuy Yunupingu
2nd row: Truganini, Yagan, Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, Bennelong, Robert Tudawali

Hello Wikiain. I actually did hold off on removing the gallery from this article for a while as I recognise it to be a 'special circumstances' article. To be honest, I was going to return to it in order to think on presentation that's worthy of the WP:TITLE. Aside from the aesthetically clumsy collage (I know that sounds offensive, but I honestly think that it's visually clumpy), I'd be happy to work in tandem with other editors active on the article in order to slightly rethink and, hopefully, improve the marriage of text and images. If it is of any assistance, I'm not too shoddy with photoshop. Please let me know whether you're amenable to this proposal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iryna. This is just what I - as someone with meagre pic-editing skills - had been looking forward to. Wikiain (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Wikiain! I've had this article on my 'wish list' for development for some time. I'm a little flat-out in other areas of Wikipedia at the moment, but I'm looking forward to collaborating on expanding the article. If you wish, I have no objections to restoring the gallery as it stood as a special case until we can get down to the nuts and bolts of improving it (providing other Wikipedians don't object). You'll find the beginnings of some thoughts on the matter here on my own talk with another editor on precisely this subject matter. Feel free to join in there, or ping me from this talk page if you have any thoughts on how and what will do justice to the article.

All good, Iryna, except that the policy doesn't seem to allow for special cases and I'm not sure how one could argue for special cases without coming up against the basis of the policy, the lack of objective criteria. We remain free, however, to improve the body of the article by including more images of contemporaries who the article identifies as notable. Wikiain (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to have been some edits confusing indigenous peoples of Australasia. 'Aboriginal peoples' applies to mainland Australia and Tasmania, while 'Torres Strait Islanders' are discussed as 'other' to the mainland tribes. They are an indigenous people, but they are Melanesians more closely related to the indigenous peoples of New Guinea. Torres Strait Islander culture and languages evolved separately to that of mainland 'Aboriginals', so please don't conflate the two. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google searched the subject and learned about it, this may be the first ever Aboriginal Australian Republic declared, but it is not recognized by any country nor by Australia. Only 4,000 residents live within the vast self-proclaimed republic (90% are Aboriginal, the rest White European). Most of the land is in northern part of New South Wales with the rest in the southernmost part of Queensland. Adinneli (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me the Aborignal race is a most likely a combination of the Tamilian race of southern India and the African race. If you look at pictures of pure Aboriginal people they look either 100% Indian or 100% African or mix of both. The European DNA presence among some is due to intermingling after European colonization of Australia. Scholars are ignoring the possible fact that Africa, India, and Australia use to be one big land mass. If scholars do a closer DNA study of Aboriginal people on the one that look pure. Thy will most likely have significant DNA traces of Indian and African DNA. - signed by anon IP

Nobody is asking you. Wiki goes by what RS's state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.60.40 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results of an extensive DNA survey of Aboriginal Australians appear in Nature in September 2016. Summary and link: Michael Westaway et al., "DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians", The Conversation 22 September 2016. Users familiar with DNA evidence kindly follow up . Wikiain (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In school some kids use the term unoriginals for the whitest of them. Racism is bad for everyone including white racists and mixed people who disrespect 90% of themselves.

Since that seems to be what this article is primarily about, a legal term, and not the actual ethnic group itself. Along with that, I'd recommend creating a new article called "Aboriginal Australians" (in the same vein of the "Torres Strait Islanders" article), that actually talks about the ethnic group in question and not a legal term. Chicowales (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what law is it used? Wikiain (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily about a legal term? Are we reading the same article? Some legislature is discussed (as with any articles on ethnic groups, particularly indigenous peoples), but it is an article on the ethnic group known as 'Aboriginal Australians'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then this article should be merged under Indigenous Australians. What appears to have commenced as an article defining the legal definition back in 14 MARCH 2008 has now become a WP:FORK. William Harris • (talk) • 11:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd now support in general the suggestion by Chicowales, but propose that the present article be made more clearly about an ethnic group (as with Torres Strait Islanders), no longer commencing from supposed legal definitions.

I say "supposed" because (as I commented earlier but too briefly) I can't find a place where the phrase "Aboriginal Australian" is legally used, let alone legally defined. The expressions cited in the lede from two NT statutes only specify how certain phrases are intended to be understood within those statutes; in both instances, the specification refers to "the Aboriginal race" without then defining it. In the body of the article, Brennan's discussion is of the broader category "Indigenous" and not specifically of Aboriginal Australians, since the Mabo litigation was about land in the Torres Strait Islands.

However, I would not support merger under/into Indigenous Australians. Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders are very different peoples, with a common colonial situation. Although how the topics should preferably be arranged, I must leave to people who are more broadly informed. Wikiain (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Indigenous Australians receives just under 1,700 visitors each day, is rated quality class=B and is 170kb in size. The article Aboriginal Australians receives just under 1,500 visitors each day, is rated quality class=Start and is 40kb in size. The article Torres Strait Islanders receives just under 300 visitors each day, is rated quality class=Start and is 17kb in size. There is benefit in merging all three articles, however it is your call. William Harris • (talk) • 19:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily disagree. Firstly, that number of visits is a pretty high amount for an article. Secondly, merging Torres Strait Islanders is completely inappropriate as they are an entirely distinct cultural grouping. Poketama (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the stated goal of this page is to delineate the legal term "Aboriginal Australians", then the article needs to stick to that like Musca domestica to faeces. Subsections "Origins", "Health" and "Anarchist Analysis" fall quite obviously outside that rubric. I left "Groups" intact because it's unambiguously NPOV, as well as so others can expand it with historical legal stuff related to specific groups. I'm also deleting some "See also" links that don't relate to this article, and adding others that may be a better fit.
I'm glad to talk with other editors about these changes (especially Indigenous peoples in Australia), but please have the courtesy to talk before you revert. Thanks.

P.S. This article should not even exist in my opinion, but rather be merged into Indigenous Australians. Should there be a future merger discussion, please count this as one vote in the affirmative! 76.69.155.96 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while to find the information to define the noun we may employ for Aboriginal Australians and think I found it could be Aborigines. If this is correct I find it is missing in the introduction and would like to ask the community if this is correct and if we may use this term and precise it in the introduction.

Proposed introduction :

Aboriginal Australians (or Aborigines from Australia), are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)

or

Aboriginal Australians or Aborigines, are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)

Current introduction : Aboriginal Australians are legally defined as people who are members "of the Aboriginal race of Australia" (indigenous to mainland Australia or to the island of Tasmania)

Thanks for confirming what your thoughts are. — Ludopedia^(Talk) 21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. These words were taken from some acts of Act of Parliament. A definition in legislation is designed to apply only to provide clarity for that legislation. In this case, it's also there to provide a constitutional "head of power" so the Commonwealth can act as per Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. I suggest start by looking at this Parliamentary Paper [7] which adds that an aboriginal person "identifies as an Aboriginal and is accepted by the Aboriginal community as an Aboriginal" and notes that "definition of Aboriginality has a long and contentious history in Australia." Another problem is that it overlooks the Tiwi Islands people and maybe some other non-mainland groups. Travelmite (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

im Australian indigenous and thats what i prefer to be addressed as — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section about 'Origins' states: "This study makes Aboriginal Australians one of the oldest living populations in the world and possibly the oldest outside of Africa, confirming they may also have the oldest continuous culture on the planet." I don't see how the latter fact follows from the former. The article linked to this sentence is not really helpful either ("ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE descendents of the first people to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago, a genetic study has found, confirming they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet"). Sounds like a sloppy mix-up of genetic and cultural continuity to me. --93.224.9.114 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several attempts to describe what that sentence is trying to say, and none seem to make it really clear. Perhaps the important thing is that, in this case, genetic and cultural continuity fully overlap. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me this situation is really weird. For while undoubtedly people repeatedly make the claim that Aboriginal Australian Culture is the "oldest surviving" or "oldest continuous" in existence, this seems intentionally vague. What in this context is a culture and how is it termed to have survived? is it mere genetic relation? if that's the case then why is Ethiopia not considered the world's oldest surviving culture? There's a myriad of other problems relating to specificity of terms but in principle I agree that this source is insufficient to justify the statement "oldest continuous culture." As a note of finality it may be the case that there is som criteria by which this statement can be made however this soice is certainly not sufficent Frodo.mintoff (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim about Aboriginal Australians leaves the door completely open for Ethiopia to be declared the world's oldest surviving culture. The two claims do not negate each other. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more about a 2016 study as well as a link to an article which talks about this claim. I think that it relates to their geographic isolation for so long, compared with so many other peoples, plus the fact that they arrived in Australia so long ago of course. Ethiopia has had influences from other parts of Africa, Arabia and other parts of Asia - and today's demographics reflect quite a genetic mix. Also, remember that Africa was carved up into countries by colonial powers, not necessarily along natural ethnic or geographic boundaries - and have a look at the Abyssinia/Ethiopian Empire article too. (And all comparatively recent compared to 60,000 years!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. What I did earlier was a very quick add - the whole section could probably do with a bit of upgrading, and while I'm here I'm just going to add a few links to come back to at some point, or for someone else to use: DNA reveals a new history of the First Australians (The Conversation, 2016); Socially responsible genetic research with descendants of the First Australians - linked to from that article, 2012 study by van Holst Pellekan, Sydney geneticist; A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia, study by Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Michael C. Westaway, et al, 2016 (but I don't think this is the Cambridge one mentioned in the article I cited, as the first author seems to be from Lausanne). I'm sure there are many more studies and articles, and I'd like to locate the 2016 Cambridge one, but I don't have the time to delve further right now. Are there any editors who are also geneticists? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

im adding to this so basically the term oldest surviving is referring to our way of living though most of us dont live like our ancestors our culture is passed down by our elders hence our 70 000 year old culture and tales of dreaming(our mythological belief in how the world was created) being the oldest survinig culture in the world and our genetics have remained untouched since 300 years ago for thousands of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

outside of very probable hunter-gatherer survival techniques, no known attributes of the culture are known from 70,000 years ago, so that's just speculation - if/when scientists can determine any of this, then it can go into the article - current spiritual beliefs may be less than 1,000 years old - anthropologists need physical material to work from 50.111.60.40 (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this is becoming a page for Aboriginal Australians in general and is referred to as such at the top of the info box on the Indigenous Australians page. I see two solutions

• 1: Remove the health and origin information from this page and reserve it for the definition (legal and academic) of this group. Change the page name too, there is a reason this gets as many hits as the main page.
• 2: Make this page cover ‘Aboriginal Australians’. Change the introduction to refer to all non Torres Strait Islanders indigenous Australians. It might look something like this:

Aboriginal Australians are the indigenous people of mainland Australia, Tasmania and some smaller islands. They are distinct from the Torres Strait Islanders, but share many cultural similarities. The time of arrival of the first people to Australia is debated among researchers. However, there is general agreement that it was before 50,000 years ago, the age of the first human remains.... (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I am for option 2, Aboriginal Australians are notable enough for their own Wikipedia page. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I am for option 1 .. noting that more than a decade ago there was cross wikipedia push to preference 'indigenous peoples' and indigenous australians to the effect that Aboriginal Australians article was deleted and had to be resurrected, and was able to be resurrected because Aboriginal Australia's do in fact exist and are defined in the Australian constitution, in Australian law .. also expressed preferred label/identification by by key Aboriginal leaders and academics over label/identification as indigenous.. thinking the more generic health and other materials properly belong to indigenous Australians article and this article was resurrected and survived deletion as it is about the category of people defined and existing in the Australian constitution and Australian law Bruceanthro (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its never easy. All good Bruceanthro, I don’t think we need a name change as with a clear introduction people can find the right page in one click. But if we could find one that is catchy... ‘Aboriginal Australians (legal term)’ has been suggested 'Aboriginal Australians (terminology)', 'Aboriginal Australians (definition)' any thoughts. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hey Dushan Jugum .. noting that Torres Strait Islanders have their own article defined as being the 'indigenous peoples of the Torres Strait Islands' .. and with that precedent then yes it would indeed seem most appropriate for Aboriginal Australians to have an article specifically defining them as 'the indigenous peoples of the Australian continent' (plus Tasmania?) .. with the article then focusing on what it is that distinguishes the Australian continents indigenous peoples from surrounding indigenous peoples of the Torres Strait Islands, PNG, Pacific Islands, New Zealand etc ,,, noting that DNA testing seems to successfully distinguishing .. the archaeology and linguistics have been distinguishing ,, finding those on the mainland etc are more similar to each other than to the others from Indonesia/ Torres strait/ Pacifi Islands etc ... thus YES .. new article on 'Aboriginal Australians (legal class)' might be appropriate! Bruceanthro (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dushan Jugum .. I think I just did full swing around to your original Option 2!! ie for the introduction of this Aboriginal Australian article to be changed as limited to the indigenous peoples of continent/mainland Australia, Tasmania and other islands plus generally expanded to emphasize what it is that makes Aboriginal Australian's different to other Australians like the Torres strait Islanders!! I think I just did full swing around with the idea of that possible new article specifically on Aboriginal Australians (legal class) into which the constitutional and legal plus academic matters matters might be shifted .. !! Bruceanthro (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruceanthro, the world needs more editors who can do that. I will give it a day to see if anyone else wants to say something. If not, I will put my shoulder into a two page solution, with all the tact I can manage. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Don't merge. These three pages have a problem, taking away the Aboriginal Australians page is not the answer. Aboriginal Australians is a very notable topic and they are distinct from the Torres Strait Islander in RS. This is a common problem where the natural dismbiguation page Indigenous Australians is the most detailed page of the three making its effective deletion difficult. However, Indigenous peoples are under no obligation to have known the national boundaries of the early 21st century and sometimes there are more than one in a country (sometimes they even go across borders). Therefore "Indigenous people of country X" pages are going to be anacronistic, complicated and repetitive. I do not have the answer, but Aboriginal Australians not having there own page is not it. This is further complicated by the 200 odd ethnicities within Aboriginal Australians. I changed the introduction away from "Aboriginal Australians" as a legal term to make them more an ethnic group (~a month ago), we can always change it back. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Is there a proposal to merge? Bruceanthro (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to merge is being discussed at Talk:Indigenous Australians#Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. Please continue discussion only there. Wikiain (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiain I started that thread a month ago and it was not ment as a merge discussion. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Freshman404 added the merge prop but with no explanation, I have removed them. If someone wants them back then they can argue why. Maybe by starting a new section on what ever page they like.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

I was tempted to put up a Merge template just to get the discussion going again (although not sure merge is the answer) - but instead posted comment on the the other talk page, hoping that further discussion will evolve and some clean-up follow at some point. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stuck a Lead rewrite template on the article (if no volunteers I'll get back to it sometime!), because I think that the article is well beyond Start class, but a lead conforming to WP:LEAD, ensuring that all info in the lead is also contained in the article, and moving all citations into the body, would bring it up to at least a C. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aborigines are known for their unusually accurate visual memory, which is said to allow them to navigate by direction without getting lost. This may be related to the skill of their trackers. There is also the view that their visual cortex is unusually large and that this may help them to master these skills. Should that be put in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.92.130 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources for that?--SharabSalam (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having come across the recently created Aboriginal Australian identity article and putting a bit of effort into its expansion, I then discovered the Terminology section in this article. Now there is a great deal of overlap, but I'm too tired to continue now and might not get back to it for a day or two. Can we please discuss here where and how best to accommodate the information currently contained in both? Ideally, I think that one of the two should contain only a short summary, which should not conflict with any info in the other, so that any future additions happen in one place only. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations in this section seem to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, so more properly belong in the Indigenous health article I think. But there's so much overlap and it is difficult trying to sort out what should stay in the Indigenous Australians or this article, so I'm just noting this for now, and hoping someone else will have a look at it sometime, because it could be a while before I get back to it. (I need to carry on chipping away at the Indigenous Australians article first.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rachigad: why do think the image of Aboriginal dwellings in Hermannsburg, Northern Territory was taken in South Africa? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best take it up with the NMA, if you have information to the contrary. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry I have not placed my question in the right place). The word ″not″ is repeated in the sentence in the third paragraph: ″In a 2001 study, blood samples were collected from some Warlpiri people in the Northern Territory, to study their genetic makeup (which is not not representative of all Aboriginal peoples in Australia). ″ Is this a mistake? If not, to reduce ambiguity, I suggest the sentence be changed to: ″In a 2001 study, blood samples were collected from some Warlpiri people in the Northern Territory, to study their genetic makeup (which is not unrepresentative of all Aboriginal peoples in Australia). ″ Texteditor (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read it, and judging by the abstract, I'd guess that it's a simple typing error. "...24 distinct haplotypes... the Walbiri have ten distinct haplotype groups (haplogroups), or mt-DNA lineages... most of the Walbiri haplogroups were unique to this population" would suggest that their genetic makeup is not representative of all Aboriginal peoples. I'll change it. (And if anyone has any info or opinion to the contrary, please suggest here, or clarify in the article.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, btw Texteditor for noticing and asking the question! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace the top-level as Australian Aborigine, not Australian Aboriginal which should redirect to Australian Aborigine because it is not proper.

See next item. Australian Aboriginal is not only poor grammar, which would appear to be a deliberate ploy to reflect badly on people whose first language is not or was not English, but it is also more appropriately identified with the term Indigenous Australian, if we were to accept that it has any validity at all. As you will see, that term already has a page on Wikipedia, and it encompasses both the people referred to in English as the Aborigines, as well as other aboriginal peoples and possibly people who ought not be referred to as Aboriginal (I am not going there).

Please do this as a matter of priority, since the current misuse appears harmful and abusive to me. See next item. (Unsigned, IP 121.200.7.183, 2 October 2020)

The article is called Aboriginal Australians, where Aboriginal is an adjective and Australian is the noun. This is a proper and appropriate term. "Aborigine" is a deprecated term. Indigenous Australians, as it says in the article, includes both Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders (for whom there is also a separate article). A style guide on terminology relating to Indigenous Australians is under construction, using best practice guides from appropriate bodies as sources, and a link to this will be added to the talk page once it is complete. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Australia and my kids recently told me that they learnt at school that the term "Aborigine" is nowadays regarded as slur. (Quick internet search sent me here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/08/why-saying-aborigine-isnt-ok-8-facts-about-indigenous-people-in-australia/). If that is true (and it's even mentioned in the article itself) then why do we still use the term "Aborigine" throughout this article? Let's just replace it with Aboriginal Australian.EMsmile (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I understand that the term "western" is widely used, but my understanding is that it refers to "European", as in predominantly European countries, or countries colonized by Europeans. I feel that the term Western is both imprecise and somewhat an attempt to disguise the European colonization history. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elintripido (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That change was made back in June, without explanation, by an IP editor who has made no other edits anywhere. It seems inappropriate to me too, though I have no idea what that editor's motivations were. I have reverted to the wording used before that edit was made. Thanks for bringing the issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, wow that was fast. Thanks, and happy that you agree! Cheers, Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elintripido (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am Australian Indigenous i come from the bundjalung mob of nsw and added a sub category mentioning our cultural beliefs i also mentioned the stolen generation. with us it important no matter what to mention if there is a picture of my people who have passed(died). its extremely disrespectful not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aonfenrir (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a change to the first paragraph of the lead to make it clearer that this is the sub-article and that the main article (a much longer article) is the one on Indigenous Australians. That's because in common language in Australia, many people would use the term Aboriginal Australians for the entire ethnic groups of people and then be surprised that this article is so short. That's how it was for me anyhow when I first came to this article. The hat note says that as well but is easy to overlook and not easy to grasp. I had made an earlier edit about this as well which was reverted (Mitch Ames). Hoping that my new proposal is agreeable. EMsmile (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at this article may be interested in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Austhistory99/Indigenous_Australian_Inter-tribal_Wars_and_Violence Cheers Bacondrum 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The authors concluded that," → "The 2016 study authors concluded that," or "The 2016 study's authors concluded that,"
—DIV (1.145.43.213 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

"Redd et al. used ten Y STRs," There is no prior mention of Redd et al.. They need to be introduced before talking about them.

—DIV (1.145.43.213 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks 1.145.43.213 done (more or less). Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

can I have access to to edit this page because I have some relevant information that is not in this page, I have sources regarding my information Eezaci (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eezaci. What exactly do you want to change with what source. If you type the change here as though you were editing the main page one of us might put it on there. Sorry for how cumbersome this is, but it is the same amount of typing for you. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since "cultural appropriation" is a sensible issue on a global scale but the controversy on "aboriginality" is not as widely noticed outside of Australia, could someone please verify the picture shown in the Genetics section, titled "Noongar traditional dancers, Perth, Australia"? Unfortunately it seems to lack both context and evidence, so that it may as well have been taken at a number of unrelated occasions (spring break? insensible office party?). It would certainly help if the controversy and the australian take on aboriginal identity were mentioned or linked in the according section and, just a suggestion, the photo perhaps even moved there, since it could display that the aboriginal identity is, indeed, more than skin deep and that people of mixed heritage are met with suspicion and hostility. (Of which I prove the former) 2003:CA:3F1D:6736:2195:E62F:BD97:4E8 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pasting this massive sentence from under the "Genetics" sub-heading.

"Phylogenetic data suggests that an early initial eastern lineage (ENA) trifurcated somewhere in South Asia, and gave rise to Australasians (Oceanians), the indigenous South Asians/Andamanese, and the East/Southeast Asian lineage including the ancestors of Native Americans, although Oceanians, specifically Papuans and Aboriginal Australians, may have also received some geneflow from an earlier group (xOOA), around 2%, as well, next to additional archaic admixture in the Sahul region."

This is a mammoth of a run-on sentence! Would love to split it up a bit myself, but unfortunately I'm not yet confirmed or auto-confirmed. If another editor spots this and is able to go in and break it down into two or even three sentences, it would make it easier to follow. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed now, made the fixes myself. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torres Strait Islanders are ethnically and culturally distinct, despite extensive cultural exchange with some of the Aboriginal groups. (failed verification) Because that statement above doesnt fill the criteria of verified citations. Anyone can help this problem? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:40D9:1A4:1AF1:CBC9 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Torres Strait Islanders are ethnically and culturally distinct, despite extensive cultural exchange with some of the Aboriginal groups." (citation needed)

In the general section. Wheres is the citations that support this quoted text segment? since this page has been semi protected. I want to add citation needed next groups in word. Can some one add the citation needed wordmark to this quoted text segment?2404:8000:1027:85F6:BDE8:EEBB:A350:1FC7 (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge doesn't need to be cited. Don't need to cite that the Irish are distinct from the English for example. Poketama (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poketama (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why torres strait islanders are ethnically distinct from the mainland australian aborigines? Wheres the reason? Wheres the citation to support this statement? Wheres the proof? I hope someone can help this talk section. Correct me if i am wrong. 2404:8000:1027:85F6:ADE4:2821:F176:D24E (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post. Perhaps have a read of the article on Torres Strait Islanders which makes clear they are ethnically distinct from Aboriginal Australians, and includes numerous supporting references. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

indigenous australians refers to aboriginal and torres islander, despite torres islander contributes little to the general population of indigenouse australians. Why they categorized for such that? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:E11A:3B9E:4CFC:C573 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally easier to say 'Indigenous Australians' rather than 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders', and just saying 'Aboriginal' would be inaccurate to refer to all Indigenous people in Australia. That's why that term is used. A lot of people prefer 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders' though for various reasons.

While Torres Strait Islanders are a small portion of the Indigenous population, they are a distinct group that are not related to Aboriginal peoples. On the other hand, the much larger Aboriginal percentage is actually made up of hundreds of different ethnic groups - who collectively identify as Aboriginal. Hope that helps. Poketama (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically. It needs to be stated as a theory instead of a fact.

"Aboriginal people comprise many distinct peoples who, it is believed, developed across Australia for 65,000+ years." 208.69.184.110 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that wording, you would need state who was doing the believing. No, the claim is based on sound archaeology. It needs no qualification. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no doubt. Poketama (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not infallible. 208.69.184.110 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the prevailing scientific view changes, our article can be updated. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astonishing that no mention is made of any of the unsettling facts about Aboriginal Australians, such as their practices of infanticide and cannibalism, and the constant warfare with their neighbors. All three are widely attested. To wit:
"Infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives." -- p. 235 of The Family Among the Australian Aborigines by Bronislaw Malinowski, Scocken Books, NY 1963
(Bronisław Malinowski was a important Polish anthropologist.)
"When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure." -- p. 200 "The Western tribes of Central Australia: Childhood" by Géza Róheim in the journal The Psychoanalytic Study of Society.
(Géza Róheim was a highly respected Hungarian-American anthropologist and expert on Aboriginal Australians.)
"Cannibalism existed not only as a part of death and mourning rites, but also in the custom of infanticide." -- Australian Aborigines: Their Life and Culture by Frederick McCarthy, Colorgravure Publications, 1957
(Fred McCarthy was an eminent anthropologist and archaeologist, and was the founding principal of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.)
"Infanticide was the primary means of population control. In theory, infanticide could have been as high as 40% to 50% of all births, and the population could have survived. In actuality infanticide rates were lower, and probably ranged from 15% to 30% of all births." -- p. 88, "Biological and Demographic Components in Aboriginal Australian Socio-Economic Organization" by Aram Yengoyan in the journal Oceania Vol. 43, December 1972)
(Aram Yengoyan was a significant American anthropologist and professor at the University of California, Davis.)
I could easily cite a dozen other such passages by respected anthropologists writing in peer-reviewed journals or in books by legitimate publishers. And it is worth pointing out that, as seen here with Malinowski, Róheim and Yengoyan, many of these authors were not Australian and therefore unlikely to be motivated by a desire to demonize Aboriginal Australians for the benefit of white Australian settlers.
-- Bricology (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can put that information in yourself, but I'm weary of framing such information in this "what about the bad stuff they did?" way you're doing here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that more recent references would be in order, so as to represent the current state-of-the-art views among anthropologists. I note too many variations of the phrase 'so-and-so was an esteemed expert' in the list above. If you go far enough back in time, you inevitably find 'esteemed experts' who were basically fascists in their views and perspectives.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

62... is right. "Esteemed experts" from that far back a NOT reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization says it's been suspended. ...Why? Can the info be added to this article? 189.90.68.88 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the term Negrito as it is derogatory Citation is needed in paragraph 2 of the "Changes about 4,000 years ago" section; citation is needed on the Mamanwa taking a "southern route" out of Africa Xplunge (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: "Negrito" is not derogatory, see Negrito. I've added a citation needed tag to the southern route statement. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be in order. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser1314. Will you please stop adding contentious material to every article on Aboriginal Australians. We discussed this on the talk page of the Prehistory of Australia article and you agreed that more cautious wording was required as the archeological record is inconsistent with the recent genomic studies. I now see that you have doubled down on your original wording to insist that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians migrated only 37,000 to 50,000 years ago. As the article makes clear, the consensus of scholars is that the migration was 50,000 to 65,000 years ago. You can't rewrite this based on one recent genomic study (dated 2025) which has not been replicated or widely accepted by scholars. As previously discussed, I am also concerned that you may have synthesised information from about a dozen different studies to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in any of these studies. This would amount to original research. Can you please cite the wording of these studies which explicitly states that based on genomic sequencing the ancestors of today's Aboriginal Australians first migrated to the landmass now known as Australia 37,000 to 50,000 years ago? Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Aemilius Adolphin, sorry for that one.

At first I was a bit confused as I did add the relevant cites and quotes and reworded the other previous edits after your notification / our discussion. [...]) – Now I realize that you specifically referred to the article/edits on Aboriginal Australians. Sorry again!

My initial edits on Aboriginal Australians happened before our discussion at Prehistory of Australia, after that discussion I just added the cites and quotes, but apparently did not adjust the wording there (e.g. more cautiously style etc.). That was obviously a not so well-thought action, thank you for correcting that! – It was not meant to be "rude". But a bit hasty. Regarding the other relevant article you refer (Indigenous Australians), I will copy the version you have re-written in a more cautiously way and replace the wording there as well.

Regarding the quotes for the time frame in "Genomic studies, however, suggest that the main wave of modern humans into Australia ancestral to Aboriginal Australians might have happened as recently as 37,000 to 50,000 years ago":

The timing of human arrival in Australia was estimated using the age of the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the different Australian-only haplogroups, calculated using a molecular clock with substitution rates calibrated with ancient European and Asian mitogenomes18. Although these TMRCA values are likely to be minimal estimates given the limited sampling, they group in a narrow window of time from approximately 43–47 ka (Fig. 1 and Extended Data Figs 2, 3), consistent with previous studies (Supplementary Information).^[1]

Taken together with a lower bound of the final settlement of Sahul at 37 kya...^[2]

... the ancestors of present-day East Eurasians emerged from the Hub at ~45 kya (Fig. 1A, red branch). These emergent groups subsequently colonised most of Eurasia and Oceania.^[3]

Here, we report a model that provides a good statistical fit to allele-frequency correlation patterns among East Asians, Australasians, Native Americans, and ancient western and northern Eurasians, together with archaic human groups. The model features a primary eastern/western bifurcation dating to at least 45,000 years ago, with Australasians nested inside the eastern clade, and a parsimonious set of admixture events.^[4]

This implies that ancestors of all non-Africans sequenced so far resided in a common population at this time, and further suggests that modern human remains older than 50,000 years from outside Africa represent different non-African populations.^[5]

E.g. those do refer to Aboriginal Australians and or to the common ancestor of Australians and Papuans: the Australasian/Oceanian clade (and modern Eurasian humans in general).

We may use an even more cautiously wording and write: "Genomic studies, however, suggest that the main wave of modern humans into Australia ancestral to Aboriginal Australians might have happened later in time: between 43,000 to 47,000 years ago, after 45,000 years ago, or as recently as 37,000 years ago, with human remains older than 50,000 years ago representing different extinct populations." – And adding the specific cites to the respective estimation, so we deal with possible synth problems. Thoughts?

The remainder citations refer to their affinities with other Asia-Pacific populations. E.g. for example:

Australasian, one of three deeply branching East Asian lineages (with AASI and ESEA). AA includes modern-day Papuans and Aboriginal Australians.^[6]

Mallick et al. found that a well-fitting admixture graph (qpGraph, Box 1) grouped Papuans, Australians, and the Andamanese Onge with East Asians, with additional Denisovan admixture into Papuans and Australians [15]. ... Though present-day Asians and Australasians are more closely related to each other than to present-day Europeans, genetic comparisons highlight deep separations between mainland East and Southeast Asians, island Southeast Asians, and Australasians.^[7]

Consistent with previous results obtained with a simpler admixture graph in Mallick et al. (2016), New Guinea and Australia fit well as sister groups, with their majority ancestry component forming a clade with East Asians (with respect to western Eurasians). Onge fit as a near-trifurcation with the Australasian and East Asian lineages^[8] Etc.

Sorry again if you had the feeling of rudeness. This was not at all my intention. Thank you again. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have a problem with the 37kya date for the first occupation of Sahul which isn't properly sourced so i can't check it. Can you give me a full citation for Villani et al (2022)? Other sources you cite also don't support an upper range of 47 Kya. Taufic et al (2022), p6 states "Genetic inferences suggest that the initial peopling of the region occurred around 50–60 kya, with the separation of Aboriginal Australian and New Guinea populations occurring around the same time.” Allen and O'Connell (2020) p 5 states, "“Y-chromosome data show parallel patterns, with deeply rooted Sahul-specific haplogroups C and K diverging from the most closely related non-Sahul lineages c.54 ka and dividing into Australia- and New Guinea-specific lineages c.48–53 ka (Bergstr¨om et al. 2016).” Tobler et al (2017) which you quote above states "Here we report 111 mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) from historical Aboriginal Australian hair samples, whose origins enable us to reconstruct Australian phylogeographic history before European settlement. Marked geographic patterns and deep splits across the major mitochondrial haplogroups imply that the settlement of Australia comprised a single, rapid migration along the east and west coasts that reached southern Australia by 49–45 ka. Remarkably, we find evidence for the continuous presence of populations in discrete geographic areas dating back to around 50 ka, in agreement with the notable Aboriginal Australian cultural attachment to their country.

In summary, the one source you have for the occupation of Sahul at 37 kya looks to be an outlier if it is accurate at all. It's very hard to reconcile it with the very firmly dated remains of Mungo Man in new South Wales at 41 kya and the archeological evidence of human habitation in Australi at 50 to 65 kya. The other cited sources, where they specifically mention Australia, give a range of 50-60 kya. Also the genomic mapping depends on the archeological dating of the samples. Sumer et al (2025) is based on 7 European samples and only one is reliably dated at 43-46 kya! Nevertheless, if we accept their timeline it would appear more accurate to state that the majority of recent genomic studies are consistent with an arrival of the ancestors of Australin Aborigines in Sahul around 45-60 kya. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Aemilius Adolphin, sure, here is the Vallini et al. 2022 link:^[9]

The problem is that the maternal/uniparental lineages may not correspond with aDNA divergence, such as the mentioned haplogroups C and K above. E.g. a dichotomy between uniparentals and aDNA and archaeology. This complicates it further.

But for that case, this paper may be relevant as well:^[10]

Dating the diversification of present-day lineages of mitochondrial DNA—a part of our genome maternally transmitted—supports a single and rapid dispersal of all ancestral non-African populations less than 55,000 y ago (9). However, it has often been argued that pioneer groups could have been totally replaced by later demographically dominant waves and thereby, left no genetic trace in extant populations. As for archeology, in the absence of skeletal remains, it is difficult to ascertain the biological nature of the makers of particular types of artifact assemblages. This is particularly true when clear connections with sites where human fossils are represented cannot be established. Australia is of special interest as one assumes that no other hominins than recent forms of H. sapiens peopled the continent. One site from Australia’s north (Madjedbebe) yielded archeological material dated to 65,000 y ago (10). If accepted, this age inevitably implies an older peopling of Southeast Asia. Still, the site is not considered compelling by some (11), and unless it documents a failed early colonization of Australia, its age is difficult to reconcile with the genetic evidence (9, 12). E.g. may be failed early colonization.

The quote you cited for Tobler et al. 2017 is in the Abstract, while the one I used is in the article bodies results: "they group in a narrow window of time from approximately 43–47 ka". Thats where I got the 47kya from.

Allen and O'Connel 2020 also state:

While the chronology of Sahul colonisation remains important, we see no arguable cause-and-effect nexus between when Sahul colonisation first occurred and AMH ability to achieve it (cf. Davidson & Noble 1992). If we exclude the extreme age claimed for Madjedbebe (Clarkson et al. 2017) the increasing consensus of available evidence currently puts this event in the range 47–51 ka.

Taufik et al. also said:

Genomic data have repeatedly demonstrated that all contemporary non-African AMH populations have diversified from an ancestral AMH group that left Africa between 60–50 kya [28]; however, the initial results from a single deeply sequenced Aboriginal Australian genome derived from a ~100-year-old hair sample proposed that Indigenous Australians also carry substantial AMH ancestry from an earlier African diaspora that originated 75–62 kya [29]. E.g. main OoA exist/dispersal is at 60–50kya, but a possible earlier wave made it to Australasia.

aDNA evidence clearly link the Australasian branch with the East Eurasian dispersal. This is undisputed, but the time frame and divergence patterns seems to differ for each estimation/paper and archaeologic data. The Vallini 2022 and 2024 argue for an expansion of those at >45kya (between 50–45kya). The Vallini 2022 paper argues for an arrival in the Sahul region as recently as 37kya.

Vallini et al. 2024 mentions that the emergent groups who would colonised most of Eurasia and Oceania, expanded around ~45–46kya from the population Hub on the Persian plateau, with the diversification of Core East Eurasians (EEC) being sometimes after 45kya (after the split leading to BK_IUP etc.).

As such we may take a more nuanced approach; I have prepared a proposal at my sandbox: [8] Feel free to add any suggestions or ideas. The later part on phylogenetics may be alternatively placed into the "Genetics" section of the article. Any thoughts?

If you agree, I will replace the current form with this one.

Thank you! Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove the citation to Villani et al (2022). This paper isn’t about the Australian migration to Sahul at all and doesn’t provide any new genomic evidence to shed light on it. The reference to the “final settlement of Sahul” (whatever that means) is in the context of a discussion of the relationship between Papuans and other East Asian population groups. The date of 37kya is simply the most recent date proposed by Malaspinas et al (2016) for the separation of Papuans from other population groups. We editors aren’t supposed to leap from this to draw our own conclusions such as “genomic evidence suggests that the ancestors of modern Australians first occupied Sahul as early as 37 kya.” That would be original research.

We should also remove the citation to Sümer et al (2025) for the same reasons. It is a paper about the admixture of Neanderthal DNA on European populations. It is based on a genomic study of seven European samples, only one of which has been firmly dated. It doesn’t discuss the Australian migration to Sahul at all nor does it consider any of the Australian archaeological, linguistic or other evidence. It might have implications for the dating of the Australian migration to Sahul but it isn’t up to us as editors to draw them. It probably won’t be long before someone publishes a paper specifically on this topic and that’s when we should include it in the relevant articles.

We have several recent papers specifically discussing the implications of genomic evidence for the dating of the Australian migration to Sahul: Tobler et al (2017), Allen and O’Connell (2020) and Taufic et al (2022). These postulate a range of possible migration dates of 43-60 kya. I have included the citations and relevant quotes below.

Based on this, I would rewrite the text as:

Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of today's Aboriginal Australians first migrated to the continent 50,000 to 65,000 years ago.^{[11][12][13][14]} Recent studies of the implications of genomic evidence for the estimated date of first migration to Australia are consistent with a migration date of 43,000 to 60,000 years ago.^[15][16][17]

I would use the same wording in the articles on Prehistory of Australia and History of Indigenous Australians. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Aemilius Adolphin, thank you for your reply. Yes that should be fine, but I remain sceptical on the most upper time frame of 60kya. The Taufik paper also says AMH populations left Africa around 60–50kya, that makes the peopling of Sahul unlikely to be simultanously at 60kya. Hublin, Jean-Jacques: "supports a single and rapid dispersal of all ancestral non-African populations less than 55,000 y ago". Vallini et al. 2024 (not the same as the 2022 paper) estimated the expansion of the ancestor of all East Eurasian and Oceania populations at >45kya. That citation should be included as well. Allen 2020 also uses 51kya as upper time frame.

My proposal (including your preferred 60kya range):

Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of today's Aboriginal Australians first migrated to the continent 50,000 to 65,000 years ago.^{[18][12][13][14]} Genomic studies suggest that the peopling of Australia happened between 43,000 to 60,000 years ago.^{[19][20][21][22][23]}

E.g. similar to yours but with the Persian Hub paper 2024 and Hublin 2021 cited as well, etc.

We may also add this sentence to the paragraph, or move/merge it with the "Genetic" section in this article:

While the commonly accepted date for the diversification of modern humans following the Out of Africa migration is placed at 60–50,000 years ago, there is, however, evidence that Aboriginal Australians may carry ancestry from an earlier human diaspora (xOoA) that originated 75,000 to 62,000 years ago. This earlier group has been estimated to have possibly contributed around 2% ancestry to modern Aboriginal Australians.^{[24][25][26][27]}

Any further thoughts?

Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your wording of the first paragraph and with your inclusion of Hublin (2021). But I don't think we should include Vallini (2024) because it doesn't discuss the migration of Australians to Sahul at all. As for your second paragraph, I have no problem with it although I suggest it should go in a separate section or paragraph discussing genetics. I enjoyed reading the papers you cited but we need to remember that for general readers of high level articles we should restrict inline citations to those strictly necessary to support the content. Some of your citations might be better placed in a Further Reading section or in separate article on genomic modelling of the migration of AMHs . Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, well I will exclude Vallini 2024 than per your argumentation. I will replace the current wording in the respective articles of Aboriginal Australians, Prehistory of Australia and History of Indigenous Australians respectively. Regarding the second paragraph, I will merge it with the genetic section on here. You may check if everything is fine that way. – Thank you again, I highly appreciated that you spend some of your time in this discussion! All the best–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser1314: If we are to include the terms 'Initial Upper Paleolithic period' and 'Ancient East Eurasian' in the line - "...from a population wave during the Initial Upper Paleolithic period which populated the Asia-Pacific region. Phylogenetic data suggests that an Ancient East Eurasians ....", we should mention the 'Persian Plateau' part in it, the accepted origin point of the Ancient East Eurasians [9]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: It was/is already cited in the "Genetics" section, but removed from the "Origins" section regarding the migration time frame. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser1314: I see it in the 'Genetics' section in this older version. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that since we are using terms like IUP wave/Ancient East Eurasians in the text, the origin point of that migration - 'Persian plateau' - should be mentioned somewhere in the text alongwith those terms. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Now I understand, done. Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiuser1314: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]