Talk:Australian Aboriginal elder

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indigenous, surely?[edit]

If we are talking about "Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander" people, then perhaps we need a different title for this article, or divide it into two. TSI folk are not Aboriginal. They are descended from different ethnic and cultural groups. Perhaps we should fix this. Suggestions? --Pete (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. Yes, good point. I'm happy for you to move it. I know there are objections to using "Indigenous", but for article titles the alternative seems rather long. I don't think it's worth splitting because there's much in common, and there are many people with heritage of both kinds. A couple more articles that could be used in expanding further, perhaps: The Torres Strait Islander elders lawyering up to stop their homes from sinking (SMH) and Who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Elder? A Complete Resource Kit (commercial website) - I'm sure there are many others. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Indigenous" alone works well in an Australian context but other peoples around the world - in Japan and Finland, for example, not to mention North America - also use that word, at least in English. It would have to be Indigenous Australian elder or Australian Indigenous elder, I think, and I'm not sure which works better. --Pete (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant Indigenous Australian elder. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indigenous Australian Elder
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elder
Australian First Nations Elder Poketama (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only proper nouns are capitalised, so it ought to be "elder", as it is now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elder or Elders is a proper noun in the same way 'an American' is. https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/en/article/why-are-indigenous-protocols-important-for-all-australians/8z41bqu04 Poketama (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the article on proper nouns, nor MOS:CAPS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quote what you're referring to please? Poketama (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you click on the links and read the article and guideline? The 1st paragraph will do. I also recommend reading MOS:PEOPLETITLES. You should also consider that this article since its inception in 2019 had "elder" always in lower case, similar to Ministers and elders of the Church of Scotland, North American Indigenous elder, and, pertinently, Lewis O'Brien (Kaurna elder) and Patricia O'Connor (elder). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hostility? I did read what you linked. Thats why I asked for further input. It says Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention. The first sentence of this article also says it is usually capitalised. Poketama (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poketama, I am a bit concerned that you have moved the page before obtaining consensus. I think that it should probably go through the formal move request process for a wider range of views and proper consensus attained first. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I forgot there was a formal process! Can you recommend how to go back and do that? Thank you. Poketama (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can move the article back to its original name, and launch a request at WP:RM#CM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wowsers. This page should've went through the RM process. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Several Wikipedia guidelines, and practice, do not support capitalization here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the page move. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Poketama (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - Without prejudice, no consensus to move as requested and no clear consensus for any one of the seemingly suitable alternatives—there are MOS and topical alternatives. My recommendation is that a new RM be initiated with one of the specific alternatives as the target title and the ensuing discussion focus like a laser on the suggested target title. Mike Cline (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders – The title of the topic does not cover the whole topic, excluding the Torres Strait Islander Elders that are covered. Poketama (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

1. Indigenous Australian Elder
2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders
3. Australian First Nations Elder

or per Michael's notes - replacing 'Elder' with 'elder'.

Evidence

Results on Scholar for -
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elder(s) - 7 + 288 (second number is plural term)
Results for "First Nations Elder(s)" "Australia" minus Canada - 14 + 62
Results for "Indigenous Australian Elder" "Australia" minus Canada - 22 + 42

Google results -

"Indigenous Elder(s)" "Australia" - 24,500 + 78,300
"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elder(s)" 1140 + 150,000
"First Nations Elder(s)" "Australia" - 8050 + 24,000

These results show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders is the most common term by far. Elders should be capitalised in the title, as per my comment above ""according to MOS:CAPS only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Most uses of Aboriginal Elder capitalise the term. I think the difference in understanding is that Aboriginal Elder (the topic of this article) is a specific status that is distinct from an elder (an old or respected person). This status is also distinct from the international uses of elder you mention." There is further information from style guides here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Draft_style_guide1 Poketama (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – A quick n-gram for "Aboriginal E[e]lder" shows lowercase at about double the rate of uppercase. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's true, but I'm unsure that this is a reliable way to measure this. Aboriginal elder is also a term used in Canada in a different context which would be mixed in. The vast majority of the top hits on Google, especially sources from within the community, use Elder. There are also tonnes of style guides from major institutions that emphasise the importance of capitalisation. In any case, moving the page without capitalisation would be better than not moving it at all. Poketama (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - If you want to add "Torres Strait Islander", it should be moved to "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander has the benefit of being self-defining, its easily understood that it does not mean Canadian Aboriginal because it is tied with Torres Strait Islanders. Poketama (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Poketama that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is sufficiently clear without adding Australian. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My request for more convincing evidence was not a request for a list of the previously unnamed style guides but evidence more generally. Just under half of the guides now listed are clearly not independent and examination of a sample of the remainder would indicate they are not written in a way that was independent of the subject - eg, in the case of the QUT document, it notes the Indigenous Australian Advisory Committee as the approving authority. As SchreiberBike notes, MOS:JOBTITLES is our own guidance on this. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really unsure of what you're saying, could you please elaborate? What kind of evidence are you looking for besides the style guides?
Do you mean the First Nations institutions and committees are not a reliable source because they are involved in the topic? I don't know how you would find reliable experts on the topic of First Nations culture while excluding First Nations consultation. Poketama (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Poketama, through applicable WP:P&G, this is ultimately a matter falling to MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia but we also have MOS:JOBTITLES which is part of MOS:CAPS. WP:SSF is a sourced essay which is also relevant. To: Do you mean the First Nations institutions and committees are not a reliable source because they are involved in the topic? They are not independent and are not suitable to resolve the matter per MOS:CAPS. Also, presenting examples that would support your case is not the same as showing that it is done in a substantial majority of cases (its a statistical thing). How you might convince others? I don't know. I did refine the ngram evidence here in light of your earlier comments. That evidence is reasonably convincing. I was asking if you could make a more convincing case. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm happy to leave it because most people have said that they would prefer 'elder', its absurd to say that any source that has had First Nations consultation or written by a First Nations expert group on the topic is not independant and therefor unusable. I guess we would have to only use sources written by foreign residents for every topic that involves any ethnic group on Wikipedia. Poketama (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case for elder: Elder is among other things, a title. Based on MOS:JOBTITLES Wikipedia consistently uses lower case for titles when not used as a proper name or part of a proper name. Whether it's elder, reverend, pope, president, or third floor day janitor, it's lower case on Wikipedia. As a sign of respect, many publications capitalize some words, I think to compensate for the long disrespect shown to aboriginal peoples around the world, but that is not Wikipedia's style. No opinion on the other issue, as that's a complex issue I'm not familiar with. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower case for "elder", per SchriberBike. Support the move to "Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Islander elder", despite WP:CONCISE, since the longer phrase now seems to dominate in sources (and this isn't news, if you've been paying attention to Australian usage over the last decade or so). That is, the real world considers "Aboriginal Australian" to no longer be WP:PRECISE enough to include Torres Straight Islanders.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC). Revised: we should include "Australian" per Eldomtom2, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indigenous Australian elder, rationale below, one for each part of the title:
    • Based on my research for the draft style guide (created by me some years ago, still awaiting discussion): in general, the expanded form "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is preferred over "Indigenous"; however, "Indigenous" is acceptable and used by a good number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on their own websites and in other writings. So... while I would use the longer form in most cases when writing about both groups in articles, I'm not sure about the article title. According to WP:CRITERIA, "recognisability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency" leads me to thinking that the use of Indigenous might be more suitable as an article title. The individual articles do, I think, for the most part explain how the two groups are culturally and ethnically different (although this still confuses a lot of people, including many if not most non-Indigenous Australians, going by Facebook comments and suchlike). So I think there is an argument for the shorter title, but I wouldn't oppose the longer one. When linking to the article, I suspect that most editors will link to the shortest possible redirect, rather than type out the whole name of the longer one. The other thing is that (when used in an article) referring to singular will nearly always refer to either an Aboriginal OR Torres Strait Islander Elder, whereas the plural can refer to both. Further confused by people of mixed heritage from both groups.
    • With regard to the "elder" part, it must be singular and not plural, and I think that current WP rules do seem to dictate lower case, although my personal preference for use within Australia is upper case because that is the way it is nearly always written now, in news articles and on government and other websites. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would go with "Indigenous Australian elder" as second choice. It's less precise but much more concise. I think that "indigenous Australian" is a broad enough descriptive phrase to net both "Aboriginal Australian" (mainland) and "Torres Straight Islander".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Belated edit to add "Indigenous", left out earlier by mistake. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Laterthanyouthink, you make a very strong policy based case to prefer "Indigenous Australian E[e]lder" over the longer form that is the substantive proposal. On the issue of capping "elder" I am awaiting a response from the OP but as you observe WP:P&G would indicate lowercasing. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with Indigenous is that while it's an improvement and some people are OK with it, it's often advised to avoid it in style guides because many in the community find it offensive. I think it's similar to using Indian, which is frequently used by legacy institutions and by some community members but is losing preference. As for the plural, yeah I agree its preferred not to have a plural title but if "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder" is used, its weird because it kind of combines those two identities into one person from how I read it like you're saying. Poketama (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:IAR? (setting aside the question of capitalisation) Laterthanyouthink makes a strong case WRT WP:P&G that there are issues with the proposed title - it is incorrect to use the phrase without pluralising elder and to do so would be contrary to WP:AT. I also note the response by Poketama and in consequence, I have reviewed some ngram evidence to compare terms here. This ngram indicates that when the term Torres Strait Islander is used, it is almost always preceded by Aboriginal and. This would strongly indicate by far that the most WP:COMMONNAME way of referring to the two cultures is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Indigenous Australian is well behind. While we should not pluralise elder in a title, I can see that this might be a good case in which to WP:IAR in respect to pluralising the title. Comments please. Also ping @SMcCandlish, SchreiberBike, Eldomtom2, and Michael Bednarek:. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we really think it's ungrammatical or something without "elders" that would seem to make it a naturally plural title, and we have plenty of those, per WP:PLURAL. I'm not personally convinced; if the Australian Aboriginal elders and Torres Straight Islander elders are distinct topics, they should not be covered in the same article. If they're not distinct enough from each other to require separate articles, then they're not distinct enough from each other to require pluralization. Cf. Two-spirit and other articles that span multiple Native American cultures, but which are given in the singular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Torres Strait Islanders are a very clearly distinct ethnic group. It's not like Native Americans, it's like talking about Papuans and Malays. Poketama (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are two distinct cultures and ethnicities. I don't see any disagreement with this in this discussion. Elders are the custodians of the knowledge of their respective cultures. The elders from each culture are in essence mutually exclusive sets and naturally plural. This would be akin to "Anglican and Greek Orthodox elder(s)" which are also naturally plural and essentially mutually exclusive sets. Even though their roles and functions are similar and might be discussed collectively, their Christian traditions are significantly different. Yes, we could write separate articles for elders of the two indigenous cultures but in practical terms, we would then have two stubs instead of one. I would tend to agree with Pete where they say sourcing content for the TSI component might be an issue, if only because Torres Strait Islanders are a small proportion of the total indigenous population (5 - 10%) and specific content will be proportionally less. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder would be my preference, based mainly on the current jarring title that implies that Torres Strait Islanders are Australian Aboriginal people when in fact they were two more or less distinct ethnic and cultural groups. "Elder" doesn't need a capital simply because the Wikipedia style - bland and banal as it is - wouldn't capitalise "queen" or "president" in a similar context. I don't know enough of the cultural practices of those peoples to know if we should have two articles to remove all confusion, in which sourcing content for the TSI component might be an issue. Nevertheless, those that retain aspects of ancient culture also mark out those active and respected in cultural practices as "elders" and refer to them as such in general usage. This is very common in media reports where community spokespeople will be identified as elders. Age is not the sole criterion for such recognition; merely the function, though of course the two aspects often coincide. --Pete (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any real preference except to state that I oppose "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)", and believe that if that is the form that is used it should be "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. "Aboriginal" by itself is ambiguous except when the context is already clearly established as Australia, but article titles are context-free.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:CRITERIA, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)" is a title someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. By the same measure, "Torres Strait Islander" creates a recognisable context, that we are referring to an Australian Aboriginal and not some other aboriginal culture. So, while adding "Australian" is more precise, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)" is already reasonably unambiguous and the additional precision is unnecessary. Per my above, this ngram indicates that when the term Torres Strait Islander is used, it is almost always preceded by Aboriginal and. This ngram would indicate that "Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" is rarely, if ever, used in sources. The guidance WRT concision tells us the title should be no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Since there is no ambiguity WRT an article that exists (or is reasonably likely to exist) and no naming convention indicated that would require a less concise name for consistency, I can see no reasonable reason for adding "Australian" to the proposed title: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder(s)". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree mostly with Pete above, it's a tricky one grammatically because the only way to link directly to the article as "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder" would be in the plural form. Mostly articles would refer to person X as an elder (who happens to be one or the other, or can identify as both through mixed marriages), or generically as Aboriginal elders and/or Torres Strait Islander elders. Aboriginal elders are of course much more common in the literature than Torres Strait Islander elders. At the moment, "Aboriginal elder" has 103 incoming links; fewer for "Aboriginal Australian elder" (although I think this sequence of words sounds better to my ears than the current name, perhaps because I'm so used to linking to "Aboriginal Australians". I understand the reluctance to use Indigenous but it does kind of neatly avoid some of these traps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like we've gone full circle and the practical choice is Australian Indigenous Elder or Indigenous Australian Elder and the first sounds better to my ear. --Pete (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's clear by now that it ought to be lower case "elder". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support Australian First Nations elder. However, I think there's good reason to use the far more common and likely to be searched title Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders. Using a plural is not unprecedented on Wikipedia and there's some examples here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(plurals). Otherwise, I'd split the article but you'll be hard-pressed to research Torres Strait Islander elders and I doubt anyone will do so soon.
    Maybe Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander elder? If you google "Torres Strait Islander Elder" most results use this phrase.
    In response to Laterthanyouthink, I think it would be bad form to switch to 'Indigenous elder' to make incoming links easier, better to use a redirect. Poketama (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Indigenous Australian elder. Per Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal Australians: The term Indigenous Australians refers to Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders collectively. And no need for "elder" to be capitalised or plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder gets my vote. GadigalGuy (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option 2. Support capitalisation no matter what. EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broadening the scope[edit]

I was thinking about this further last night. All of this relates to my original motivation for creating that draft guide as a springboard for discussion about terminology around Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia, and I don't think that we should be looking at this article in isolation. What about taking the whole discussion over there, or somewhere where all of the articles with titles relating to these groups can be listed and examined? If we just change this one article, is the same discussion going to keep popping up with each article?

I do think that there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between what terms are used as article names and those used in the text of the articles (having looked at and quoted those criteria above). I understand and sympathise with Poketama's sentiments about using the longer form for this article, but also see the grammatical problem I've outlined above. While the longer form is preferred, it's not as if "Indigenous Australians" is pejorative or deprecated, hence my slight preference for its use in this title at least.

Skyring (and others): Having a quick scan through our current titles, we have approximately 10 article names beginning "Indigenous Australian(s)". Those beginning "Australian Indigenous" are all either redirects or official names of organisations, the latter including Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet (which incidentally changed its name from National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Clearinghouse in 2000).

Indigenous peoples in Canada also presents a complicated picture, although I don't know if there's anything useful we can take from there. We also need to think about the international audience accessing articles on the Australian topics. It's not easy, this one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Indigenous Australian elder until that work is done. Poketama (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This specific move target has no traction. No prejudice against another RM with a different target. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Aboriginal elder → Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elder – A name change for this article is still needed. This is the name that received the most support in the last discussion. Poketama (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry, Poketama, but I disagree with you on this one. My objections, mentioned above, are mainly based on grammar and unwieldiness, but also, last but not least, the fact that there are numerous other articles and categories beginning with or containing the term "Indigenous Australian". Making a change to a single article whilst retaining all of the others makes no sense, and it would need broader consensus and a LOT of work to do all of those. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm happy to support the more inclusive term, and this seems like the most practical solution at this point. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any title that does not contain "Australian". --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tribal elder succession?[edit]

How exactly does the title of Elder pass on to the next leader of any given tribe, are they elected by tribal council, or does it pass automatically via primogeniture? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varies from group to group. My understanding is today its generally a matter of community recognition, and there is not just one Elder. Not really either of your examples. There's likely to be other systems though I haven't read up on. Poketama (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Aboriginal_elder&oldid=1199198548"