Talk:Aborigines

Aborigines
It's an offensive term and it's a similar reason as to why we don't have an Eskimos redirect. Here's two quick articles as to why it's considered offensive: -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 02:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I wasn't current on acceptable terminology for Aboriginal Australians (I was going to write "native Australians", but Australia states that "Native is also offensive", so maybe "native Australian" is not P.C., either), but we don't want to have an offensive redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworded it. Native isn't offensive, it's just not a preferred term. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Possible redirect If we have an article on respecting native/indigenous/aboriginal peoples while traveling and how to understand the power dynamics of some outsiders traveling to lands that still have indigenous control, then that could be a valid redirect. If not/until we do, delete. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It depends. It seems a fairly likely search term, which argues for keeping the redirect, but if the article includes the term (perhaps in a note that it is obsolete & may be offensive), then the search will succeed anyway & the redirect is not needed. Pashley (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added such a note so I'll now say delete.
 * Should we mention that "abo" is sometimes used & is really offensive? I would think not, but an Aussie's opinion would be welcome. Pashley (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's mentioned in Australia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also mentioned in Indigenous Australian culture. But I'd like the opinion of who created this redirect. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 05:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete A search for "Aborigines" lists 50 articles, many of which are not in Australia. For example Haiduan in Taiwan, Uromi in Nigeria and Ayer Keroh in Malaysia has an Aborigines Museum. So the redirect might have the wrong target. I don't know whether the term is offensive in these other countries. So either delete or change the redirect to an article which coveres these other countries' use of the term. AlasdairW (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (my initial response was to this as an article but I see now it's a redirect, so I deleted it to rethink it) As a redirect, we do have redirects for Native Americans, First Nations, and Jews. Most ethnic groups don't have redirects, but that could be attributed to a lack of articles about Zulus, Hausa People, Romani, etc. If ethnic groups are viable redirects, I think this should be an easy Keep. From the discussion above, it seems referencing these people in any way is "offensive" in Australia, but outside of Australia, at least in North America, they are Aborigines (with the capitalized "A"). "Jews" can be offensive or neutral, and it is a redirect. I don't know the extent of "offense" the term causes in Australians particularly with actual Aborigines versus whites/academics, but outside "Aborigine" is entirely neutral. It has no negative connotation at all, so it shouldn't be an issue to keep it. It is the only way I've ever heard them referenced. If we don't like ethnic groups as redirects, that is a separate conversation. (edit: We have Gypsy as a redirect but not Romani or Romani people. People claim "Gypsy" is offensive, too, but it's the most common reference, so it's sensible. The redirects are based on popular or likely search terms for the specific article. That is definitely the case for Aborigines. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the offensiveness is in the overly broad generalisation, talking about the Australian Aborigines is like talking about the Native Europeans. I suppose it is OK in the right context, but the context should make it clear one is talking about several peoples and cultures. Thus, the problem is not in the name itself, but in the way the name has been and continues to be used. –LPfi (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In the US, we literally use Native Americans, and they are a lot more diverse, more numerous, and spread over a wider area than Aborigines, so maybe that's why the "offense" seems nonsensical/manufactured to me. But even accepting it as "offensive" at least to some degree, it is still a sensible redirect based on international terminology and how this group of people are referenced. It seems akin to gypsy. If think Aborigine and gypsy are internationally the most common terms used for the groups they represent. They make sense as redirects. I don't see "Aborigine" as being special in this regard. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I remember a work colleague newly arrived from India being horrified because she had used the term "red Indians" in a meeting about the First Nations people of Canada. It was the term she had learned in India. The Aboriginal peoples of Australia were called Aborigines for a long time, and non-Australian readers may not have caught up with the change in termininology. A redirect can help them find the correct article and learn what term they should use to avoid giving offence. Ground Zero (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was the term used in English taught as a second language in the 1990s. Seemingly, terminology has changed over time. /Yvwv (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that "Red Indian" was still bring taught in the 1990s. In 1999, Australia had a referendum on adding a preamble to its construction which, among other things, would have included "honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders". So terminology has changed there, too. Ground Zero (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: redirect kept. -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)