:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia

Hi hi, just wanted to invite a conversation around including the names of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations in the opening lines of First Nations peoples' Wiki articles, either as well as or instead of the word "Australian". I noticed that there was a rather lengthy discussion on this topic on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board a couple of years ago now that never reached a clear consensus.

For context, adding that MOS:NATIONALITY specifies that "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names." I see no reason why this shouldn't also apply to First Nations Australian persons, right? Interesting that the MOS then links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities - as far as I can see, there's no Australian equivalent. I suspect if there was, it would involve the three-part legal test from Mabo, or is that controversial these days in a way I'm unaware of?

Based on the summary of conclusions in that 2022 notice board discussion, it looks like there was weak support for including ATSI nation names if there is evidence they are "used and reliably sourced". For now I'm gonna take "reliably" to mean perennial sources, and have a go at adding brackets with citations to a few people's articles and see what the reaction's like. Happy for anyone to share their views here, cheers! Neegzistuoja (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:Taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Dodson&diff=1275581853&oldid=1255785812 your change] to Pat Dodson as an example, I think this is usually better dealt with in prose with either "Australian" or "Indigenous Australian" in the first sentence. For most non-Australian readers, prioritising nationality at first instance is probably going to be more informative. Many Indigenous people have multiple tribal ancestries (e.g. Ken Wyatt) or identify more with clans within tribal nations which can get quite messy if they're included as parentheticals. In terms of the comparison with Native Americans / Canadian First Nations, the concept of Indigenous citizenship is less well established in Australia. However I do think it is appropriate for the colonial period e.g. the wording used for Yagan or Bennelong. I T B F 📢 01:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::The edit by Neegzistuoja pointed out by ITBF is rather unfortunate and ought to be reverted. Pat Dodson has been described as a Yawuru elder in the 2nd paragraph since January 2024; there was no need for the clumsy parenthetical in the 1st sentence which IMO is not supported by MOS:BIO or MOS:NATIONALITY or MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support including the First Nations nationality and Australian nationality in the lead. However, it we should not determine the nationality of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders if there are no reliable sources which detail that. Like ITBF said, many Indigenous people have multiple ancestries, so it would be a greater problem for us to leave some out, rather than simply leave it someone's description as 'Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander'.

:FropFrop (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, wanted to give a little update one month on:

• For 12 bio articles I added First Nations group names, cited with 2 perennial sources, in brackets in the first sentence after the word "Australian"
• The only article where this edit was reverted almost immediately was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1275446920&oldid=1275443718&title=Evonne_Goolagong_Cawley Evonne Goolagong Cawley]
• My edit to Pat Dodson was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Dodson&diff=prev&oldid=1277016030 reverted after 9 days]
• However, at the time of writing, my edits to the other 10 articles, including some heavily trafficked and good articles, remain intact with no evidence of controversy: The Kid Laroi; Ashleigh Barty; Patty Mills; Archie Roach; Mark Coles Smith; Lidia Thorpe; Linda Burney; Stan Grant (journalist); Thelma Plum; and Briggs (rapper)
• Excluding Goolagong Cawley and Dodson, one could potentially interpret this as acceptance of the format and try expanding it to more bio articles, unless anyone disagrees? Neegzistuoja (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:No, one couldn't. MOS:NATIONALITY clearly excludes ethnicity from the 1st sentence. The carve-out for Native Americans and Canadians is specific and relies on "citizenship", a legal concept established there, but not in Australia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Michael, thanks for your reply. To be frank, I found it uncomfortably blunt and dismissive, as I have attempted to invite this open conversation with a patient, inclusive and constructive attitude. I would appreciate it if you were able to consider the different contextual definitions of the term "nationality". We are not talking about people migrating to a new country and acquiring a new pre-existing nationality different to their original "ethno-national" identity, or second-generation (etc.) descendants of such people, so I am somewhat surprised that you identified "ethnicity" as the relevant term in this context. I agree that it is possible to interpret an Aboriginal Australian nation as a source of ethnicity, yet I would maintain that it is also possible to interpret it as a source of nationality. While, for example, Wiradjuri Country is not a sovereign state, I would posit that it is a social organisation where a collective identity have emerged from a combination of shared language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory and society. And what is that if not a nation? Are these not First Nations? I understand and respect your impulse to follow a traditionalist conservative reading of the Manual of Style. I note that the Biography page of the Manual does not explicitly define nationality, and it does not specify that the nation from which nationality is derived must be sovereign or a state. Based on my reading of this, I sensed an ambiguity in the case of First Nations Australians that could benefit from further consideration. I am hopeful that this widely-accessible online space can facilitate discussions around, and raise awareness of, how the processes of colonisation and imperialism in modern history have supplanted new colonially-derived nationalities onto cultural and land-based identities (that are, in my view, compatible with our shared English-language understanding of nationality) that existed for tens of thousands of years prior. I thank you in advance for your consideration of my position, which I believe to be shared by many First Nations Australians and supporters of their ongoing campaigns for sovereignty, and hope that you will take the time to provide a considered and respectful response, thereby fostering an environment in which other members of this online community feel safe and supported to do the same. Neegzistuoja (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::You mistook concision, which I recommend, for bluntness, which I didn't intend (please consider WP:AGF). Your assertion that Wiradjuri constitutes a nationality is not supported by its article here. Nationality is a modern concept and difficult to apply to pre-Bronze Age populations. Your link to "First Nations" does nothing to explain that concept, particularly not for an Australian context. It's not clear to me why you raise "sovereignty" because several judgements have ruled out Aboriginal sovereignty.{{pb}}To the original point of naming ATSI nations in the 1st sentence of biographies: I mentioned above that it's usually a duplication of material that's mentioned later in the article, very often in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. More importantly, MOS:LEAD and MOS:FIRST advise to "give the basics in a nutshell" and to concentrate on {{em|what}}, {{em|who}}, {{em|when}}, {{em|where}}. For some biographies, mentioning the subject's ATSI status may often, probably usually, be relevant, but their connection to a specific, or more often to a range, of clans is not. Merely stating it doesn't tell readers anything significant. We don't do that for other cultural significant groups, like Swabians, Sicilians, Yorkies, Catalans, … which, in contrast to ATSI peoples, have widely known characteristics. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Appreciate the reminder of WP:AFG - sorry for the verbosity, I am passionate about this topic and appreciate your engagement. I agree that Aboriginal sovereignty is not accepted by the Australian legal system, but it is still actively and credibly claimed. I would cite the Denali article not reverting back to the title of "Mount McKinley" this year as an example of Wikipedia elevating the culture and language of First Nations peoples above decisions made by the government/judiciary of the sovereign state they were colonised by.

::::Agreed that we don't want duplication of material within the lead. I think giving an ATSI nation as a demonym in the lead can be significant for readers to understand that, at least according to the self-identification of whomever the article is about, multiple "nations" exist within the sovereign state of Australia. On your list of other cultural significant groups, there are certainly examples of prominent Catalan people who are introduced in the lead as Catalan (Pep Guardiola, Antoni Gaudí, Carles Puigdemont), and there are some (admittedly weaker) examples of this for Sicilians (Salvatore Lo Piccolo, Franca Viola, Emma Baeri). Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see why we ought to wait for Australia to have the same or similar legal concept for us to proceed with something similar to Neegzistuoja's proposal.

::FropFrop (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::My point about the lack of a legal recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty was a side bar to Neegzistuoja's side bar about campaigns for such; it has very little to do with the original question. Further: yes, Wikipedia has to wait because it's only describing the world as it is described in verifiable reputable sources, not as it may be imagined. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Lots of verifiable reputable sources introduce First Nations Australians using the name/s of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nation that they are a recognised member of. The edits I made to the ten articles listed above include such sources (there would be many more if I included articles from the ABC and SBS, which are generally considered reliable but weren't listed at WP:RSP). Neegzistuoja (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Plenty of sources describe the name/s of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander nations that folks are members of.

::::FropFrop (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::If you want to change the wording of MOS:NATIONALITY to include ethnicity, you should raise that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would contend that membership of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander groups can constitute nationality, not only ethnicity. But I will happily raise this at that talk page later today, thanks for the suggestion Michael. I would oppose adding ethnicity in the lead across the board, but I'd certainly welcome an extra sentence or two under the Nationality examples subsection explaining the unique case of First Nations Australians, similar to (or perhaps added on to) what already exists there for Native American and Indigenous Canadian people. Neegzistuoja (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Editorial opinions are requested at Talk:Wireless Hill Park#and/or on the wording of the usage of the scar tree. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)