Talk:Aboriginal

spencer wells

You can try The Journey of man, Deep ancestry or Mapping Human history. El Bab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.122.132 (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Aboriginal Australians ("Aborigine" is an archaic term that is often considered offensive)"

The use of "archaic" when referring to words typically refers to words that are no longer in use at all, like "thee" or "thou" or "doth" in English. Whereas, a word like "Aborigine" is used quite often still in modern Australian English. Therefore, to call it "archaic" is to misuse a standard linguistic/dictionary term of classification. This has been done by a wikipedia power user presumably who has no background in linguistics. Have not tried to edit the article because the power users will revert the edits, but just pointing out the use of "archaic" is incorrect by the standard meaning. You could say it is considered by some to have pejorative characteristics, but not that it is "archaic". 60.240.156.235 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2026

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: Moved as proposed. There were a couple people who wanted to split the articles--I think that's a fair thing to do, I don't think there's really a consensus against it. Split it if you want to (pending reversion and further discussion, perhaps), but until someone does that, among those who were not advocating for a split, the clear consensus is for the page to be moved in the interim. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Aborigine → Aboriginal – The term "Aborigine" is not often used to refer to Australian Aboriginal peoples and should not be used if we wish to use respectful language per Amnesty International. Although Wikipedia is not censored, it should equally strive not to offend when possible. A quick look at the talk page indicates that this topic has had much discussion since this article was created, I hope a requested move discussion can finally put the issue to rest. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. CNC (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is a disambiguation page, not an article. 'Aborigine' is a valid search term. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  What makes it a better search term than "Aboriginal"? Both search terms seem equally valid to me. "Aborigine" will continue to be a valid search term as a redirect. We should use the most commonly accepted name by a nation's peoples, which this proposal is accomodating. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This page includes a mythological entry – if this page were an article uniquely about the Australian ethnic group, you might have an argument. As it stands, you've missed the mark. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support more of the items disambiguated use aboriginal in their title (and we probably should move away from targeting redirects that have aborgines in title but go to aboriginal). And if we look at the total number of pages (which include redirects), vastly more start with Aboriginal than Aborigine. Aborigine will simply become a redirect to this disambiguation page, just like Aboriginal is currently, so searching will not be impaired. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Split: Not all of the articles currently listed under "Aborigine" belong on an "Aboriginal" disambiguation page. Keep Aborigines (mythology) and Taiwanese indigenous peoples on this Aborigine page only, move Indigenous peoples in Canada and related First Nations items under "See Also" to Aboriginal, and retain the rest of the content on both pages. --Leviavery (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Split per Leviavery. orangesclub 🍊 14:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  bro that is the coolest signature I've seen in a while Red Slash 18:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. I see no need for a split, which would just complicate matters. The blurb at the top can continue to mention both forms and Aborigine can continue to redirect here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp: If the two words have distinct meanings and uses (and I think we can agree that this is the case, as otherwise there would be little reason for this move discussion), then why not have two pages? A disambiguation page is not like an article that can only have a single, agreed-upon title; other than redirects, there are no articles that link here that would need to be changed if this page was split. If both words in question applied to all of the articles on this current disambiguation page, perhaps a split would be overcomplicated, but the case of Aborigines (mythology) should make it clear that this is not the case. --Leviavery (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Because the two words have such overlapping definitions that two dabpages would be confusing, unnecessary and duplicate much information. Dabpages are merely there to help people find what they're looking for. That's all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Can you help me understand where the confusion comes from? From the user's point of view, you search for "Aborigine", and you see articles related to "Aborigine". Alternatively, you search for "Aboriginal", and you see articles related to that search term. To the user there is no duplication; you are simply taken to a DAB that matches your search term and you find what you are looking for. This situation of related words with distinct meanings and connotations does not meet any of the example criteria for WP:DABCOMBINE, so the two words should never have been combined in the first place. The fact that some of the information overlaps is not pertinent to this case. --Leviavery (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Who do you mean by referring to the user? It's easier for us to understand who you are referring to if you directly mention the user that has made the statement you are referring to using an a reply to template, this can also be brought up by using an "@" symbol in the visual talk editor. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Qwerty123M: by "the user", I am referring to the generic user of Wikipedia who is in search of information; the subsequent "you" is an informal usage of one (pronoun). (Word Choice Explanation: WP:D refers to people in search of information as both "users" and "readers"; I chose to use the term "user" as DABs are more of utility page than a readable article.) --Leviavery (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Mythology, and WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Post AFD–merge followup

@LPascal: I wanted to acknowledge your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aborigine regarding appropriate use of terminology. I originally wrote this in the AFD discussion but I saved the reply a few minutes after the discussion formally closed, so I self-reverted. Mostly just wanted you to know that I did read and respond to your thoughtful comment. Below is what I originally wrote at AFD; some of the details are less relevant—or, in my mind, resolved—now that I have carried out the merge:

This is also my understanding of usage with respect to Australian peoples, though I am by no means expert. I think these are important points but somewhat tangential to the question of how to approach disambiguation. The ultimate determination for what to include on a dab page is governed by terms that are in use and are mentioned in the respective articles, not necessarily the most correct, common, or preferred terminology. For better or worse, Aborigine has been and sometimes still is used to describe Aboriginal Australians. This is discussed in the article at Aboriginal Australians § Terminology. Both terms also appear in the article Indigenous peoples. Thus Indigenous peoples and Aboriginal Australians are valid entries and should be included whether the pages remain separate or are re-combined. The word aboriginal currently does not appear in the body of Taiwanese indigenous peoples. Technically this article should be removed from the Aboriginal dab page, although the word appears numerous times in the references so a better solution is probably to update the article to address this usage. For disambiguation we also typically consider similar or related words/names and commonly confused terms, whether these are included in the main list or under 'See also'.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this reply and the good merge and redirect from Aborigine and the mention of First Nations on the Aboriginal list. LPascal (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2026 (UTC)