Talk:Stolen Generations: Difference between revisions

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 13, 2011 and February 13, 2014.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 B‑class High‑importance

Stolen Generations 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Top-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.

Women's History B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Material from Stolen Generations was split to Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples on 11 June 2018‎ from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Template:NPOV-Section This section is flat out appalling. It does not contain any debates at all, rather it is almost entirely a series of denials about the Stolen Generations. I'd also suggest that Andrew Bolt is NOT a reliable source on this issue as the Australian Courts have convicted him of hate speech before.

Ideally, this article would be best rewritten by informed opinions who are not Australian. This article is of a poor quality, especially this section. That said, it is still possible to retain it, but not in its current form. The "debate" takes more space than the explanation of the events.

In short, there is more on this page that disputes the Stolen Generations than explains what they were. The "denial" position is not the consensus historical view, and does not deserve such heavy weighting. Vision Insider (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over the term Stolen Generations should absolutely not come within the lead in. Wikipedia's convention is to have criticisms towards the end, or at the end, of an article. There is still too much weight given to the debate and not a lot on the issue itself, the effects and the people involved.

I've also removed Andrew Bolt altogether. He is not a historian and is not a credible source, so doesn't belong whatsoever in this article. That's not sour grapes because I disagree with him; Windschuttle is a historian who disagrees with the consensus and his material remains within. That said, I read through the sources provided and one of them is not only NOT a reliable source, but didn't even include the quote being used.

I appeal to historians other than Australians to write this article because there is generally a lack of objectivity in such issues within Australia. For one thing, the "controversy" surrounding the Stolen Generations does not really exist outside of Australia and it is given too much weight here. It is similar to expecting that the Apartheid articles in South Africa would be better written by historians who are not South African. Vision Insider (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I'm the only one writing in this thread, but this article desperately needs attention. Suggestion that the Stolen Generations do not exist are a minority opinion that is, for the most part, not credible (presumably this is why Windschuttle is used so much throughout this article; no other historians agree with him). That's not to say that the section debating it doesn't belong, as uncomfortable as it may make people. HOWEVER, the bulk of this article is either on the Federal Government apology OR the arguments surrounding the issue. There are many cases that could be used to explain what the Stolen Generations were, and how they affected people. Vision Insider (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've tried to improve the NPOV in this section, and for now have removed the issue sign, but if you think there are still issues or improvements please do add them.

talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

http://www.monash.edu/about/editorialstyle/writing/inclusive-language www.health.nsw.gov.au/aboriginal/Publications/pub-terminology.pdf https://www.flinders.edu.au/staff-development-files/CDIP%20documents/CDIP%20Toolkit%202015/2_%20Appropriate%20Terminology,%20Indigenous%20Australians.pdf

3. With regard to the use of the label 'Conservative' attached to Ron Brunton. Relevance and consistency: Labelling someone with a political tag might possibly be justified if all the relevant parties were labelled because it was necessary for the purposes of the discussion. It is clearly not in this case, Brunton simply makes the point that in the Commission, witnesses were not cross-examined nor was their evidence tested for accuracy in any other way, such as by examining the original records of their cases. The fact that the testimony was not checked for factual accuracy is not a conservative, left-wing, right-wing, progressive or whatever issue, unless you want to argue that only conservatives care about factual accuracy, therefore attaching the 'Conservative' label to Brunton is irrelevant. There are numerous persons referred to in the article. Is there a political label attached to all of them? No. Then why attach a label to Brunton unless you want to mark him out as a ‘special case’? That would violate the NPOV requirements for representing views fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Labelling one out of numerous sources with someone’s personal opinion of what that source’s political leanings are appears to be unfair and editorial bias. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:9D48:CF34:C2A8:3D72 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no other reference to "Adelaide Sun", other than the quoted cite. My guess is it's a reference to the

State Library of SA had trouble finding the Sun too, but see refs added. It would be OR to dig out the clipping and verify the exact quote, but a search on the mother's name revels extensive data on Priscilla Karpany and baby Manuel. Perhaps others will be motivated to do the OR and publish it, so I have left the query (so far as it concerns the exact words quoted)as it stood. Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search re Adelaide Sun or The Sun goes like this. (Query): "A (probably) related event can be found at: [1] The reference is around p 145: (iv) C. E. Taplin, Honorary Protector of Aborigines to Chief Protector of Aborigines, Flinders Street, Adelaide, April 21 1924. Dear Sir My attention has been drawn to the case of the native girl – Precilla Karpany – having her baby, nine months old, taken away from her under the provisions of the Aborigines Act passed last year. Also to the report of the occurrence, with severe comments thereon, published in “The Adelaide Sun” of April 12th. The tenor of that article makes a vivid criticism of the gross inhumanity of such a ruthless, and cruel administration of the Act. That a woman should have her own baby recklessly dragged from her arms, and taken entirely away from her, at the behest of a Government Official, because some female inspectress thought the mother an unsuitable guardian, is shocking to contemplate. What does the female official know of the right way to treat an aboriginal baby? As a matter of fact I have taken this young native woman into my own home, and find her clean and well behaved. Not at all such a character as might be expected to illtreat her own child......

This suggests 1924 as the date, rather than 1923. I can find no reference to a newspaper of this name on (The State Library of South Australia) site, and only one at the NLA newspaper collection, namely a reference of to the Adelaide “Sun” losing a libel case in 1924, reported in the Melbourne Argus."

(Reply - in part- says) "Sands & McDougall's South Australian directory for 1924 has a listing for 'Sun (The), Adelaide, Saturday (midnight)' in the Mercantile directory listing for Newspapers but there is no listing in the 1923 and 1925 directories indicating that the Sun may have been shortlived and that it may not have survived the £200 damages claim for libel awarded to plaintiff Clifford Otto Roennfeldt, musician of 9 Rundle Street Adelaide (Argus, 19 Jan. 1924, p. 34 [p. 32 according to Index to "The Argus"] ). ... Australian Securities & Investments Commission Index of corporate and business names lists Sun newspaper(Melbourne),Deregistered 28/03/1927 and THE SUN NEWSPAPER CO. LIMITED (Vic.) Deregistered 30/06/1915 but not Sun (Adelaide) although there is an Adelaide Sun Limited(SA), Deregistered 12/12/1940. The article "A newspaper sued"(Advertiser, p. 19 columns (c) - (d), 19/1/1924) names "the persons who are co-partners in the firm for the purposes of proceedings against them...[as] Thomas Alfred Humble of Fullarton - retired farmer; John McKellar Giles of Blackwood, journalist and Walter George Jones, of Willowie, pastoralist..." also naming Mr Giles as the editor who wrote the article. Also mentioned in the article are Archibald Alfred Thomas of Glenelg and Hugh Charles Howie of Goodwood Park, journalists of the Adelaide Sun. I am sorry that I have not been able to track issues of the Sun for you and hope that one or another of the suggested approaches above will lead you to a more detailed account of Ms Karpany's mistreatment. The State Library of South Australia maintains a listing of local newspapers we would like to microfilm for preservation purposes and if by any chance you do locate copies of this paper we would appreciate it if you could let (the) Coordinator of our Preservation Services Team, know where copies can be found." Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the {{verification needed}} tag. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If these policies applied only to biracial people, why doesn't the lead say that? When I read it, I thought it meant only "full" Aboriginal and TSI children were taken away. 76.246.149.144 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to balance reports re the stolen generation with the true fact that many of the children taken from aboriginal parents were neglected and in fact close to death. The second born of twins, for example, was often left to another tribe member to be cared for, as the mother was only able to carry one child when on walkabout. Many nursing sisters and police officers from regional areas were concerned regarding the health of these children as they arrived close to death to be treated for various medical conditions. Some children would present 2 or 3 times and when this happened, the nursing staff would approach the local police officer to take the child to provide better care. I have no doubt that some children were given less than adequate care, but so were many white children also in care at that time. There seems to be little balance to reports of the stolen generations. There is a need to report the fact that many of the "stolen generation" in fact owe their lives to the well-meaning intervention of caring nurses and police from remote areas of our great country. Don't take my word for this; go and talk to retired nurses and police who worked in the remote parts of Australia. You may be surprised at what you learn. Kerry Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.26.84 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be true, but to go and talk to "retired nurses and police" would constitute original research and should not be included in Wikipedia. What you need to do is find a secondary source, such as a history text, journal article, or biography, that confirms what you say and then include your statements in the article citing your sources.203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This claim should be removed if it is not supported by the reference given. It is illogical because to remove mixed race children from remote aboriginal communities to urban predominantly white areas would tend to reduce "white racial purity", not attain it. Qemist (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the quotes here? The explicit aim was biological absorption. "Half-castes" would be physically assimilated to produce white offspring, until Aboriginals "disappeared" and the entire population of Australia was white. It was quite coherent in the minds of those who advocated it. Aridd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that Qemist made is that people who are concerned about racial purity want to prevent intermarriage and mixed-descent children, not encourage it.

The idea that the Aboriginal race was disappearing wasn’t based on a sinister plan to ‘breed out the colour’. It was based on a widely-held belief that full-blooded Aboriginal people weren’t reproducing fast enough to replace their numbers (negative population growth) and that eventually the full-blooded Aboriginal people would all be gone; widespread infertility due to introduced venereal diseases was the major factor in this situation. It’s been argued that, in many areas of Australia, this was an accurate assessment of the situation until the development and distribution of effective antibiotics post-WW2.

Along with that was an ‘expectation’ that people whose ancestry was ‘only’ 1/8th, 1/32nd, 1/124th Aboriginal and who had been raised in a Westernised culture wouldn’t identify as Aborigines.

The quotes referred to are the personal opinions of 2 public servants not a statement of government policy. It is, as anyone who has any knowledge of the public service knows, quite common for public servants to hold and advocate positions that are contrary to the government policy. It’s not a problem so long as, when they are acting in their official capacity, they apply the government policy and not their own personal preferences. Any public servant who spent public funds implementing their own policies rather than the government's would be placing themselves in danger of going to prison for misuse of funds.

When the notion of controlling the marriage of mixed descent Aboriginal people was put to the government, it was completely rejected. J.A. Perkins, the minister in the Lyons’ government whose department covered what’s now called Aboriginal Affairs, stated in Parliament in August 1934 that: “It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter.”

There’s been an unfortunate practice of quoting the personal opinions of various people and then claiming that this was the government policy, rather than stating the real government policy.Webley442 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage! My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too). This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook. Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo. It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue. If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote. It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can. So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”. Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the comparison (at the bottom) with New Zealand's 'Native Schools' is unfair. The Stolen Generations involved taking children away from their parents. The Native Schools involved instruction in Maori to Maori children. One is a form of state-sponsored kidnapping (if not cultural genocide), the other is not. Perhaps the comparison should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.158.29 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that the "Native Schools" in New Zealand are different, since they were taught in Maori. However even now Family and Children’s' Services have the power to take into care a child whose welfare has been deemed to be neglected by the parent(s). I dare say this happens in New Zealand too. Even if there were no specific idea of "taking aboriginal children" simply because they were aboriginal (this is disputed), Aboriginals were clearly going to make up a disproportionately high number of such removals due to the dislocation of their society (with many single mothers - a sign of poor conditions for children for most welfare people in those days), the wretched poverty of most aboriginals and aboriginal communities, and the lack of education (or access to it) of most such children and their parents. It’s easy for a welfare officer to come in and say the children are living in appalling conditions (many probably were) and this proves neglect or unfitness by the parents. So the “kidnapping” you talk of still continues, it is just that it is mostly non-aboriginals affected these days. The law still allows the state to take children away from their parents if an officer deems it in the child’s “best interest”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article on the ABC's website -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/24/2992280.htm?section=justin

A conference in Darwin has heard that there's been no changes after the apology.

This is probably notable enough to be worked in somewhere.70.189.214.56 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the article dwells excessively upon the "apology" which, let's face it, was little more than political theatre, and undertaken specifically on the understanding that there would be "no compensation" as a result of it. Rudd specifically claimed that was his legal advice, although he didn't formally release it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned in a small section that the child removal legislation wasn't limited to Indigenous families? More than 200,000 white children were forcebly removed from their "white" parents over the same time period and they are also seeking an apology. Western Australia apologised to them last year but are the only state to do so so far. Wayne (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, the term Cultural Genocide is often used to describe the Commonwealth policy of the Residential schools to "take the Indian out of the child". It was the systematic stripping of a person of their language, culture and identity.50.71.50.203 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that something about this should be added to the article? If so, you would need a reliable source that mentions it. Do note that near the bottom of the article is a link to Cultural genocide, part of our Genocide article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really a credible commentator on history? I personally think if he's included it should be under some kind of media-sub heading because as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as far as the academic community is concerned his 'opinion' is worth just about nothing to the actual discussion. It feels like the equivalent of putting Glenn Beck into the article on the Holodomor.--27.32.168.222 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not credible. He is paid to be controversial. It's therefore hard to know what his real views are. He appears to have no particular qualifications to comment authoritatively on Aboriginal history. But he is influential. I see less value in his opinions than mine, and I no better qualified than him. (Not quite true, actually, but leave it at that.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is absolutely NOT credible on this matter, having been criminally charged for the promotion of his views about Indigenous Australians. Keith Windschuttle is different because he is a historian and has a published book critiquing the historiography of the Stolen Generations. It's very much a minority view, but nonetheless done with historical analysis. A journalist is not a historian, though, and Andrew Bolt does not belong in this article at all. I have removed the references to him; they do not qualify as a credible source.

Vision Insider (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the text added by user Soundofmusicals: "These incidents had been used to justify the introduction of deeply controversial legislation by the previous Liberal administration that had all the hallmarks of the paternalistic policies that had caused so much damage to the Aboriginal communities since the mid-1800s; indeed had led to the 'Stolen Generation' in the first place. By including these references, many felt that Nelson was using his speech to offer a moral justification for past atrocities, while at the same time justifying current prejudiced policy. "

Soundofmusicals, you state that it "May well need rewording and/or better citing..." That text has no source or citing at all, the only source linked to that paragraph makes no such statements. Wikipedia policies include Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Unless you are citing or paraphrasing something from a verifiable source, then you are just inserting your own personal point of view into the encyclopaedia. If you don't have a verifiable source for your text, don't put the text in. If you have a source, cite it. Otherwise you should remove the text.121.208.25.28 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original research/original analysis has been removed as it is in clear breach of WP policy. If similar commentary is to be included, it needs suitable references. One can't include these types of comments without such references - at best it is original research and in this particular case also has a obvious POV bias. Even the remaining (reworded) content is borderline and one-sided, but at least it is factual and supported with references. Rather than simply reintroducing the removed content, the article would be well served with a balanced explanation of the reaction, supported by proper references Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some critics, such as Andrew Bolt, have questioned the very existence of the Stolen Generation. Bolt stated that it is a "preposterous and obscene" myth and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children. Robert Manne responded that Bolt did not address the documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generations and that this is a clear case of historical denialism.[74] Bolt then challenged Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justified the claim that children were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argued that Manne did not respond and that this was an indication of unreliability of the claim that there was policy of systematic removal.[75] In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names[76][77] Bolt stated that prior to a debate, Manne provided him with a list of 12 names that he was able to show during the debate was "a list of people abandoned, saved from abuse or voluntarily given up by their parents"; and that during the actual debate, Manne produced a list of 250 names without any details or documentation as to their circumstances. Bolt also stated that he was subsequently able to identify and ascertain the history of some of those on the list and was unable to find a case where there was evidence to justify the term ‘stolen’. He stated that one of the names on the list of allegedly stolen children was 13 year old Dolly, taken into the care of the State after being "found seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station".[78]

Why in the Hells is this not included in the article? 58.7.198.176 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Probably because Bolt's commercially motivated displays of bigotry don't belong in a balanced, global encyclopaedia. (He gets paid to encourage real bigots.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would give

undue weight to this "debate" relative to the body of accepted knowledge on the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

article here http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/03/11/1205125911264.html

Unchartered (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires major revision to address the following points more prominently at the beginning of the article :

The majority of historians would concede that the High Court conclusion that the purpose of the legislation was to promote the protection and welfare of Aboriginal people, and it did not authorise any act that could result in genocide, was correct and the interpretation of genocide made by the Bring Them Home report was incorrect opinion. Currently this is buried and stated in weasel words.

I also think the article needs a section detailing the perpetration of the myth due to (a) its quasi-incorporation into the national curriculum (b) Sorry Day (c) providing an excuse for continuing chronic social dependence, the failure of social programs, and more aggressive intervention. Engleham (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is genuine debate surrounding the use of the term genocide. There is not, however, any historical relevance to your other observations, such as the national curriculum, social problems and the like. If you believe these matters are related or even directly caused by the Stolen Generations then they belong in this article. Otherwise, there is nothing to add. Vision Insider (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should just leave References about Andrew Bolt in the Articles. Whether you like it or not he has a large influence on many people. By editing his name\views out just makes the left sound fearful off him and makes is sound like the left is just trying to shut down debate instead of making the debate more detailed and complete. Have the courage to allow everyone to read as much as possible and come to there own personal, considered view point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.74.210 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the community's consensus regarding

pushing every contrarian viewpoint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402095143/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/ to http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703172827/http://www.unhchr.ch:80/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm#56th
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402163757/http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130208.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130208.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216145347/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,23206550-29277,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23206550-29277,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216151539/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s163676.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s163676.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130525232709/http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf to http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121142744/http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703172827/http://www.unhchr.ch:80/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm#56th
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214193209/http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au:80/sunday/film_reviews/article_2058.asp? to http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/film_reviews/article_2058.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106233048/http://www.kanyini.com:80/subject.html to http://www.kanyini.com/subject.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —

Thank you for your consideration and views. The name I'm proposing, Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples, is what the speech is called on australia.gov.au. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such a split would be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions that children were removed from their families by govt agencies and church missions. But the rest of the article leaves the role of church missions completely unclear. The article only the govt's reasons for removal of the children, and only govt laws and policies are described.

In the passage from "Bringing Them Home" (section "Social Impact...") the Aboriginal person says he was put in a "mission dormitory", but this is described as the "government's past actions".

Are these in fact church missions? The lead seems to give equal weight to the actions of the government and church missions, but the article is silent on any church activity.Snarfblaat (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080205154402/http://www.dreamtime.net.au:80/indigenous/family.cfm to http://www.dreamtime.net.au/indigenous/family.cfm#bi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517163849/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310114305/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080228085617/http://www.theage.com.au:80/news/film-reviews/kanyini/2006/09/07/1157222255410.htm to http://www.theage.com.au/news/film-reviews/kanyini/2006/09/07/1157222255410.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808083502/http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/pdfs/cpaf-intro.pdf to http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/pdfs/cpaf-intro.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808083502/http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20(I-AD).PDF to http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20(I-AD).PDF
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090101110402/http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au:80/home/apology_responses to http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/home/apology_responses
• Added archive //web.archive.org/web/20080216184649/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/ to http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928054239/http://www.journeyofhealing.com/rpf.htm to http://www.journeyofhealing.com/rpf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310114305/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

If anyone does read this and decide to make something of those sections, good luck, and thank you for contributing in more depth than I will today! BreakfastJr (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the NPOV tag to alert editors that the Keith Windschuttle's position is left wholly to represent the modern historiography in that section, without counterbalance from such historians as

I removed the contentious info till it has been discussed here.[2] I agree, the onus is on the editor adding new claims, and it certainly seems to fall under the

due weight guidlines. --Dmol (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently the following is considered contentious and has been removed by an editor (Dmol) until it has been discussed here:

1. Windschuttle has written a book on the history of the Stolen Generations. All the material in the paragraph is sourced from the book, accurately reflects the arguments in it and contains accurate references to where the material may be found.

2. Another editor (El C) has argued that "The onus is on _you_, as the editor behind the new addition, to ensure that in the context of the article as a while, it is well-balanced and that it does not provide a one-sided interpretation of the modern historiography" and that "Not adding the response to him in the historiography" violates undue weight. The argument that it is on the editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also add critical material is not, and has never been, Wikipedia policy. It has never been the responsibility of an editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also locate and add any criticisms that may have been made. Please, point to an example of a situation where Administrators have upheld such an argument, if you can. I doubt that you will be able to because your arguments are a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy.

3. The article is heavily skewed towards the proposition that there are no flaws in the Stolen Generations thesis. Adding accurately sourced and relevant material from a critic of the thesis helps to balance the article.

4. Other editors are not constrained from adding any relevant criticism of Windschuttle's position on the issue.

5 This risks the appearance that the editors concerned are attempting to bias the article by removing material that they don't like on specious grounds. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One further point - the heading of this section is Keith Windschuttle overrepresented in History Wars section. Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now. Overrepresented? The only way that there could be less representation of his work is if all mention of him was removed. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of text (try to be concise), that does little to respond to our argument: the onus is on you, as the editor behind the new addition, to have the article represent scholarly consensus (i.e. a balanced representation of the modern historiography). Because, otherwise, it lacks

neutral. El_C 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Wrong, the onus is on you to show that your removal of text complies with Wikipedia policy. I repeat as above "Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now." Removing all mention of his arguments violates undue weight by skewing the article towards one point of view. You are violating the undue weight policy, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it does not make it so. I think you'll find (am finding} that according to

consensus, it is up to you. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

His view should be represented according to the

weight it bears on the modern historiography—no more, no less. El_C 08:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Still waiting. What arguments do you have to support the removal of the arguments of the chief critic of the thesis of the Stolen Generations so that readers of the article are left to wonder what those arguments are? Have you anything to say that can justify your violation of the undue weight policy by your removal of information about the opposing arguments regarding this issue? 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, it makes the section unbalanced—failing to fully represent the scholarly consensus and the modern historiography. It's problematic to have article prose make such a significant comment unqualified; it makes the section too one-sided. It is, indeed, about living up to

due weight, which your edit fails to do. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Where there are opposing arguments in regard to a historical issue, the article is only unbalanced if the existence of, and the explanation of the opposing arguments are edited out. This amounts to clear bias by making the issue appear uncontested. That violates the requirement for a NPOV. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia NPOV policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." NOTE that it says "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". If the material seems one-sided to you (one-sided being the definition of bias) then follow Wikipedia policy which it that the material can be "balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective". If there are sourced criticisms of Windschuttle's arguments, then cite them as required by the policy. Do not violate the policy by removing sourced material. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: "Remove material only where you have a good reason believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."—I have a good reason. The addition violates

due weight: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It is not fairly doing so in that section about the History Wars. El_C 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

IP 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E: reiterating that the content is

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been engaging in thus far. I would also suggest that you create an account. IP addresses do not guarantee you anonymity, nor do they assist other editors in knowing who they are addressing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. The section mentions that Howard opposed making an apology but makes no mention on his reasons for doing so, therefore the text explains nothing except that he opposed an apology. Herron made a semantic argument, not a historical one, when claiming that the term was wrong because 10% did not constitute an entire "generation" The text reporting that anthropologist Ron Brunton pointed out that the evidence in the testimonies was not tested for factual accuracy is neutral. There is no mention in the section of whether Brunton 'believes in' the Stolen Generation or not, merely mentioning that he criticised the flawed procedures in the Commission. The fact that the evidence was not tested doesn't mean that it was wrong, just untested. There is NO material in this section about the HISTORICAL DEBATE from the historian who has been the chief critic arguing that the historical evidence shows that the premise of the Stolen Generations is false. Every time some such material has been added it has been removed based on spurious NPOV claims. Removing the arguments made by one side of the debate does not create a NPOV, it creates, quite deliberately it appears, an article biased towards one POV, the one you clearly favour since you have only acted to help exclude material which criticises that POV. Interesting that you claim that I am the one pushing a POV when it is clear that you and others are the ones doing that by excluding as much material from an opposing POV as you can. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:6430:5D62:BCF1:678A (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only editor disagreeing with you, and you're the elephant in the room. Suggested reading:

WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Clearly, you are an

tedious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again you are avoiding the real issue because you have no valid arguments in your favour. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can make a valid argument against including the opposing arguments, it is impossible to conclude anything but that you want to bias the article. Your attacks on me because I want a balanced article and obviously you don't, give you away to any objective reader of this talk page. Stop avoiding the real issue. Either produce a valid argument or admit your bias and stop obstructing. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:2D78:8AF9:62C0:3226 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [3] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

The following is the existing text in the section under dispute 'sorted' in order to show the relative proportions of text as it relates to each POV:

Neutral wording in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations”

Wording which favours the Stolen Generations thesis and containing statements regarding the historical basis for it.

Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis

Wording in this section that explains the historical basis for arguing that the Stolen Generations thesis is false.

ZERO, i.e. none, nothing - all edited out.

2001:8003:642A:6C00:7882:D1C3:9C8E:7DF6 (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Text excerpts hidden/collapsed 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) by Sangdeboeuf (talk))[reply]

You gotta condense your thoughts better. It's too lengthy. It's not fair subjecting us to this much text. And please consider registering an account, ZERO, it would make things much easier for everyone. The point is

consensus, here on Wikipedia and in the historiography—try addressing that, briefly. El_C 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

How horrible for you to have to read something longer than 140 characters. If you'd bothered to even glance at the text above you might have noticed that what is above, everything after the point where I noted that I have referred the issue to the NPOV Noticeboard, is just the text of the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” sorted in order to show the relative proportions of text as discussed from the differing POVs. You might have also noticed that the word ZERO at the end of it is under the category "Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis". It's there to make it easy for any objective readers of this page to realize that ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out, that while there is ample content representing the pro side of the argument, there is ZERO content left in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” from the opposing side of the historical debate. The article has been sanitised so that only one POV is represented. The historiography of the Stolen Generations is that it has been a hotly contested issue and still is. Since it has been a controversial issue, readers of the article might like to know why, i.e. they might like to know what arguments the opposing side presented. Sanitising an article is not presenting a NPOV, it is the exact opposite.

How about a response to the actual issue rather than obsess over the fact that I don't use an account?

PS there is a reason that I haven't registered an account. I am aware of at least 3 editors who were hounded off Wikipedia by trolls. The trolls all used the same technique - once they decided that they didn't like an editor, they identified what contributions that editor had made and set about reverting, overwriting and generally wiping out any contributions that editor had made. Dealing with them became so time-consuming that the editors all just gave up editing Wikipedia. Is that the sort of thing that you mean when you say "it would make things much easier for everyone"? No thanks, I'll stick with my dynamic IP address; it limits the potential damage. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your assumptions of

single purpose account with only one aim on Wikipedia. I also reject the notion that you need to be so longwinded—you can and ought to condense your thoughts much more briefly, thereby having a better chance they'd be read closely, by myself, or anyone else. Drowning us in text is not the way to advance your argument. Finally, I reject the claim the article has been sanitized of opposing views—if anything, these are overrepresented well beyond scholarly consensus. El_C 07:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, avoiding the issue, denial, but no rational explanations as to how removing ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view makes for a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is my response: I dispute that all opposing views had been removed, as you claim. And furthermore, I challenge that, if anything, the minority point of view is overrepresented in the article, enough to constitute

undue weight. El_C 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

If you look closely, Break 2 was inserted by

WP:NOTHERE are more red herrings and more Wikilawyering [[4]] by you. I am simply trying to achieve a balanced article despite the efforts of you and the other editors to promote only one POV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I added break 1 and 2, for ease of use in the legend—because the IP's

rather lengthy. El_C 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Cheers, El_C. The WALLS were doing my head in, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have

On the other hand, some Aboriginal people do not condemn the government's past actions. They believed that the government intended to offer them opportunities for education and an eventual job. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:

I guess the government didn't mean it as something bad but our mothers weren't treated as people having feelings…Who can imagine what a mother went through? But you have to learn to forgive.[1]

I was put in a mission dormitory when I was eight, nine. I cried for two nights, then I was right with the rest of those kids. We weren't stolen; our family was there. It was a good system. Or a better system than now. At least my generation learnt to read and write properly.^[2]

1. ^ Confidential evidence 305, South Australia.
2. ^ Van Tiggelen, John (14 March 2008). "'Remove children' plea at Aurukun". The Age. Archived from the original on 17 May 2008. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

This looks like an example of undue

I agree with that analysis. El_C 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Gsell, the Catholic bishop of Darwin in the 1940s, defended the policy of removing especially children of mixed race, writing:

[I]f they had families, and if they were surrounded by that love and affection family life offers to the young even amongst primitive peoples, it might be cruel. But these creatures roam miserably around the camps and their behaviour is often worse than that of native children. It is an act of mercy to remove them as soon as possible from surroundings so insecure."^[1]

1. ^ F.X. Gsell, The Bishop with 150 Wives:Fifty years as a missionary, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1955, pp. 154-5.

This is another example of giving undue

Thanks again; looks like more

WP:SYNTH. El_C 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I second that, Sangdeboeuf. The article has been in need of a clean-up for some time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some background information regarding the European colonization of Australia would be very helpful for establishing the context in which the child removal policies occurred. A "See also" link such as to

Any help finding other sources for background information would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russia (19 Century) kidnapped Asian children to educate them and use them as administrators.

Devshirme Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with improving this article unless reliable sources explicitly compare these things with the kidnapping of Indigenous Australian children. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So please remove the subsection, which lacks sources.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the section in question now. You're welcome to make edits to the page yourself. However, I have removed the content whose relevance to this article is not supported by sources, and placed links to those topics under "See also". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

gnome for many years. His English is awkward, so he's reticent to make content changes without someone at least proof reading them. I follow up on his observations on talk pages as he has a keen eye for detail, plus provides links to usable material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Source : http://www.originsamerica.org/adoption-trauma/adoption-induced-ptsd-in-mothers/ Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article:

A minority of historians dispute that substantial numbers of mixed-blood Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families. They contend that some children were removed mainly to protect them from neglect and abuse.^[1]

1. ISBN 978-1-74115-962-2
   .