Talk:Stolen Generations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Historical debates over the Stolen Generations

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)

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)

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)

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. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Text that reads that Windschuttle "argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have, in some cases, been exaggerated and in other cases, invented" is an accurate statement of his position. The terms 'denies', 'denier' and 'denial' are commonly linked to Holocaust Denial and their use with respect to a historian who does not deny that there were abuses but argues for an accurate assessment of what abuse did occur would fail the requirement for a NPOV.

2. Please refrain from using the terms 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines. Basically 'Aboriginal' is only to be used as an adjective, not as a noun. Some Aboriginal people consider being called an 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' insulting. It was explained to me by Aboriginal people that when they hear the terms used that way they feel like it is being deliberately done and that white people who use them are avoiding using the words 'person' or 'people', that they are being called an Aboriginal 'something' but not a person. It may not be intended that way but that is how they feel. It is so widely known that you don’t use 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines that this really shouldn’t be an issue anymore. The following are just a few of the references that are out there regarding this issue.

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)

Minority historical view

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.

This work is not cited anywhere else but after this one short paragraph in the lead section. Surely there must be some further content worth summarizing for the article. Doesn't placing this material in the lead without any context give undue WP:WEIGHT to the minority view? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In answer to the first query, I'm sure there is material in the publication worth mining. As regards the WP:UNDUE, no I don't believe so. Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." [my emphasis]. The fact that denial has certainly become the minority position is probably worth noting in the lead as it was the antithesis being pushed prior the official apology. I'm uncomfortable with the "They contend..." as mixture of WP:CLAIM and MOS:OPED. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dispute that denial is the minority view. My concern is that the placement of this text in the lead – and nowhere else – gives undue weight to the minority view itself. This article currently doesn't explain just who this "minority of historians" are – Windschuttle is the only historian mentioned by name as disputing the basic idea of the Stolen Generations – which is one reason the text in the lead looks suspect to me.

Using Google preview, I haven't found any mention of "neglect", "abuse", or the phrase "stolen generation(s)" at all in the above-cited work, which is another red flag to me. Most of the above-cited work is not shown in Google Books preview. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be helpful for someone who knows a bit more about it to verify this text, and to add sources that can establish the minority view's standing among serious scholars and historians. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The article reads as if it were stuck in another decade where the subject was extremely controversial, then left in limbo after edit wars. The Indigenous Law Resources site/database would be worth checking through, as would the Australian Government's Bringing them home: The 'Stolen Children' report (1997). I did try to muddle through archived versions being used throughout the article some time ago, and update them to reflect the current layout and live urls. It's probably a good time to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue that the article needs to capture is that this is not really a controversial issue within academia anymore (with the exception of a few outlier pop-historians like Keith Windschuttle); the disagreement is in the media sphere stoked by journalists like Andrew Bolt and politicians like Pauline Hanson, and these people have significant followings who believe pronouncements that appeal to their own subconscious biases, and ignore the painstaking research done by people who are actually experts in the field. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC).

That was certainly my hunch. Ideally we would cite reliable secondary or tertiary sources that frame the issue in those terms. Any suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be editing the statement to represent the dissent as cited to conform with the majority opinion, making it a self-negating sentence, as is popular on Wikipedia whenever there is a minority opinion to be included. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this should not be in the lede, as it currently appears nowhere else in the article, and, lacking further explanation while still being notable, let it remain brief, understandable, and, if necessary, glossed over. There is no better place to do this than the lede. Undue weight will apply to the opposing (and common) view if this statement is moved to another section or removed, entirely. 24.144.46.236 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the statement appears nowhere else in the article, it's definitely WP:UNDUE to have it in the lead section – see MOS:LEAD. I've moved the text to the "History wars" section accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that this statement was originally sourced only to Windschuttle, and added to the lead (and nowhere else) with the rationale that we had to "state the contrary view". That's not what a neutral point of view is about, and in any event it misrepresents Flood's book (the Flood citation was added later), so I've removed it from the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added back a similar paragraph to the lead acknowledging the minority historical viewpoint. Referenced are this ABC News editorial (which is in defence of the majority viewpoint) as well as Keith Windschuttle's book The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History Vol. 3, which serves as a critique of the majority viewpoint. trainsandtech (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph appears to conflate "a minority of historians" with "critics", most of whom are not historians, by jumping right from the first to the second without explaining the difference beyond adding brief qualifiers such as "anthropologist", "journalist", etc. Whether such critics are "noted" is not sufficiently supported by the references either. Per Due and undue weight, we shouldn't give disproportionate emphasis to minority viewpoints, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all – since the only "minority" scholar named is Windschuttle himself, and only a few of the named "critics" get any (brief) mention in the article, this material is out of place in the lead section, which is meant to be a summary of the article as a whole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Please read the following link, your page is grossly inaccurate..https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/white-mothers-of-stolen-children-also-deserve-an-apology-20101207-18o7t.html 2001:8003:6D11:BB00:D587:9982:B4D5:F532 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Did Australia have a civilisation before 1788?

WP:NOTAFORUM. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Civilisation did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Those are the opening words of Manning Clark's epic "History of Australia"[1] and it is very loose thinking to hold any other view. Civilisation is an urbanised society, and we talk of the Ancient Egyptian, Roman, Aztec and other civilisations in this way. To talk of a pre-European Australian civilisation gives the wrong impression. Or perhaps that is the impression being sought by partisan culture warriors; to pump up a land of wanderers into the sort of society we associate with civilisations, including all the infrastructure, government, specialisation and so on. We can talk of a pre-European New Zealand civilisation, for the Maori certainly built cities and had a sophisticated society, but for Australia, I think that in the interests of accuracy we can find other words to refer to the culture and society of the inhabitants that the British colonisers found. Not to demean or downplay those inhabitants and their culture, but not to mislead our readers who come to Wikipedia seeking information. If we use a word, it should be apt. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC) If we wish to make a definite point about the contrast between European society and Aboriginal society, as your two edit summaries suggested ([2] [3]), then we need a reliable, published source that states that contrast explicitly. You did not provide a source, which is why I reverted to the article's status quo ante. Note that the statement is about Europeans' belief in their own superiority, not just a neutral classification of Aboriginal society as urbanized or not urbanized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Doesn't the language used make exactly that point? But, I'm open to any suggestions that do not misleadingly describe Aboriginal Australians as having a civilisation. I note that our statement is listed as unsourced since January, and goes back at least two years without a source. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The notion that indigenous Australians did not have a civilisation is Eurocentric garbage unworthy of any further consideration. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC) A bold statement! What informs your thinking, Daveosaurus? --Pete (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I see this as more of a linguistic problem than a definitional one. Pete is correct in saying that Aboriginal society was not a civilisation according to the somewhat rigid description in that linked article. The danger we face in saying that is any implication that Australian Aboriginal people were therefore not civilised. Unfortunately, with no written history, and the tendency of some even today to want denigrate Aboriginal people, that is an ongoing problem. We must not give ammunition to such people. Many might argue that 18th century European "civilisation" was not that crash hot, with the customs of its legal systems to take minor criminals and execute them, or send them to the other side of the world for seven years. I would prefer to avoid using the word "civilisation", and speak instead of levels of sophistication of society. No educated person would suggest that Australia Aboriginal society was not complex and sophisticated. Even the mention of "comparative technological advancement" is problematic. Europeans had what they saw as great land management technology, but much it turned out be be useless and quite inappropriate in the Australian environment. Think about ploughing and irrigating salt-ridden dry land. Aboriginal people had "technology" that worked here. But that's enough on comparison here. We won't include all of what I have just written in the article. I'm not sure what words to recommend, but hope others can add to my thoughts to develop a good set of words. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Civilisation isn't about behaviour. It's a binary condition. A society either has urban development or not. That's the basis of the word. One can certainly discuss the quality of a society's culture and behaviour, and I agree that British civilisation of the Eighteenth Century was sadly lacking in many ways. Then again it's hard to find a civilisation of that era that was what we'd now call "civilised", a word which initially meant somebody with city manners, rather than the presumably less sophisticated airs of the countryside. --Pete (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I was trying to highlight the difference between "civilisation" as a noun describing a state of society, and the adjective "civilised" when describing a person or group of people. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC) In the context of settlers arriving from Europe in the Eighteenth Century, they regarded the locals as neither civilised nor possessing a civilisation. --Pete (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC) if we use the definitions of a civilisation as set by the ancient egyptians being recognised as the first civilised culture on earth than we can accurately say that with no fixed infrastructure, active trading, currency or agriculture tan no the aboriginal culture were not civilised and there for civilisation in australia did not start until the more likely english landed in sydney. you could argue chinese made settlements in NT but its unclear how much they settled vs just taking form the cultures in the area. the only evidence for this is rice farms they left behind. 101.167.226.85 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing Windschuttle as a source

Thread retitled from "Whitewashing".

I note the attempted removal by Sangdeboeuf of an article by historian Keith Windschuttle which was cited to support the following text"

There is ongoing contention among politicians, commentators, and historical, political, and legal experts as to whether the forced removals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that occurred during the Stolen Generations can be accurately described as genocidal acts and particularly whether they meet the definition of genocide in article II (e) of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Is anyone seriously doubting that this is a contentious issue? Removing all mention here of one side of the issue doesn't make it any less contentious. In fact it smacks of censorship and goes directly against NPOV.

Yes, I'm aware that Quadrant is on the list of perennial sources - as "generally unreliable" - but the contribution of editor Windschuttle do not fall under any of the objections raised in discussion.

Perhaps Sangdeboeuf could explain his thought processes on this? From where I sit it looks like there was no review of the material or our text, just a mindless elimination of everything from this source, regardless of any merit. --Pete (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Calling the removal "whitewashing" is an odd move. Some might say that's what Windschuttle is doing. In any case, Windschuttle's published opinions as editor count as a primary source for any "contention", and so should not be used to support statements in Wikipedia's voice. If his views are WP:DUE, then more reliable sources will have noted them.

No one is removing all mention of any side of the issue. In fact the text of the article was not changed at all. Where does WP:NPOV say we have to represent "both sides" anyway? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you please comment on the point I raised wrt the wording? Likewise wrt to the perennial source discussion. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

See reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Removing all mention here of one side of the issue..." There are only "sides" for those who desperately seek confirmation from discredited, right wing bigots for their own position. To the vast majority, this is simply a historical article. If you really must promote a position of denial, please find a better source than Windschuttle. If your view is correct, there simply must be better sources. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If an issue is contentious, then surely you accept that there must be contending views? There is a note at the top of this talk page that the issue is controversial. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?

Windschuttle is a noted historian who has written extensively and published books on this topic. I think WP:NPOV applies here? --Pete (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Windschuttle himself is extremely contentious. I'm sure you know that. HIS article should say that. You would also know that WP:NPOV does not mean including all fringe views. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those two words are to be found in his BLP article. I suggest you take note of our BLP procedures, which apply on all of Wikipedia, including talk pages. The subject of this article is contentious, as noted. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing no good reason to remove Windschuttle's scholarly article, apart from the superficial moans above. --Pete (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The source isn't a scholarly article, but an editorial in a political opinion journal. If you want to make the case for citing Windschuttle's opinion as a recognized expert, then fine, demonstrate that his views are accepted in the scholarly community. I don't see how the Quadrant RfC is going to help you there, though.

You appear to be using the phrase "ongoing contention" in a Wikipedia article as a reason to go looking for contentious views to cite. That's the opposite of responsible sourcing, and reflects a bigger problem with this article, which is the apparent over-reliance on interpreting primary sources. Unless there's a source that directly comments on the "contention", then the whole paragraph should be cut, in my opinion.

The onus to achieve consensus is on users wishing to include material. That means incorporating all users' legitimate concerns, not dismissing them as "superficial moans".

NPOV does apply indeed. To wit: "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity."

NPOV means following reliable sources. Citing an editorial in a magazine considered generally unreliable makes the article less neutral, not more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

If you took the time to read the source you rail against, you would realise your mistake. It is not an editorial. It is an article written by the editor-in-chief, and as per the RfC discussion, which you also seem not to have read, is not the sort of user-submitted online content which is rightly considered unreliable. That's why I referred to your contribution here as superficial; you did not look at the material under discussion.

I do not need to list Windschuttle's credentials on a talk page. I refer you to his BLP article.

The contentiousness of the subject hardly needs defending; it is noted above in the talk page headers that the topic is controversial. HiLo's bizarre suggestion that a contentious subject involves a uniformity of opinion deserved a response; surely you do not share his view?

"Generally unreliable" does not mean "completely unreliable". I refer you to the ongoing discussion here where useful sourcing by notable authors has been removed by the sort of mindless robot editing you endorse. Perhaps you could participate in the wider discussion? --Pete (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"I do not need to list Windschuttle's credentials..." Such as his infamous pygmy paper written with a non-existent co-author? Windschuttle is a discredited fraud who edits a discredited journal. He panders to racists and right-wing bigots who pay for his journal. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Skyring: editorial (noun): "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers". The reason for avoiding such sources is that they lack independent fact-checking and other editorial oversight, which are key elements in any reputable source. Once again, the onus is on you to show how the source is reliable. It's not on me to go searching through user-created biographies for evidence supporting your argument. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Windschuttle has been a prominent scholarly participant in the topic for decades would be enough for most. I didn't write his BLP, which you don't appear to have read. Have you actually followed any of the sources provided? It makes it hard to AGF with someone just talking off the cuff. --Pete (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Since he's such a prominent scholar, it should be easy to cite a peer-reviewed or other academic source for his views. But that still doesn't address the original research problem I mentioned regarding primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Pete - Fifteen years ago I studied at a prominent, scholarly, Australian university. Part of my course involved (by choice and with the agreement of my scholarly course leaders) an in depth look at some historical Aboriginal issues. None of the scholarly academics I worked with, and none of the information I found in that scholarly university's extensive collection of relevant, scholarly books and journals, took me anywhere near anything by Windschuttle. When he was mentioned on a couple of social occasions, it was with laughter and contempt. Are you sure he's a scholarly participant in the topic? (I won't argue about "prominent". He is that. But not in a positive way.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

History

Race theories and practice in Australia in the 20th century 196.207.44.208 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected

In the Notable people section, for Belinda Dann, could you change deceased at 107 to longest known lived survivor and then put (1900-2007) next to her name?--2600:100C:A201:DA57:E107:4764:B6BA:AFC6 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It already says "deceased at 107 years of age making her the longest-lived member of the stolen generation" RudolfRed (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)