Talk:Indigenous Australians

• Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 1
• Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 2
• Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 3
• Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 4

Education section bias concern

I think the statistics on the Education section is bias. I mean it's not right putting one group of people against a group of many groups of people (ahhh - the rest of Australia) and call that 'objective' statistics. It also further brings on that whole other stupid "Us vs. Them" slant. It's just not right. And so what?! Some Indigenous Australians still live traditionally so the statistic is tainted. It's almost like saying Amish people blah blah to the rest of the US population.

I don't see this kind of section in other articles about other Indigenous Peoples around the world. I'm respecting the writer of that section and not modifying it or deleting it.

Please whoever wrote it, modify it. TwinqleTwinqle (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll re naming Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Indigenous

Contribute to a poll here.

Religion/Belief Systems

On 4 March I did some tidying up of the section on Culture, because much of this had been copied straight from the main Indigenous Australian culture article, which has since been much revised and improved. Or maybe the copying was the other way round. Anyway, I don't think we need to have the same material in two places, and so I left a shorter summary in Indigenous Australians and a link to the more detailed article in Indigenous Australian culture. There were also some problems with the statistics on Christianity quoted there, which have been explained in Indigenous Australian culture. I also changed the section heading from "Religion" to "Beleief Systems" because traditional Aboriginal beliefs (Dreaming, etc) are not normally called a religion.

On 5 March someone who signs himself "172.130.77.138" reverted some of my changes, and gave no explanation of why. No doubt "172.130.77.138" did so in good faith, but you really shouldn't revert someone's changes without any comment being given in the "edit summary". So, I have reverted them back, and am explaining my actions here. I am happy to discuss here the pros and cons of whether the section should be headed "belief systems" or "religion", but let's not have a revert war!

So, "172.130.77.138", and anybody else who cares to join in, I look forward to discussing these issues with you here. RayNorris 10:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert, Ray Norris, I was wrongly assuming that Belief Systems meant only the traditional Aboriginal Religion. I also added a bit of information on Christianity among Aborigines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.133.237.33 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

OK good - no worries. RayNorris 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This section started with a statement about the inconclusiveness of census data and just said in a footnote "citation needed." I have provided a citation about the methodological problems with the census in dealing with Aboriginal people. The citation (Colin Tatz's work) is a general point about the census, not specific to religion, but his conclusions apply as much to religion as to any other census data. Drvestone (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Up To Ray Norris

... to say Indigenous Australians did not have 'religion' when he wouldnt know if they did or not. What is Norris' authority that they did not have religion? I know they did and do for specialist cultural reasons.

Ray Norris, can you buzz off commenting about stuff you very obviously have totally no skill in or authority to meddle in.

Bold text

Aboriginal assimilation debate

The article makes no mention of the debate over aboriginal assimilation. Folks have been predicting it since the days of the colonies and many decision makers in Australia beleive it is the final solution. I understand a majority of blacks are only part bloods and 69% of marriages involving and aboriginal involve a non aboriginal.

124.183.177.70 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right - we should have a section about assimilation. But I don't believe there is any debate nowadays. The concept was indeed very popular until about 10-20 years ago, but has now completely given way to the idea that Indigenous Australians have a culture which is just as important as any other, and steps are being taken at many levels to help Indigenous Australians grow and repair that culture, which was indeed badly damaged by assimilation policies. I don't think any poltical leader who wanted to keep his/her job would nowadays pubicly support assimilation, although I suspect many of them still secretly support it!

I'm happy to do a bit of research and start off a section on that - I'll put it on my to-do list unless somebody gets there before me. RayNorris 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to drive thirty minutes in any direction outside of Sydney, and you'll find the idea is very much alive still. And, anecdotal I know, but the assimilated, integrated Aboriginal people I know seem to be doing a lot better than the ones still clinging onto the old ways. Lankiveil 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The hunter gatherer lifestyle seems like it is no longer viable. The Bennelong society has proposed cash grants to wind up some of these remote communities where 25% of aboriginals still live.

Political leaders don't have to advocate it assimilation, it appears to be well underway already at the level aboriginies live out their lives.

I mean, I'd like to see big brother revive extinct aboriginal languages - that would be fun to watch.

If it has any credibility at all as an ethnicity with a future, the future of aboriginaity is as a minority within the Australian state.

58.164.35.204 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect that "assimilated Aboriginal people seem to be doing a lot better than the ones still clinging onto the old ways." A University of Queensland report on indigenous health shows that all health problems are lower in Aboriginal people who have returned to country (Americans can read "country" as meaning "their traditional lands"), and are living in remote areas in ways closer to traditional lifeways. Mental health problems, in particular, are strikingly lower in those living on country. See T. Vos, B. Barker, L. Stanley, & A. Lopez (2007). The burden of disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: Summary report. School of Population Health, U of Queensland [1]. Assimilation as a practice is alive and well in Australia - witness the recent intervention in the Northern Territory by Howard's government (see Coercive Reconciliation, J. Altman & M. Hinkson (Eds.), North Carlton, Australia: Arena Publications, 2007). A common joke among Aboriginal activists during Howard's time in office was "How do you spell reconciliation, John?" "A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-I-O-N". Drvestone (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoria section

Someone knowledgeable in this subject should review the Victoria section in this article to see if it is reliable. The author of this section has over the last few days added several articles and sections concerning research by some Colin Leslie Dean person, linking to articles written by him and published in what seems like his vanity press. It would seem like original research, non-reliable and non-notable as well as conflict of interest. However, I am not familiar enough with the subject of Indigenous Australians in order to determine if this is also the case here. darkskyz 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Survey released

This is rather exciting. I've only seen the summary as my comp is not up to getting the PDF files of the research. I'll leave editing up to whoever is interested and get the ball rolling by posting here. The Genetic survey (analysis of the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea in comparison with the DNA patterns associated with other early humans) was published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It apparently has proved the Out of Africa hypothesis as well as proved and disproved many other theories. The main findings are: There was only a single colonisation event of a small group who were isolated after the initial arrival (despite archaeological indications there was definitely no second migration). Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations share ancestry with that group and were involved in secondary gene exchange until the land bridge submerged 8,000 years ago (I'm guessing this explains the gracile and robust forms that were thought to indicate 2 migrations). Homo Erectus already inhabited Australia but there was no interbreeding. The original group that left Africa are the direct ancestors of both the Australian Aboriginals and Eurasians. Assuming 1km per year from Africa along the “coastal express” route the first colonisation event was 45,000 BP. Wayne 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff Wayne, can you give us a link to where you found this? I had no idea about homo erectus ever being discovered east of Java, let alone in Australia, but I don't think anything could preclude the possibility, if they migrated east of the Wallace line, then it's very likely they did.petedavo (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the paper being referred to here is this one:

• G Hudjashov (2007-05-22). "Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (21): pp.8726–8730. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702928104. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I also doubt there are any confirmed finds of H. erectus in Australasia or, as Petedavo notes, east of the Wallace line. At least, I am not aware of any; I think a couple of decades ago there was some postulating that H. e. soloensis was ancestral to paleo Aust. remains, but this is now discounted. The quoted article only mentions H. erectus in the context of SE Asia, and one of the conclusions drawn from their study's data is that "local H. erectus or archaic Homo sapiens populations did not contribute to the modern aboriginal Australian gene pool" (emphasis added; 'local' in the sense of local to SE Asia, not Australasia). So may be just a case of reportage of the study getting it slightly wrong.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Much as I suspected, I think it'd be too early to postulate anything other than to give a timeline for dna divergence indicating isolation of groups. The lead in for dna divergence to show up would therefore seem to confirm the -50K time frame for habitation of the Australian mainland rather than the earlier fossil deposits of ash & soot which some had postulated indicate change to deliberate burning of forests for hunting upto or beyond -100k. In the absence of any hard evidence of Human or Proto Human archaeology we'd have to assume then that the deforestation by burning changing Australia to savannah and eucalypt forest might of been a natural occurrence, as can be seen by lightening fires today, and the assumption that humans designed and started the practice might be erroneous. They might of just saw the consequences, found that it was beneficial to hunting food, and therefore took up the practice of burning due to what they observed and how they benefited.petedavo (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those few claims of occupational evidence 100 ka and beyond remain exceptionally anomalous and generally viewed with scepticism. And although the Hudjashov et al. paper cited above seems comfortable with c. 50 ka, that's still at the high-end of the spread of date ranges, and this long chronology (while oft quoted) has comparatively little uncontrovertable physical evidence behind it. By my reading of some reasonably current sources, more/most archaeologists would be supportive of a statement of occupation by at least 40–45 ka, with the most accepted datings obtained via direct evidence towards the younger end of this range. At some point should probably rustle up a few of the more recent survey papers and tweak the article accordingly. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Belief systems

Somebody can feel free to correct me here if I am wrong, but census figures show a very small % of black people adhere to a traditional religion. We should mention the census figure at least, it was like 2% or something.

Australian Aboriginies have overwhemlingly accepted the Christian religion.

58.164.35.204 02:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you would find, a large proportion report "No religion" (3rd most "popular religion" throughout Blacktown, New South Wales which is the city with largest Indigenous Austrlalian population.Garrie 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, it is quite simple to wipe out an existing culture. It is quite difficult to instill a new one. While "if anything" they may be Catholic / Anglican, like the rest of Australia the chances are they are "no practicing religion".Garrie 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One has to be very cautious in interpreting census statistics about Aboriginal people. Many Aboriginal people simply refuse to participate, since they have little reason to trust white govt employees who show up at their doors. Many living in remote areas may not have even been contacted, if they are living on country ("country"="their traditional lands", for Americans who may not know the term). Others may give answers that they believe the white govt employee wants to hear, answers they believe will create less trouble for them in the future if the whites believe it. So any census stats on how many Aboriginal people practice Christianity vs. "traditional religion" are highly suspect. (For methodological notes on this, see Colin Tatz, Aboriginal Suicide Is Different, 1999, [2]).

"Religion" is a mis-nomer anyway when it comes to traditional Aboriginal beliefs. As I understand it, their indigenous knowledge systems cannot easily be cut up into separate pieces named "religion", "ecology", "science", "art", etc. Knowledge is knowledge, and the spiritual/religious is one part of knowledge, interrelated to other parts. (E.g., see Mudrooroo, 1995, Us Mob, Sydney: Angus & Robertson; and D.B. Rose, 2000, Dingo Makes Us Human, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press.) Drvestone (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal Politics

Can someone had some information on saying how the tribe leader was chosen and stuff. I need the know how politics worked before the Europeans colonised, even though i think they actually invaded. Efansay ^talk 00:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no "tribe leader and stuff" - indigenous groups were extremely ahierarchical. Traditional law was in the custody of the entire community, with elders in particular being respected for their knowledge of customary practices. There is plenty of good printed material on this if you are completing an assignment or something.

After the European invasion, a number of organised resistance leaders sprang up - the earliest and one of the most well known of these was Pemulwuy, but there were many others, such as Tjandamurra. Slac speak up! 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reiteration of my above comment: Indigenous Australians

As in, this article incorporates [[Torres Straight Islanders]]Torres Strait Islanders_{link corrected}, who (obviously) are the subject of an individual article, as well as this article.

But at this stage there is no "unified" article for Indigenous inhabitants of Mainland Australia, or as a lot of people would know them - ATSIC included - Aboriginal Australians / Australian Aboriginals.

I know that it is a pretty diverse group of people. The same way that American Indians don't really exist as a "single race", and that term redirects.

But at the moment, if you try to look for an article that discusses "indigenous people from mainland Australia", you can't really find one.

Is this something that can be addressed while this is the WP:ACOTF?

Garrie 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are asking for is at worst a WP:SYNTH or at best a duplicate article to this, there is no recognised group of people known/referred to "Mainland Aboriginals". Gnangarra 04:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is exactly the same as expecting to find an article on "American-Indians-Sans-People-From-Greenland-And-Long-Island." It's a pointless and arbitrary distinction since in addition to the massive variation on the mainland such an article would exclude people of the Tiwi Islands, Tasmania and the Torres Strait for no good reason except that they happen to live on islands. I can see a lot of merit in having article on just Aborigines and just TSIs. I can see absolutely no merit in having one article on mainland Aborigines, one on TSIs, one on Tiwi islanders, one on Tasmanians and so forth for every non-Mainland Australian group. Ethel Aardvark

Except for the article on "mainland Aborigines", every other article exists.Garrie 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attached to a specific solution. I am asking because the current article structure confuses the hell out of me. When you look at Indigenous_Australians#Mainland_Australia, you get directed to a list of four articles and are presented with a very sparse summary. That is what I would like to see improved. And I am happy to collaborate. We have succinct articles on Indigenous Australians from the Tiwi Islands and Groote Elyandt, Tasmania, and Torres Strait. What we don't have, is a summary artice to briefly discuss Indigenous Australians from "the mainland". It seems that if anything, this article is already a synthesis, bringing together eethnically, culturally and linguisticaly, peoples who are geographically isolated from each other.

I thinks thats more a reflection on the section lacking in information as there are 6 see also articles in that section the 4 you refer to are see also for the clans section. There actually over 200 recognised groups. This article itself isnt a synth as it about the "official" ethnic group referred to by Australians as Indigenous. I think there is also a strong case to halve the amount of content on in this article creating more succinct and detailed daughter articles, that was one my considerations behind the nomination for ACOTF Gnangarra 05:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of Tasmanains those groups are not isolated. There is and always has been cultural, linguistic and ethnic overlap betweent he other three groups and they overlap seamlessly. Tasmanians are included because they are rather obviously indigenous Australians. As for the rest of your comment, I'm confused. We have summaries of the island groups precisely because they are small subgroups. In the same manner we could readily create a summary article on the Indians of Long Island or New York State. What we could not do however is create an article on Native Americans that excludes Long Islanders or New Yorkers, or at least not rationally. That's because Long Islanders are part of the spectrum of the broader Native American group. And in exactly the same way Tiwi Islanders have a summary because they are a subgroup, but it would be impossible to summarise Aborigines as a group in a manner that somehow excludes the Tiwi Islanders. The only solution would seem to be what we have now: a major article on Aborigines with some select groups such as Tiwi Islanders given special treatment. To try to give similar treatment to Mainland Aborigines while exclusing those specific groups seems unworkable. Basically I agree with Gnangarra; we should be working at getting more daughter articles on the subgroups, not on suggesting that the mainalnd as a whole was populated by some homogeneous group that were all more similar to one another than to the island groups. That simply isn't true.Ethel Aardvark 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight:

Officially there is a group known as "Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders".

There is a group known as "Torres Strait Islanders".

It would be synthesis to create an article on Aboriginals - that is everyone who is "Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders" but NOT "Torres Strait Islanders".

Is that what you are telling me?

I agree that each distinct group needs an article, and that articles like Darug people are woefully indadequate. I am happy to contribute, but have poor access to offline sources. In fact, I would like to think I have been trying to improve the presentation of material related to Indigenous Australians, and that is my background in asking for such an article to be created.

I know, that I don't know enough to go making additional articles that are meaningful and it is better to discuss it here or somewhere else in project space rather than create unverified stub articles which have poor information.Garrie 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there is no problem whatsoever with creating an article on Aboriginals, and I said the same thing above. The point is that Aborigine is not a perfect synonym for "Mainland Indigienous Australian". Tiwi Islanders and Tasmanians to name just two groups are also indisuputably Aborigines but are not Mainland Indigenous Australians. So while an article on Aborigines woudl be fine and article on Mainland Indigenous Australians makes no more sense than an article on Native Americans exlcuding Greenland and Long Island.Ethel Aardvark

Template proposal

I wonder if the articles, linked as 'main' and 'see also', might benefit from a template. Has this been considered before? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Would I upset anyone by moving more of the references to <ref> / </ref> tags? In particular, the inline URL's marked "ABS" like this one:ABS "ABS" is a pretty vague reference caption, they produce "a few" publications each year.Garrie 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I added references (there were none) to the Torres Strait Islanders section. The populations are different to the ones in my sources, and I don't have a source for distribution. While mostly in the north of Queensland... isn't disputed, 6,800 / 42,000 is the bit that needs a specific reference. 10% of 458,520 is 46,000 so 6800 + 42000 is more than what the ABS reports in their 2001 census - and the 10% includes the "4% mixed TSI / Aboriginal background" that the ABS report.Garrie 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pornography/alcohol proposals

Where would be the proper place to add the recent sweeping bans on pornography and alcohol? Or have these been added and I missed it? Universaladdress 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have been added. You can add sourced content under the current issues heading if you wish. Recurring dreams 12:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think section 4.1, 4.3, and 4.5 are all equally valid places for different elements of the wide ranging proposals which relate to

1. restriction of alcohol
2. restriction of pornography
3. forced medical supervision of minors
4. incresed levels of police supervision of communities
5. reduction in self-governance of communities
6. goal of reducing crime
7. goal of reducing substance abuse
8. goal of improving health and diet of minors

Garrie 05:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

PS to me it smacks of Stolen generation mark 2.Garrie 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Me two I dont think it'll get pass a proposal, the cynic in me thinks the federal election is getting closer Gnangarra 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere at the moment as it isnt legislated its currently just a political proposal, you could write a Wikinews article about it though. Gnangarra 05:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. American news sources were pretty unclear about whether this was a proposal or something that had been implemented. Universaladdress 12:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be different from "stolen generation" (mark 2) issues which would be political suicide if it was another case of ignorant interference. While aboriginal activists are condemning it as racist from what I see on ABC and SBS the elders of the communities involved support it as the only solution to the problem. Even the opposition supports it. Wayne 04:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the Stolen Generation, even european-educated aboriginals saw that putting children into missions was often better for the individual child. Hindsight vs real-time realism. I think the only way to see if this is a good way of dealing with the problem is to look back in five years to see if the situation has improved more in the NT compared to "similar communities" in Queensland. Not that I'm suggesting there are communities in Qld with high levels of child sexual assault, I don't know anything other than what's on the news.

Clearly if the same situations happened in Sydney, DOCS would remove the kids from that situation. I don't know what would happen in Bourke, or Wilcannia. Garrie 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsreader on Seven's "Sunrise" referred to a group from Melbourn calling the plan "Stolen Generation mark 2". Unfortunately she didn't name the group. Anyone know anything further?Garrie 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it merits an inclusion in the Issues page, with perhaps a short excerpt then a link to its own separate page as a "Current Event" War-hammer 07:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

History section

While the section has a {{main}} link at the top - it was actually a duplicate of that article. I have tried to summarise it, I think it is still drastically way too long given that there is a seperate article dedicated to History of Indigenous Australians. ie, in this article it should be a summary written in summary style of History of Indigenous Australians. Garrie 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Up until the 60's or something, Aborigines were legally considered fauna and not humans from what I remember. I think that we need to find some citations and add a statement about their status somewhere in this section as it' very telling of previous attitudes, which somewhat permeate through to today in issues such as the Stolen Generation apology issue etc.petedavo (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is not the appropriate place to vent urban myths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qemist (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Genocide of Indigenous Australians

In articles about jewish allways is mentioned genocide. I think in article about indigenous australians alsou should be mentioned genocide of australian aboriginals. 159.148.71.250 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• While we're at it lets talk about the thousands of Chinese and European immigrants murdered by the Aboriginals shall we. Damien Russell (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture section

The Culture section seems to not include ATSI people whatsoever. Which is in line with my suggestion that there should be an article for "mainland Indigenous Australians" equivalent to Tasmanian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. I'm happy to see it expanded, but there is little similar information at Torres Strait Islanders, although there is a category . Garrie 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

There's a proposal to start a WikiProject Indigenous Australia, if anyone would be interested. --Ptcamn 06:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I recommend that this page be marked off for vandalism and therefore be restricted for editing. I don't know the wiki code to recommend that on the page itself, but surely recent edit history suggests that vandals like to mess around with this page. War-hammer 21:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

request

I moved the following post to the bottom of the page. My response follows: Fred ☻ 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please whenever refering to Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders, always capatlise the A and TSI as you are talikng about a race of people, you wouldn't ever refer to Australians with a lower case "a" so please don't do it in this case either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.224.19 (talk)

I have no firm opinion on whether any group of australians should have their name capitalised. The name Aboriginal etc., usually refers to a type of Australian community - not a race. Fred ☻ 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The words Aborigine/Aboriginal, when used to refer to Indigneous Australians, are proper nouns and so should always be capitalised. This is standard grammatical practice - check any good Oz dictionary. When referring to aborigines in other parts of the world, it tends not to be a proper noun. This is already in the article here

It is wrong to capitalize "aboriginal" when it is used as an adjective, eg in "The aboriginal inhabitants of Tasmania were exterminated". Refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) which gives no license to the capitalization of adjectives. Qemist (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to front - please place new messages on bottom of page - and signature goes at end not beginning!-

Damien2010 00:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) The less polite way of saying 'appropriation' is that aborigines where hunted and shot as a means of removing them from their land, especially in Tasmania. Why is that this amendment is continually removed without any discussion on the talk page? Who are the faceless editors who refuse to discuss these amendments?

124.170.222.210 22:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Can someone please explain why my addition of a paragraph stating that Tasmanian Aboriginals where hunted by white settlers is continually removed? Im a seventh generation (we arrived 1790) european descent Australian. I know from my family the atrocoties that where committed. Yet academic texts continually phrase it in such polite terms. Why say 'died from disease, loss of land and direct violence'. Why not say 'where often hunted and killed especially in Tasmania'. Australians owe future generations something more than a politicially correct history of their early inhabitation of Australia.

Damien2010 22:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Ive created an account and logged in now for discussion of the above.

The opening paragraph is contentious. It would be more accurate to describe Aborigines as the inhabitants prior to European settlement, but a link to the entry on the Bradshaws may be sufficient. This at least explains why some believe the Aborigines may not be the original inhabitants of Australia.

Ive been told that my entry on aborigines is 'unencyclopedic' and needs a citation. Could somebody please explain to me how to make my entry more 'encyclopedic'. As for citation, it has been passed down through our family. How do I add this as a citation. Im assuming this is good enough...it was good enough for the bible so I assume it will meet wikipedias standards. Here is the desired entry. "Aborigines where hunted and shot as a means of removing them from their land, especially in Tasmania."Damien2010 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact is that some of the mainstreem population are still fairly racist, its in all cultures, we will class someone according to race and the Native people do not rate highly in terms of respect. The Australian governments treatment of the native population at the moment is one of assimulation as the Idiginous affairs minister has refered to his wish for this to happen. It is not widely reported or teached about the atrocities that happened untill 1928, or is their history and culture taught in schools. Not only were the Native people shot but were removed from their land and there language and culture was destroyed in many comunities. Enlil Ninlil 04:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres the bizarre thing. As an Australian of European heritage with a history to first settlement, I want the truth to be known. But unfortunately political correctness has managed to poison academic text, and telling the truth in its raw form has become unacceptable. The truth is, white Australians commited genocide. We have to accept this in order to move on and improve the lives of Aboriginal Australians. There is no polite way of saying it. I would welcome debate from others who see it differently.Damien2010 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We of course want truthful content, and want to be able to take out untruthful content. But it has to be reliably sourced. If you say something is true, we have to have a good reason to believe you. You might not have bad intentions, but a lot of people do, so this is the only way to ensure that accuracy is maintained. If what you want to include is important and factual information then there should be plenty of sources for it. It is not good enough to just state that there is a historical conspiracy in the sources that are available. Remy B 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

strong immune system or sumthin

i've read sumwhere (maybe even here) that aborigines are unusually tolerant of extreme conditions i.e. very cold/hot environment. there was an experiment in which they were voluntarily put in a freezer (crudely worded), and felt comfortable enough?? if this is true i think it's something significant enough to be included in the article, if it isn't already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.213.230 (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any such unethical experiments. I have heard from contemporary Aboriginal people that their kinship system and their marriage/child-bearing taboos were designed specifically to breed for health and strength - they appear to have had extensive knowledge of practical genetics for breeding (practical genetics to be distinguished from knowledge of biochemistry/genes). Certainly the Aboriginal warriors who first greeted Captain Cook were much taller and healthier than he and his crew. The Aboriginal population, however, was decimated by smallpox, to which they had little resistance. See C. Mann, 2005, 1491 (NY: Vintage Books) for information on how indigenous immune systems are often better adapted to resisting tropical diseases and parasites than the diseases common in cultures raising livestock. Drvestone (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Map

I am in great need of the map showing Australia's indigenous peoples, with each tribal region represented by a different color. I used it often and now find that it seems to have been deleted. Can someone please fill me in on where it's gone and why there's been no discussion of its deletion? Many thanks, Badagnani 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the same map. It would be immeasurably helpful to have it in this article. Badagnani 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that any map could only demarcate language groups. Aboriginal people didn't have sociocentric 'tribal' areas with clear boundaries; this is really a European conception of how people 'should' exist in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.11.160 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues facing Indigenous Australians today:Health

I cleaned up the health section a little and added a table. It still could do with some further work and a little more clean-up! (A late, school-night Wikipedia session to be sure. :))

I believe some of the incidence rates might possibly be a little exaggerated or, at the very least, out-of-date. Can someone look into this a little more than I have been able to.

Also, given all the media attention of late, I believe the issue of sexual assault (particularly against children) should be mentioned somewhere. Even if it is possibly media prejudice and hyperbole, it is still an extremely serious problem that many Aboriginal communities are facing. Again, I didn't have time to look for any statistics so I have not included or added any information in this section.

Hax0rw4ng 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The table on health stats is a great addition. I can look through a recent U of Queensland report on health stats [3] to see if there's anything to be added.

I don't think we want to touch the issue of sexual assault here - it is highly controversial. The Australian govt under Howard presented no statistics to show that sexual assault had a higher incidence in indigenous communities than in other comparable white, Asian, or Arab communities. As in Canada and Africa, the practice of sexually assaulting indigenous children was common in residential schools run by whites in earlier colonial times. Psychology research indicates clearly that the best single predictor of whether someone will assault children is whether they themselves were assaulted as a child. The historical causes of sexual abuse in indigenous communities thus may clearly be traced to the abuses of colonisation. Many Aboriginal activists believe that John Howard's govt cynically used publicity about child sexual assault to justify their moves to roll back indigenous rights in the Northern Territory. It is very difficult to know the facts in such a case, and I think therefore the Wikipedia article should perhaps not go into it yet. (See Coercive Reconciliation, 2007, Ed. Altman & Hinkson, Arena Publications.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvestone (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous: Aboriginal peoples AND Torres Strait Islanders

This article claims to be inclusive of mainland Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, but then goes on to describe only Aboriginal culture, music, etc. Either Torres Strait Islanders should be included, or this article should be made into a disambiguation page. - 207.112.57.58 22:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the TSI culture should be briefly discussed in this article, and the appropriate link given to an expanded article on Torres Strait Islanders - if it isn't already. A disambig is not necessary. Cygnis insignis 09:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead/intro

It could use a bit of rewording, this is a bit roundabout;

• Indigenous Australians are recognised to have arrived between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago, though the lower end of this range ( 50 000 BC) has wider acceptance.

... Perhaps dropping the BC and lower? The scale of time is a bit beyond a couple of thousand years. Does any else have a view on this? Cygnis insignis 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some conjecture, as a few scientific journals in different disciplines have evidence that could indicate various early dates such as the earliest evidence of plant extinctions by burnings going back 200,000years and DNA suggesting initial divergence only as early as 45,000 with continued waves of up to the last sea level rise (but only from PNG), then there are extinction time lines for mega fauna, and extinctions of thylacines in WA that show differing dates. Someone mentioned H.Erectus in Australia too, so in the absence of hard archaeological evidence of bones, settlements or tools that back these possibilities up, it would be too soon to mention these conjectures, unless they are properly cited, and sub headed as conjectures. See my comments in the Talk:Indigenous_Australians#Genetic Survey released section also.petedavo (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aboriginal art memorial at the NGA.JPG

Image:Aboriginal art memorial at the NGA.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Population estimates 1788

The History section gives estimates of over 300,000 at the arrival of Europeans. This seems quite high for a nomadic hunter-gatherer people. I know Australia is big but the food source is concentrated on the seaboard in much the same areas we live in today - good fertile high rainfall land means abundant food. Wouldn't we expect to dig up burials in fairly large numbers, given that with the shorter life expectancy of past centuries there would bave been over 7000 beople dying each year for centuries?

The ABS pop. stats. seem to be the best source I can find [4] . What this shows is that up to pre-referendum 1967 counts (101,978) excluded full-blooded Aborigines and in 1971 for the first time the count (115,953) included them - the difference between the two years gives only 14,000 full-blooded at that time. It's hard to extrapolate from this, but 300,000+ still seems bullish.

Has anyone got some better info? --jcosco (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

from [5] There are no accurate estimates of the population of Australia before European settlement. Many estimates were based on post-1788 observations of a population already reduced by introduced diseases and other factors. In 1930 the anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown postulated a minimum figure of 300,000, that happens to be the source quoted for the statement. Also burials werent part of Indigenous cultures. Gnangarra 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Customary Aboriginal law

I've created this after discovering there wasn't already one, please feel free to chip in as nes. Thank you. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

uncited statements galore - possible original research

This article seems to be filled with unreferenced statements. It also contains statements which may be original research or just unsubstatiated opinion. I have added the 'no original research' tag to the article and a number of {{fact}} tags to some of the unreferenced statements and paragraphs. I do not have time to tag all of the unreferenced material since there is so much of it. OzWoden (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding the {{fact}} tags to items which concern you is fine. However I am removing the {{Original research}} tag as I disagree that the article has significant original research. You need to provide some specifics, or even better, improve the article. —Moondyne click! 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are uncited statements indicates possible original research. If it were not original reseach, or simply invention by the editor, then the particular editor who added the statements would have referenced them. OzWoden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Crime, Substance abuse and Unemployment sections

I feel that these sections are and incredibly biased, and should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemoon86 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Those sections are well referenced using reliable sources. Deletion isn't likely. -- Longhair\^talk 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How/where are they "incredibly biased"? —Moondyne click! 05:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Is there any evidence which can state, once and for all, who the Indigenous australians are more closely related to? --Maurice45 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Their birth certificates. Seriously, take a look at Recent African origin of modern humans and see how complex the question is. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome which is referenced in Prehistory of Australia. --JWB (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bathurst Island photograph

While this is a great photo, it does not represent the reality of aboriginal life today. It seems to suggest that to be aboriginal you have to look like those guys and carry a spear. Perhaps a montage of smaller photos representing both their traditional ways of life and new ways of life they have adopted.

I agree, but as a montage cannot be found at the moment, This picture is fine --Maurice45 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Earliest dates

This recent edit amended the range of earliest occupational dates to between 125,000 and 40,000 BP. I realise that reasonable cites were given, but the couple of high-end dates that have been put forward (ca 100,000 BP and even earlier) are highly controversial, and remain unaccepted by the great majority of researchers. It might be technically correct to say this is the full range out of all of the dates that have been published, but I think it's misleading— hardly anyone thinks the high-end dates are valid.

Or to put another way - every researcher would probably agree that people were in Australia by 38–40,000 BP; a reasonable number, maybe half, would think it's likely (tho direct evidence is thin) that people were here 45–50,000 BP, but going higher than that is really pushing it; almost no-one stakes their claim on people being here earlier than 100,000 BP, or anywhere near that figure. Beyond the point where the radiocarbon dating limitation kicks in (beyond 45 kya) it's very doubtful, & researchers are more cautious. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

removing unreferenced material

Months have passed, editors (and story-tellers) have come and gone and yet much of the article is still unreferenced. In keeping with the rules and standards of Wikipedia I will remove any unreferenced material. OzWoden (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

But does that mean removing whole sections? - please explain where you have found these rules and standards - and explain further regarding removing material wholesale works over and above other methods of sorting the problem out SatuSuro 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with OzWoden. If the request for citation tags have been on the text for over 3 months, it is obvious the editor who originally placed the text is not planning on adding it. Removal of long unsourced assertions is indeed a Wikipedia policy WP:V. OzWoden, I've often found that moving all the chopped material to the Talk page causes less upset amongst other editors. Ashmoo (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK so we have a different point of view (sic) the point is if the removal of whole sections is made - it is not adhering to what you consider - the fact tag or unreferenced tag is in the removed items not relevent for the whole section - that is a clear misreading.

Also if you went around removing red links on the same basis from articles you would be challenged within a very short time - such tags are as much to encourage further editing rather than simply something to remove - If you indeed think 3 months is a long time I could easily lead you to projects within wikipedia where unreferenced and similar tags have existed for longer than that and no editors have rushed in to remove material. In view of the general reduction in australian article maintenance and lower level of editing across the whole project it is not a reasonable time to be expecting either cleanup or maintenance to occur.

A more positive and creative approach would be to go to the various points of contact where assistance might in fact solve the problem rather than deletion -

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Collaboration (you could nominate the article there)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board (point out the issue)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia (ask for help)

It wouldnt take much effort to leave a comment at all three - and who knows even with the generally reduced involvement in WP Australia - you might even get a response. SatuSuro 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline SatuSuro 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To begin:

But does that mean removing whole sections?

Yes it does if whole sections are unreferenced.

…please explain where you have found these rules and standards…

Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence

And Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material

…and explain further regarding removing material wholesale works over and above other methods of sorting the problem out…

Some editors add good referenced information. Others are slap happy about their referencing. Others again are not so much editors as they are authors or opinion piece writers. I like to add information that is referenced but I also like to remove unreferenced information.

Further, it is near impossible to turn a dogs breakfast into a gourmet dinner – it is similar for sections of Wikipedia articles.

Presumably the sections in question were added some time ago by another editor.

And presumably this other editor did one of two things:

1. He/she read other sources to find and contribute this information

2. OR He/she drew from his/her own knowledge and hence created original research (a Wikipedia no no)

Assuming “1” was the case, then this editor did not bother to reference his/her additions and seemingly does not plan on amending this fact. It would take much more effort to discover these sources and/or do one’s own reading and amend the sections than it would be to delete and let someone start again.

Assuming “2” then the section should simply be deleted imediately without discussion.

To respond to:

A more positive and creative approach would be to go to the various points of contact where assistance might in fact solve the problem rather than deletion - · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Collaboration (you could nominate the article there) · http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board (point out the issue)

· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia (ask for help)

I will quote Jimmy Wales from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.–Jimmy Wales [3]

To respond to:

Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline

Also worth reading is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material OzWoden (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

very poor referencing practices in some sections

The section on 'Aborigines and the environment' and 'Tasmania' both have terrible in-line referencing. The references should be numbers that link to the bottom of the page where the reference list is.

Also what is the consensus on advertising blogs in the middle of Wikipedia articles (ie. see the Tasmania section of this article)? A more cynical person may think that someone has written a blog under a pen name and decided to use that as a reference... OzWoden (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the 'Aborigines and the environment' section, while interesting, should not be in this article. This is the general article on Indigenous Australians, but the section is a long history of the European understanding of the effects of Indigenous Australian habitation upon the continent. If it exists at all, it should just summarise the current consensus (or factions) on IA's effect on the environment. Ashmoo (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact tags

I noticed that a disagreement over whether content should be removed because of a lack of response to the placing of {{fact}} but the what fact is being disputed isnt clear, as such I have added {{huh}}. Can what fact is being questioned please be clarified. Gnangarra 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

The first paragraph says:

When the first indigenous Australians migrated to Australia is disputed among researchers, as estimates range from 40,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago.

The "History" section however says:

The general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a possible range of up to 70,000 years ago.

There appears to be some contradiction here. Should I fix it? Suggestions? OzWoden (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. The figures should be consistent. The reference for the first quote is a media release from the University for Wollongong. It doesn't give any detail for the reliability of the bookend figures but generally speaking it is probably a reliable source. There is no direct reference for the second quote although if you click through to the longer article History of Indigenous Australians, there are a number of references. One is a letter to the journal 'Nature' concerning human inhabitation at Lake Mungo which stretches estimated inhabitation out to around 60 or 70,000 years. Another reference is to Tim Flannery's 'The Future Eaters' which doesn't give a page number. Looking at my own copy, on p.145 he says Meganesia (Australia + New Guinea) was "colonised in its entirety at least 45,000 years ago and probably 60,000 years ago". Later on p.153 he offers a vague possibility of 120,000 years.

I would suggest wording along the lines of:

The general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is at least 40,000 years ago with growing evidence for up to 70,000 years ago and speculation of occupation for much longer than that.

Crico (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That would give the misleading impression that dates over about 47k BP are part of the consensus. Qemist (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Prominent Indigenous Australians

I see this as being hopelessly POV. There's no inclusion criteria, so unless we include everyone listed in Category:Indigenous Australians the section will just ebb and flow forever. I think a link to the separate list article/s is sufficient without having a subset here. Moondyne 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tasminian Aborigines

What is a "first-generation" Tasmanian native? The normal sense of the word would be the first generation to live there, who would have died about 40k BP. Qemist (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information

I wanted to draw this to the attention of wikipedia.

The article says: "In 2001 about 30% of the Aboriginal population was living in major cities (a decrease from the 46% living in urban areas in 1971) and another 43% in or close to rural towns."

Whereas the following source says this:

"It is evident, too, that the vast majority of Aborigines do not want to live in separate communities away from the rest of the Australian population: in 2001 about 30 per cent were living in major cities and another 43 per cent in or close to rural towns, a considerable increase compared with the 46 per cent living in urban areas in 1971." Source: http://www.bennelong.com.au/articles/pdf/howsonquadrant2004.pdf

They both can't be right. What is the source for the claim that urbanisation for aboriginal australians is decreasing?

Australians as a whole are fleeing remote areas, why would aboriginal australians be bucking this tread?

58.165.141.97 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

It seems like the author of the initial claim has confused "urban" with "major metropolitan", and has assumed that the 46% living in urban areas in 1971 were all living in major cities. Of course rural towns are also urban areas, though not metropolitan, and as such 46% urban occupation increased to 73% by 2001, a considerable increase. I suggest we leave it for a couple of weeks to see if any other explanation is forthcoming, and if not we'll remove the claim of decreasing urbanisation of Indigenous Australians. Keep up the good work. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Quadrant may not be a reliable source from the point of view of this observation. Orderinchaos 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We could use the 2006 census results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website.

www.abs.gov.au

134.148.5.118 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)