Talk:Aboriginal Tasmanians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expansion

I must be part of the Australian "sorry" movement, for I would like to apologise for not doing this subject justice. The original article motivated me to expand it with corrections, so hopefully my small effort will do the same for you. There are many stories to be told here.

-- zig 16:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article needs some serious reworking. The Aborigines crossed the land bridge 40,000 years ago, then waited 13,000 years until the Westerners came in 1803??

a recently added section attempts to include this event with current pedophile trials by describing it as a 'witch hunt', strangely enough. the logic is a little fuzzy, but the idea is to include the phrase 'witchhunt' in historically unjust situations, and then try and build a case for 'Moral Histeria', or '"witch hunts" to try and deflect criticism of thier leader.Line 32.Legalist 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Extinction

May be worth diluting the importance of the 'extinction' issue - this is definitely not the case with some 10,000 people in tasmania believed to have some aboriginal heritage. It is also quite offensive to the local community to even consider this angle - This view generally died out when guys like Michael Mansell started making noise in the late 70's

-- Jgritz 19:09, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it not the case that the tradition and culture of historical TA tribes are indeed extinct. And hasn't this fact contributed to historian/antholopologists' view that TAs are extinct? Does the the word "heritage" refer to DNA or "spirituality". Former is verifiable while later is not. And for this reason, if the claim of heritage is "spiritual", then it ought to have proper POV attribution. FWBOarticle

Customs & language

It'd be nice if this article talked some about the customs, language, etc. of the Tasmanian aborigine, instead of just colonization and "extinction". I'm sure for instance they are in interesting case being complete isolates for so long (does any other human population on earth even come close?). -- stewacide 17:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

does any other human population on earth even come close?) Check the Sentinelese; the Andamanese as a whole surpass this, and the Sentinelese are in fact still isolated. -- Kralizec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.7.80 (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Would love to learn more about the customs too, but its a pretty complex bunch of views. Within the culture a lot of stuff is seen as private business, and the forementioned colonization issues mean that the local customs weren't very well documented. Then again, I'm no expert... http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/home/index.cfm?SiteID=215 has some interesting stuff -- Jgritz 20:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Extinction - Genocide

As a Latin American I'm amazed at how prudish and shy Anglo-Saxons seem when describing their own genocidal practices (in the US, Canada, Africa, Australia, NZ and so on) compared to how happily they ascribe the word "genocide" to a clear war like the conquest of the Aztec or Inca empires by the Spanish. Hypocrisy at its highest, definitely. Mario Ortega, MX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.98.215 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"20th century historians previously held that they had become extinct with the death of Truganini in 1873, but this is no longer the accepted view."

I can see that this may be seen as unnecessary for the intro, but it remains a common misconception, and should be damn near the top if not restored to where it was.- David Gerard 17:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've restored the top sentence... Jgritz 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"It should be noted that the apology is specific to removal of children and does not refer to the unique nature of Tasmanian genocide."

Shouldn't this read the alleged Tasmanian genocide? Or at least reference made to the controversy surrounding the fact that some have labled the destruction of the Tasmanian Aborigines a genocide?

Lukeisham 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Shouldn't this read the alleged Tasmanian genocide?"

Alleged? Are you refuting that thousands of Aboriginals died senselessly as a result of the of colonial invasion of the land by Europeans?

I agree with Lukeisham that it's less than clear that there was a systematic attempt to wipe out the Tasmanians (i.e. genocide). Windschuttle makes a persuasive case that not only have people like this anonymous commentator accepted rather uncritically many poorly substantiated claims of genocide, but that the role of disease in a isolated population (an unintended consequence of colonial invasion) has been underestimated. I've added a review of Windshuttle's book to the citations. --Our Bold Hero 04:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the case for systematic extinction by the British colonists is made pretty strongly by James Morris in his book Heaven's Command. This is a generally sympathetic history of the British empire however

Agreed too, but as always with Tasmanian issues there seems to be no middle ground. AFAIK, it's only really Henry Renyolds of the academic writers that has stated there was systematic attempt e.g. Genocide. I think I'll remove the line Lukeisham quoted if no one has any objections. --Jgritz 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See the Black War article for the campaign against Tasmanian Aborigines, -- Paul foord 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocide not just refer to extinction of race (i.e. DNA) but it also refer to extinction of culture. Hasn't tradition and culture of historical TA tribes are extinct or wiped out? FWBOarticle

In anthropology, loss of culture especially language amount to extinction of ethinicity if not race. I can understand the PC aspect of saying that Tasmanian Aborigines are not extinct. However, I don't think its right to pretend that it was only the loss of full blood person which is the cause of extinction view. Given that DNA and "spiritual" heritage is still a controversy, I don't think it's NPOV to take DNA view. Vapour

The extinction pov is just that - a POV. When there are people who contend to be indigeneous (albeit part blood) Aborigines of Tasmania, I see no idea how that would be NPOV. Furthermore, aspects of their culture may be extinct, but some other parts of their culture may yet survive, and thus one should not close the book on them by declaring the Tasmanian Aborigines extinct. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Slaughter

An anonymous user changed the first sentence of the "After European Settlement" section to say "... mainly due to the slaughter perpetated the white settlers..." rather than "... mainly by the white settlers..."

I understand why someone would be motivated to make this change, but it's counter-productive (as well as being against Wikipedia standards, and having a grammatical error). In hopes of preventing anyone from doing it again, let me explain why:

Many people are turned off by such stridently POV writing, and won't read the rest of the section--which makes the point quite vividly. The facts are horrific enough when presented neutrally; let them speak for themselves. --Falcotron 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The case for systematic slaughter is documented by James Morris (now Jan Morris) in the book Heaven's Command. This history is generally sympathetic to the British however this is how it describes the Tasmanian situation:

By the 1820s horrid things were happening in Tasmania. Sometimes the black people were hunted just for fun, on foot or on horseback. Somtimes they were raped in passing, or abducted as mistresses or slaves.The sealers of the Bass Strait islans established a slave society ...with harems of women, employing the well-tried disciplines of slavery - clubbing, stringing up ffrom trees or flogging with kangaroo-gut whips...In one forway 70 aboringals were killed, the men shot, the women and children dragged from crevices in the rocks to have their brains dashed out. Bushrangers used to catch aborigines in mantraps and use them as target practice. A man called Carrotts desiring a native woman, decapitated her aboriginal husband, hung his head arond her neck and drove her home to his shack. I have edited the text to reflect this. Morris is a well-known and highly respected historian. Maxhotty

Population 1859

I've added a population figure for 1859 to the article; for the record, the source is:

"Dr. Joseph Milligan's paper on Tasmania, read before the Society of Arts, contains interesting information ... [of] the aborigines, there were only about a dozen remaining at the end of 1859." - Chambers's Journal, "The Month: Science and Arts", #391, June 1861.

(I ran across it looking for something else entirely...) Shimgray | talk | 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The recorded number of Aborigines killed from 1803 to 1833 by whites is over 100 (and only 85 according to Keith Windschuttle). The idea that the population was reduced to 300 “mainly by the murderous white settlers” is completely unsupported by historical documents. This shows the author's bias and should be altered.

Great Map

Wow - that's a great map. Thanks Petaholmes/Martyman or who ever was responsible for this. --Jgritz 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the level of interest present day Tasmanians have in this subject can be summed up by the fact that a number of them have Tasmanian Aboriginal garden gnomes in their gardens. There are a dozen or so such photographs at www.beautphotos.com under the heading Tasmanian Hillbilly Country. They all have fairly extensive commentary attached which is referenced to Wikipedia. User: kruklanki 16/02/06

Who is an Indigenous Australian

The discussion at See the discussion at Talk:Indigenous Australians/archive 2#.28What.29 Who is an .28i.29Indigenous_Australian.3F is also relevant to Tasmania, although the local legislation is more restrictive. Paul foord 14:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Watercraft, weaving,fishing and clothes

I'm highly skeptical of claims of Tasmanian catamarans and sewn clothing. My undertsanding, and one I have seen repeated in numeorus reputable sources, was that Tasmanians lacked sewing technology and possesed only crude reed rafts. The catamaran reference is particularly odd since such craft are only found in limited areas of northern Australia. If Tasmanians possesed catamarans why were they isolated for 10,000 years despite less than 50km of open water separating them from the mainland?

My understanding is also that Tasmanians did not eat fish, which makes claims of using watercraft for fishing somewhat puzzling. Tasmanians certainly used watercraft to reach offshore islands to hunt and to collect the eges of nesting bird, but that isn't fishing.

I'm somewhat dubious of Tasmanians possesing weaving technology as well. But we really need a reference for sewn clothes, fishing and catamarans in Tasmania. 211.29.68.168 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked User:EamonnPKeane, who added this, about his sources. At least Jared Diamond claimed in Guns, Germs, and Steel, that Tasmanians had forgotten how to fish. Secular mind 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural genocide

The descendants of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people are still living but are said to have lost their traditional language and culture, so cultural genocide, that article itself needs some expansion. Paul foord 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"(Aboriginal name: lutrawita)" Aboriginal name for what?

"The Tasmanian Aboriginals are the indigenous people of the island state of Tasmania, Australia. (Aboriginal name: lutrawita)"

It is unclear from this what "lutrawita" names. (Could be Tasmania, or could be its indigenous people.)

And in which Tasmanian aboriginal language?

It's actually the palawa kani word for the island of Tasmania and is spelled lutriwita incidentally; 'truwana is Cape Barren Island. Which brings me onto a request. I'm not sure how to creat disambiguation pages but I think we need one for palawa kani. At the moment when you search for "palawa" you only get Palawa but I think it would be helpful to have a page which disambiguates (in much the same way as French for example is dealt with. --Akerbeltz 15:48, 21 February (GMT)

Palawa is now a disambiguation page. Gnangarra 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand, thanks a lot! Akerbeltz 01:00, 22 February 2008 (GMT)

An inappropriate reference

This article is very lacking in references, of which I am sure there must be plenty to be found..

However, the first reference (to an external website) is, to my way of thinking quite inappropriate to this particular article, simply because of the other content of the paper that is referenced and the way in which it uutilises the historic persecution of Aboriginal people in order to support an entirely different cause.

In the Wikipedia article Tasmanian Aborigines the reference is about likening the persecution of aboriginal people to "a witchhunt". The Wiki article said - "The refusal of the settlers to recognise the Aborigines as human beings can be regarded as a legal injustice, or even a witchhunt." This is a very bald and non-explanatory statement. It was followed by the link to the other webpage.

The words or even a witchhunt add practically nothing to the article. It reads in a sensational way, because anything about witchhunts is sensational, but it would be far better to find and appropriate reference to Genocide than a link to this particular article.

Why? Because the topic of the cited article is not the oppression of Aboriginal people. The article is primarily about is the isolation and persecution of those people who have been accused of child molestation. The persecution of the so-accused is likened to a "witchhunt".

The article that is referenced is written supporting the supression of public information regarding those who have been accused of child molestation. It is not an article about the plight of Aboriginal people. It is an article that likens the situation of people accused of molestation to the oppression of Jews, Huguenots, Australian Aboriginals and other people of cultural minority groups.

While, on one hand, the author of the cited article may use any reference that they like to support claims in favour of those who (rightfully or wrongfully) are accused of child molestation, I don't think that the reverse reference applies. In Wikipedia terms, yes, it is a published reference and therefore citable. On the other hand, I think that the article adds nothing positive to this page and carries possible implications of an extremely negative kind.

As an "Auntie", I don't want to see the Aboriginal cause so directly linked to the general and universal matter of child molestation (and wrongful accusations of child molestation). That is a topic in itself.

Let's find some references that are primarily about Aboriginal people.

The reference is at [1]

--Amandajm 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

TA extinction, outside view

I was reading an Timeonline article and came upon writing which describe TA as extinct while making reference that there are some modern group who can trace ancestory. It's fairly obvious that state of TA depends on perspective. From Antholopological POV, for example, TA is extinct. I have refered to extinction POV from a verified source. Vapour

Interesting question (dunno how old this posting is, mind). I think in this debate it's too often overlooked that there are various means by which a people can perpetuate itself. From the POV of genetic purity (aka blood) there are no Germans on this planet as they are a total genetic mix of whoever has passed through in the last 5000 years. But I doubt that any anthropologist (or any other -ologist as for that) could successfully argue that Germans are extinct as the German people has perpetuated itself by other means (language/culture). So I personally think that if there are people in modern Tasmania who can demonstrate a link to "native Tasmania" either through ethnic and/or linguistic means then we must accept that. No German (or Brit etc) is required to prove genetic purity (which in the case of Germans is both impossible and historically difficult (I am part German by the way)) to justify their claim to being German. Partial parentage and/or residency for several generations and/or native speaker status are enough in the eyes of most people. So why should Tasmanians (or any other ethnicity) be required to demonstrate "pure-bloodedness"? It all smacks of goalposts that outsiders have imposed to suit their own views. Akerbeltz 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]

"Legal Injustice" vs. "Genocide" - and a General Mess

1. There seems to be some discussion of this above which I don't have time to investigate, but I would like object to this statement:

"The refusal of the settlers to recognise the Aborigines as human beings can be regarded as a legal injustice, and the suspiscion and acts of violence aroused by their cultural difference has been likened to a witch hunt."

Don't you think describing an active and intentional campaign of genocidal extermination as "can be regarded as a legal injustice" -- or even a "witchhunt" -- is a bizarrely vague and mushy understatement?

2. In generally this article seems to be heavy on vague warm-and-fuzzy stuff about contemporary Tasmanian native pride and light on the actual history and facts.

"Much of the Indigenous Tasmanian language (which had several different dialects), and a lot of Tasmania's Aboriginal cultural heritage has been lost."

The Tasmanian language(s) are completely extinct, and almost nothing is known of them. "A lot" is a colloquial phrase not appropriate for a encyclopedia article -- and what exactly hasn't been lost?

This is really the central problem of the article -- trying to "affirm" how alive, real, vibrant, and legitimate today's partly-native claimants are, is distracting the weight and narrative of the article away from how everyone of full Tasmanian blood on the island was wiped out.

3. "...mainly killed by the white settlers..."

The fact that the program was an intentional extermination needs to be emphasized as the central theme of the article. And the racial ideology behind it, that the Tasmanians were "even more primitive" than mainland Australian aborigines and considered to be sub-human animals who could literally be hunted for sport from horseback needs to be clearly discussed as a historical reality, even though it is obviously offensive today.

4. The article in general needs a more neutral point of view on whether the people claiming Tasmanian nativehood today are really genetically descended from the original natives.

Yes, there was a genocide. No, not all the koories are gone, just all of the full-blooded ones. That being said, the loss of several languages was surely a tragedy. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tasmanian Physical and Cultural Type

What I think is missing from this article is a frank discussion of what made the British deem the Tasmanian native inhabitants to be so "primitive" that they could be killed at will.

This is a unique phenomenon in British colonialism -- there was of course massive oppression and de facto murder of colonial subjects everywhere else, but Tasmania was the only place where the native inhabitants were initially considered to be literally "sub-human" without any human rights at all.

The real or imagined cultural condition of the native inhabitants was one factor. How were they reported to live by the colonists -- entirely without clothing and dwellings? And does any new archeological data contradict this?

The distinctive physical type of the native inhabitants was also essential to their categorization by the colonists.

Can we see some data/illustrations on morphology, cranial capacity, etc. -- and how these data were interpreted by scientists in a wholly racist way in former times?

And how about today, when the Tasmanian physical type figures in the debate about "Recent-Out-of-Africa" vs. "Multiregional" evolution. Can we get an argument from a multiregionalist that the Tasmanians represented a mixed Homo erectus/Homo sapiens type, refuted by an out-of-Africanist?

Finally, the question of repatriation of remains is presented only from one point of view in the article currently, as redressing of an injustice. Many scientists are opposed to these sorts of repatriations -- compare the Kennewick Man case -- and that point of view should be presented co-equally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.16.12 (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

H.G Wells Quote

What place does the preface of a fictional book have to do with factual information about Tasmanian Aboriginals? Gnangarra 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Capitalisation in title - correct Australian usage is to capitalise both Tasmanian and Aborigine - see Talk:Indigenous_Australians/archive_2#Capitalisation_of_Indigenous Paul foord 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal or Aborigine?

Cjfudger (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much inconsistency between the use of Aborigine and Aboriginal. I thought the correct name for people was Aborigine, unless you are saying "Aboriginal people"

• There is no doubt that in formal English, the term "aborigine" is the noun that means an inhabitant of a particular place. It is therefore correct English to say an Aborigine or an Australian Aborigine when referring to one of people whose ancestors inhabited the land prior to the coming of Europeans.
• The word "aboriginal" is plainly an adjective (a describing word). In formal English, you can be an aboriginal person, an aboriginal man or woman, or even use it to mean specifically an indigenous Australian by saying "I'm Aboriginal" in the same way as someone might say "I'm English".
• Grammatically speaking, one cannot say "I am an Aboriginal".
• However, Australian Aboriginal people, since about the late 1980s, have shown a marked preference for using the term "Aboriginal" as a noun, and shying away from the noun "Aborigine".
• I believe that the reason for this is caused in part by the lack of formal education among Aboriginal people, at a time when Grammar was taught in Australian schools. Subsequently, in NSW at any rate, the teaching of English Grammar has been neglected for about thirty years, so that, even though education has become accessible, English Grammar has not, and we have one or two generations of Australians who would really have very little idea as to what part of speech the word "Aboriginal" is, let alone whether it is being used correctly.
• To someone not studied of English grammar, the word "Aborigine" sounds like "Aboriginny" and, as everyone knows, you add a "y' to the end of a word to make a nick-name, like "dinky-di" and "billy boy" and "cow cocky". "Aboriginny" sounds like a nick-name. Not quite as bad as "Abo" but getting there!
• So the word "Aboriginal" is in current use as a noun, simply because Aboriginal Australians have used it that way for thirty years, it has become common use in the press, and Aboriginal people correct those who call them "Aborigines".
• The word is so much in use as a noun that the plural "Aboriginals" is also in common use.
• The situation is not unusual. The terms "negro" and "negroid" are similarly rejected by many negroid people who prefer the term "Black" to the Latin-based scientific description which, translated, means the same thing.

My proposal is that we scrap the word "Aborigine" from the article simply because there are Aboriginal people who don't like it. The Term "Aboriginal" can be used either as an adjective as in "an Aboriginal person", or as a noun as in "a family of Aboriginals". Since throughout the article the word "Aboriginal" is taken to mean specifically aboriginal Australians, then it is a being used to describe a specific race and should always have a capital letter in this sense. So- "aboriginal Australians" but "Australian Aboriginals".

--Amandajm 15:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, while I am in favour of political correctness, I believe that the topic should remain under the heading Tasmanian Aborigines, because people of the world need to be able to find the article under "correct" English. --Amandajm 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the local aboriginal activists refer to themselves as "Tasmanian Aborigines" a lot lately. Barrylb (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of 'aborigine' is not justified, even for the title. Many indigenous Australians have a problem with this term, not just because it has connotations of a nickname but because "it has been used as a term to classify and demean Aboriginal people in the repressive State in which I live - Queensland; it also assumes an 'air of superiority' by a dominant culture." (Jackie Huggins, 'Writing my Mother's life, Hectate, Vol. 17, no. 1, 1991, p. 88). If people want to look up 'Aborigines' they can get to a page entitled 'Aboriginal Tasmanians' anyway, so I don't think that is a good reason for its use. It simply continues the colonial history of domination. People that are interested in indigenous Australians should be encouraged to use politically sensitive terminology preferred by the people themselves. If Tasmanians choose to talk about themselves using the term 'Aborigine' then that is their choice and right to do so. "Correct" English is secondary to use of offensive, degrading words. I agree with the use of aboriginal as an adjective, Jackie Huggins uses it as a noun as well, but again, I would not feel comfortable doing so, for the above reasons.

Ok I moved the discussion here cause it was stranded at the top. I think we should take out lead from native usage which appears to be a preference for Aboriginal as a noun and adjective (from reading a lot of the native blogs and message boards). In the context of Tasmania, palawa is also increasingly used (see for example [2]). Given the way word classes are breaking down in English, I don't think the noun/adjective issue is a strong enough issue to affect preferred usage. After all, we have the Greens and you can background a picture ;)

So, personally i think we should move the page to either Palawa or Tasmanian Aboriginals Akerbeltz (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

What are the disputed points?Likebox (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Which of these is correct?:

• "the population of the Tasmanian Aborigines was reduced from an estimate of around 5,000 to around 300, largely from diseases introduced by British settlers and conflict with British settlers."

or,

• "the population of the Tasmanian Aborigines was reduced from an estimate of around 5,000 to a few hundred, as a result of the ethnic conflict called the Black War, one of the first documented modern genocides."

Also the last edit says that "All of the Indigenous Tasmanian languages have been lost." vs "Almost all..." and that "the last of the full blooded Palawa, a woman called Trugernanner" vs "One of the last...".

-- Barrylb (talk)

The new version is accurate, according to nearly all sources. Look at the talk page for History Wars for more info on this thing (it's long and annoying).

Some revisionists have been going around trying to rewrite the history of Tasmania on Wikipedia. This stuff is pretty well known, and I was trying to fix it. For a standard account, you can read Tatz's "With Intent to Destroy", or just google "Tasmanian Genocide". If you want detailed sources for the information, I can provide.Likebox (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is that simple. The article needs to mention who has studied, and written about, the history of Tasmanian Aborigines and that nature of multiple points of view if there are multiple worthy points of view. I also wonder why there is no mention here of the "Mouheneener" tribe since it is regularly mentioned in parliament.[3] Barrylb (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But I am sure that it is that simple. Please convince yourself.Likebox (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not so sure anymore. Sorry.Likebox (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin

There's a brief mention in Charles Darwin's diary during the Beagle voyage of their visit to Hobart, Tasmania, where Darwin was impressed by the agreeable high society of the settlers, but noted that the island's "Aboriginal blacks are all removed & kept (in reality as prisoners) in a Promontory, the neck of which is guarded. I believe it was not possible to avoid this cruel step; although without doubt the misconduct of the Whites first led to the Necessity." ref: Keynes 2001, pp. 408–410. Perhaps insignificant, but rather poignant. . dave souza, talk 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Darwin seems to be the only person who claims this. Where is this alleged promontory supposed to have been. He may have been confused when people were telling him about the Tasman Peninsula and Port Arthur penal settlements.Eregli bob (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring September 2009

Continually reverting each other is not going to resolve the issue, but it will see editors being blocked for WP:3RR. For the benefit of the readers this page has been protected it is not an endorsement of the information but an opportunity for editors to discuss the article content and build consensus on what the article should convey. Gnangarra 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the talk pages including the archived talk pages for the 'History wars' article, you will see that there have been attempts by other users and myself to reach consensus or compromise with user Likebox going back several months. None have been successful as he is unwilling to have any view of history represented in the article but his own which is that there is absolutely no question that it was genocide. Multiple sources have been cited to show him that opinion amongst Australia historians familiar with Tasmanian colonial history is much more diverse than that and that serious questions have been raised about the validity of the claims of genocide but he is unwilling to allow any quotes or summary of such opinions to appear in either the 'History wars' article or in this article either and continually reverts any text which makes mention of such opinions and labels anyone who differs with this attitude a genocide 'denier'. I don't see any real prospect of getting a consensus with this user but would welcome comments on proposed text to try and bring some sort of balance to this article. Webley442 (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There's denial and then there's denial. I don't mind if some debate is presented from mainstream sources, so long as the fringe views of Keith Windschuttle are properly labelled as fringe views. In particular, the estimate of two thousand Aborgines on Tasmania before Europeans came is laughable, with most mainstream estimates at least 3 to 5 times that, and one contemporary estimate 10 times that.Likebox (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You like to label Windschuttle’s views as fringe, even though by your own admission you haven’t read his book and so can’t possibly have an accurate first hand understanding of his evidence and arguments. Instead you rely on what others claim about him.

You also consistently delete quotes and text based on other historians like Professor Geoffrey Blainey and Josephine Flood which demonstrate that much of what Windschuttle argues is more broadly accepted than you want to admit.

As for the population estimates for the pre-colonisation population there have been a number done. It was estimated at 2000 by Joseph Milligan who was superintendent and medical officer of the Tasmanian Aborigines on Flinders Island. Quaker missionaries James Backhouse (a naturalist) and his friend George Washington Walker and G.W. Walkers son, James Backhouse Walker (a solicitor and historian), all made their own estimates in the lower range as well. Others, like Plomley, estimated it as higher. Basically there about a dozen estimates in the range of 2000 to 8000 with 4000 to 5000 being generally accepted as probably right or at least the middle of the range. There are a couple of isolated outliers, one an estimate of 1500, not really regarded as likely by anyone and then there is the 20,000 estimate of your friend Henry Melville. The black armband historians tend to not even mention his estimate because it is so ridiculous that it would undermine his credibility when they quote him regarding the level of violent conflict.

No-one who knows anything about the Tasmanian Aborigines takes estimates over 8000 seriously. I've seen 10,000 on some websites but that figure doesn't even seem to have an acknowledged source, it seems to be just a number that some blogger(s) have plucked out of the air but if you know of a credible source for it, let us know. But if you actually knew something about this subject instead of getting all your information from biased websites and books like that of Tatz and Madley and Rashidi, you’d know about the sources of the estimates and what they actually are. Webley442 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

With regard to citations for the sources for the population estimates above, they are available in various Australian history texts. I know Windschuttle lists the estimates in Fabrication but I don't recall the page number(s) and I'm travelling in the UK without access to my reference books back home. Is there anyone else out there with a copy handy to look it up? Webley442 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

suggest

suggest something like the way Webley describe it above, though I edited it fair bit;

The population estimates for the pre-colonisation vary between 2,000 and 10,000, Joseph Milligan who was superintendent and medical officer of the Tasmanian Aborigines on Flinders Island estimated a population of around 2,000.<quote source adjust figures> Quaker missionaries James Backhouse (a naturalist) George Washington Walker and James Backhouse Walker (a solicitor and historian), all made their own estimates in the lower range at 4,000-5,000.<quote source adjust figures> While Plomley, estimated it as higher at around 8,000-10,000<quote source adjust figures> though Henry Melville estimated that the population was closer 20,000

I'm not claiming these figures are right it just based on what I'm reading in this discussion, dont get bogged down/sidetracked in them they can be corrected when the source are provided(thats before it goes into the article). This presents the spectrum of estimates and lets the reader see that the actual numbers are in dispute and by who. That is what our policies WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE require in such case, define the spectrum, show the differences, attribute the claims and inform the reader. As editors we arent here to define truths or judge the proponents arguments we just present the information in a balanced neutral manor. It would also help if a time period as to when these estimates were made was included in the prose Gnangarra 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That certainly looks reasonable but mentioned above, I'm currently travelling sans reference books so I can't check which person made what estimate and when. I'm working from memory and some notes on the laptop at the moment. It would be easy for anyone with access to a copy of Fabrication to get the details, if they were so inclined. Webley442 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. You do not base your figures on the work of Windschuttle, who is a fringe fabricator, and acknowledged idiot. You base it on mainstream sources.Likebox (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

what wording would present the range of estimates that exist and acknowledge that htere are varing estimates. Gnangarra 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't get over-excited, Likebox. All those estimates of population are available and verifiable in other Australian history books but you have to go through about 6 or 7 to find them all. Windschuttle puts them all together on one or two pages with appropriate cites. Saves a lot of time for anyone who does want to find them. People have disagreed with him because he favours the lower estimates but he's never been accused, at least not by any rational person, of fabricating the sources that he cites. Having based his work on criticising others for fabrication, he could hardly expect that his cites wouldn't be checked.

As for wording, I think just stating who made the estimates, when, perhaps a little about how they reached their numbers if known and then just say something along the lines that 4000 - 5000 is a commonly accepted as being in the middle of the range. Webley442 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to this discussion on population. Lyndall Ryan in her book The Aboriginal Tasmanians, pp14, used the pre-colonisation estimates of Rhys Jones, (Tasmanian Tribes, pp22-23) that the population before European settlement had from 70 to 85 bands, each with 40 to 50 people leading to a pre-European population estimate of 3,000 to 4,000. Population density over the entire Tasmanian landmass (67,800 sq km) was estimated at one person per 13 - 23 sq km, but on the rich coastal belt the density was more likely to be one or two people per sq km, which is a similar density to the east coast and riverine regions of Australia. These are both academics who have researched and published on this issue.--Takver (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the pre-settlement population estimates are as follows:

Estimates made in the 19th century include:

George Washington Walker, a Quaker missionary who arrived in Tasmania, estimated it at 500 to 650. His friend and fellow Quaker missionary, James Backhouse, a naturalist, estimated it at 700 to 1000. Walker and Backhouse visited Tasmania between 1832 and 1834. James Backhouse Walker, G.W. Walker's son, a solicitor and historian estimated it at 2000 or less (his estimate was contained in papers read to the Royal Society of Tasmania between 1888 and 1898). Joseph Milligan, superintendent and medical officer for the Aborigines on Flinders Island from 1843 to 1855, estimated it at 2000. James Calder (a British surveyor who took up a post in Tasmania in 1829, settled there permanently and who wrote the occasional scholarly paper about the Aborigines and other subjects) estimated it at 6000 to 8000. Henry Melville, a newspaper publisher and author of The History of Van Diemen’s Land from 1824 to 1835, estimated it at 20,000.

Later (20th century) estimates by Australian historians:

Rhys Jones estimated it at 3000 to 4000. Lloyd Robson and Lyndall Ryan have used Rhys Jones' estimate. N.J.B. (Brian) Plomley estimated it firstly at 4000 to 6000 and later (1993) at 5500. Michael Roe, writing in the Oxford Companion to Australian History, 1998, estimated it at 6000. Henry Reynolds, in Fate of a Free People estimated it at 5000 to 7000 on page 4 however later in the book (page 52); he describes the arrival of 2000 new settlers in the year 1830 as representing perhaps half the indigenous population at the time of settlement, which would indicate a pre-settlement Aboriginal population of 4000. So there's a little inconsistency in his figures.

An anthropologist, David Davies, published an estimate of 15000 in his book The Last of the Tasmanians, 1973 (not to be confused with Bonwick's book) but he gives no indication for how this estimate was made.

Of all these estimates, the only ones with any kind of known methodology seem to be those of James Backhouse Walker (2000 or less), Rhys Jones (3000 to 4000) and N.J.B. (Brian) Plomley (4000 to 6000). These three started with various estimates/records of the number of Tasmanian Aboriginal bands and then applied an estimate (or wild guess) as to the average number of persons in a band to get an estimate of the total population. The other `estimates' appear to be just `educated' guesses or figures plucked from the air (or other places).

All the above estimates are listed in Fabrication, pp366-368 with references to the original sources. The estimates of George Washington Walker, James Backhouse, Joseph Milligan, James Calder and Henry Melville can also be found in H. Ling Roth, The Aborigines Of Tasmania, 1890, (pp163-164).

The above seems too much to insert into the article so it needs summarising. Webley442 (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to the size of the Aboriginal population at the time of British settlement: the Aborigines, not being numerate, never made any estimates of their total population, of course, but there is a record of what Aborigines at the Flinders Island settlement told a teacher there, the catechist Robert Clark, about their ‘numbers’:

Mr Robert Clark, in a letter to me, said : “I have gleaned from some of the aborigines, now in their graves, that they were more numerous than the white people were aware of, but their numbers were very much thinned by a sudden attack of disease which was general among the entire population previous to the arrival of the English, entire tribes of natives having been swept off in the course of one or two days illness.”

Bonwick, James: Daily Life and Origins of the Tasmanians, Sampson, Low, Son and Marston, London, 1870, p84-85

Such an epidemic or series of epidemics may have been the result of contact between the Aborigines and passing ships, like the earlier French exploratory expedition or whaling or seal-hunting ships. Webley442 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Last full blooded

On the particular point regarding Trugernanner - there is much debate about whether Trugernanner or Fanny Cochrane Smith where the last "full blooded" Tasmanian Aborigine. The article cannot definitively state that Trugernanner was the one. Barrylb (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that there are photos of Cochrane Smith, and she is obviously half white. This is documented by several sources, although she herself claimed to be the last of the Tasmanians.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

sources? this reads like WP:OR, please attribute any claims to sources so that other can verify claims. Gnangarra 06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I will NOT attribute this, go do it yourself.Likebox (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries if you dont want to attribute it then there is no reason for its inclusion, the onus is on the person making claims to attribute them so that others can verify the information. Gnangarra 02:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Go do it yourself, means google for two seconds and you find the source.Likebox (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the first link which states that Cochrane Smith had a white father.Likebox (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There are sources claiming that Fanny Cochrane Smith’s father was white and others suggesting that he was a Tasmanian Aborigine called Nicermenic. Other sources say her father was unknown. I’m not sure that it is possible to definitively identify FCS’s parentage from an old photo. Are there enough photographs or detailed drawings of the faces of Tasmanian Aborigines to compare her features to others and draw definitive conclusions? I’m not aware of any academic claiming to have done such a study. Since there are conflicting claims, the article could just state the facts: that there are claims that FCS was the last full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigine and other claims that she was of mixed descent. It is not a particularly important issue and it is not Wikipedia's role to rule on it. Webley442 (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Political comment

The sentence

However, Josephine Flood's work has been criticised as 'part of the conservative campaign to blame Aborigines for their suffering'.

is attributed to Green Left Weekly. It seems unencyclopaedic to include criticisms from (minor) political groups. GLF is not an academic journal or recognized subject authority and it seems inappropriate for wikipedia to include their opinions. I think it should be removed. Qemist (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought I agree and I removed the statement. However, there is no obvious consensus regarding the 19th century events on Tasmania, and most other sections in the article contain several interpretations of various historical accounts. I'd be surprised if there was a general agreement on "sealers treated aboriginal women reasonably well because [...] they valued their sexual services". Perhaps there are more encyclopaedic criticism around? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be true but it's not logical. Slaves can be valued for their labour and their sexual services, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be well treated, unless refraining from wantonly killing or mutilating them counts as good treatment. I don't think the last sentence needs to be criticised, I think it would be better removed. At the moment it looks rather odd and out of the flow of the section. Qemist (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The best reference that I can find for the relations between sealers and Tasmanian Aboriginal women seems to be James Bonwick's The Last of the Tasmanians, Chapter 10, from page 295, where he goes into some detail about the sealer community in Bass Strait. As summarised in the article, he reported women who were obviously very unwilling captives of sealers but also women who seemed perfectly content living with sealers. Other historians tend to concentrate on the atrocity stories, almost all of which can be traced back to GA Robinson and are highly questionable. Flood's conclusion that the sealers valued the womens' labour and their sexual services seems consistent with Bonwick's reports.Webley442 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

“Sealers were known as 'banditti of the straits', but most treated Aboriginal women reasonably well because they valued their labour as well as sexual services.”

No, that sentence is not logical. As Webley pointed out, sealers treatment of aboriginal women is already described in the section, and the sentence is therefore redundant. Removed. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not vehemently opposed to the removal, the sentence isn't vital but I do see some logic in it. If sealers did value the labour and sexual services of the women, then they couldn't 'afford' to be as brutal as they were accused of being. Obviously, killing women would have destroyed their 'value' in both capacities. Inflicting injuries through floggings, beatings or mutilations would render the victim unable to work for some time. Ill-treatment would also have encouraged escape attempts whereas good treatment would be more likely to encourage co-operation. Bonwick also goes into the 'natural' development, on both sides, of 'affection' between the sealers and their Aboriginal 'wives'. Too much has been made of claims of a 'slave society' in the Straits. It was certainly a male-dominated society with some rough characters but the women seem to generally get, at the very least, no worse and often better treatment, than they received when living with their bands. The ill-treatment of Tasmanian Aboriginal women by Tasmanian Aboriginal men was notorious, i.e. killings, beatings, rape and abduction so perhaps many of the women didn't consider themselves so badly off when with the sealers.Webley442 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right, under any circumstance my knowledge on the matter reduces me to slightly more than a "casual reader" (i.e. my interest is uncontacted peoples in general). When it comes to this part of the article, I'm convinced it should neither say that virtually all men in the "Tasmanian Wild West" were villains, or underline several times that there can't be true love in a "red light district" (so to speak). Neither Robinson's Reductio ad Hitlerum or modern conspiracy theories seem very plausible, but both should perhaps be mentioned in the article. From my (Eurocentric) POV, the article should focus more on Aboriginal society before the arrival of Europeans, including "notorious Aboriginal ill-treatment", but I have no idea how much information there is out there. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Deniers Active on this Page

Please keep in mind that Webley332 is active in promoting the fringe theories of Keith Windschuttle, an author that denies the Tasmanian genocide. This type of denial should not be acceptable here.Likebox (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of Likebox's history including repeatedly reverting and overwriting other editor's text until they give up and abandon editing articles that he wants to take control of, failing to provide sources for his text, misrepresenting what his sources say, removing other editors' accurately sourced material when it conflicts with the 'story' as he wants to portray it, use of very strongly biased text which he somehow claims is NPOV.... The list goes on. Webley442 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There were Tasmanian Aborigines after Trugunini alive on the Bass Strait islands. Also, I understand that Fanny Cochrane-Smith did not die until 1905 and she was of Flinders Island descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles1b (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Windschuttle and Flood are being used far too often as a source in the artical. I point out that Windschuttle is very fringe so should be used sparingly and Flood is an archaeologist not a historian who has never undertaken any research in Tasmania. I suggest reducing their input unless supported by reliable historians (in which case they should preferentially be used anyway).Wayne (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference/footnote # 7 is bogus. Benjamin Madley is commenting on the historical nature of commentary on the Tasmanian genocide, which he ultimately concludes did occur. The contributor who added this reference has clearly not read the article in question, or is deliberately manipulating it's intent. Madley, in the final paragraphs, comes to the opposite conclusion. He states " In light of the U.N. definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide. " I would kindly ask a diligent contributor to amend the error. If this is not done in 7 days I will be contacting Madley directly to make him aware of this situation. I would also like to thank the person in question for bringing such definitive proof of the genocide to light. Madley systematically addresses all of Windschuttle's fallacies. It's a good read, if you can.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.5.150 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll read the source and make any appropriate changes.Wayne (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the above, it appears that User 122.106.5.150 doesn't seem to have grasped the distinction between the statement by Madley that there is no consensus on the issue of genocide in Tasmania which is a statement of fact and Madley's mere personal opinion that it was genocide. Two separate issues, nothing to get worried about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No article on the (alleged?) genocide?

[4] - I've found there is no Wikipedia article that treats the purported genocide and its apparent debunking. That is odd indeed. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it odd? The alleged genocide was simply the effect of new diseases on a isolated and primitive society.

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Intelligence of Tasmanian Aborigines

It is impossible for any tribe to forget their basic survival skills, such as starting a fire, fishing, and making hafted tools, and yet the ancestors of Tasmanian Aborigines lost all these skills, and they may have lost the ability to make clothes and simplest shelters. I do not know any medical condition that could cause such widespread and permanent amnesia. The most logical explanation of the loss of these basic survival skills is declining intelligence. Inbreeding due to isolation and tribal taboos prohibiting intermarriage with other tribes lowered their intelligence so much that they could not perform these tasks.

Australian Aborigines have dismal average IQ of 62 because their genes are different from the genes of other races. Papuans of the highlands of New Guinea have average IQ of 64. Melanesians on the New Guinean coast have average IQ of 84, probably due to infusion of Taiwanese genes a few thousand years ago. (source: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/iq-by-region-maps/) Despite their low IQ, Australian Aborigines and Papuans can start fire, catch fish, and make hafted tools. This means that all Tasmanian Aborigines had shockingly low intelligence. They were stupid animals in human form.

A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad what USer:Quinacrine was the point of this piece of nonsense? You will find any people in the modern world who also have forgotten all these "basic survival skills". For the same reason they were no needed for survival. IQ of this group was not tested as there was no such thing so long ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just pointing out that indigenous IQ is demonstrably higher than that of the average denizen of any Australian suburb.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Palawa

There's a problem with this. The 'Palawa' has a political ring to it, being the preferred name of the government-back Tasmania Aboriginal Centre, which represents the Bass Strait people. But in Tasmania, many claim descent from marriages between sealers and sailors, and aboriginal women, people who were never moved by official agency, but stayed put because, as the scions of mixed descent, they were not at the time classified as true tribal aborigines. These are the Lia Pootah. It's a problem of NPOV, since, as it stands (esp the lead) one position is endorsed, while the minority position, is ignored or passed over in silence.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Parlevar (Palawa) was the name of the "first man" (created from a Kangaroo) by a creation spirit and the name was used by Tasmanian Aborigines to identify themselves. However, the name is now used by the political minority group that runs the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Since splitting from the main Aboriginal community (Palawa and Lia Pootah) in 1996, the Palawa have had the power to decide who is a Tasmanian Aboriginal (ie: who can and who cannot access money and services provided by the government) and they recognise only decendants of the Bass Strait Island community as Aboriginal (around 2,000 people) and all claim direct decent from Manalaganna, the grandfather of Fanny Cochrane Smith. Palawa do not consider those decended from Tasmanian mainland Aboriginal communities, the Lia Pootah, as Aboriginal (around 16,000). In Tasmania, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is subordinate to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre who control all government funding and also control what books on Aboriginal history schools and libraries in Tasmania can have, unapproved books are banned as are records of their own pre 1996 oral history as it contradicts their post 1996 oral history. Michael Mansell is their spokesman. This political connection probably makes the use of the word in the article inappropriate.Wayne (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. We may or may not agree with the ways the TAC has placed itself at the top (which incidentally applies to a lot of government around the planet!) but until something changes, they appear to be the source of "official" material for the Tasmanian local government, such as place-names for the national parks, teaching material for schools etc. That to me suggests a sufficient level of offficialness.

Retaining the palervar I feel is also not entirely appropriate in the presence of a less colonial (mis-)spelling. And crucially, I don't see any evidence that there is objection from within the community to the spelling "palawa", rather than the work(ings) of the TAC.

My view is, if there are sources that question the use of the "palawa" spelling then we can use both but we can't just airbrush the spelling of the only (AFAIK) current language revitalisation project from the article because there may be political machinations involved. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for Palawa. Parlevar is not colonial spelling but the original Aboriginal name. The article recognises that Palawa is English spelling. The article recognises the modern usage of Palawa despite your claim that it does not. The usage of Parlevar avoids descrimination as Palawa is used politically. I'll have a look at how the academic community view the name. Wayne (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah a response :) Just what makes you think that the spelling Parlevar is anything but colonial? To use an analogy, Hong Kong is a colonial spelling that is neither Cantonese, Hakka nor Mandarin. In the case of Hong Kong the name has stuck by mutual consensus but that does not mean at all that it's "original" Akerbeltz (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Parlevar (English spelling of the Aboriginal phonetics) was the name used by Tasmanian Aborigines to identify themselves. It was anglicized to Palawa. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see the problem. Look, it usually goes like this (using Hong Kong as an example): Native says: /hœːŋ˥ kɔːŋ˧˥/ Foreigner hears: "whut? sounds a bit like /hɔŋ kʰɔŋ/" So he writes Hong Kong, which is normally a zillion miles away from how a linguist would write it or how a native writing system would write it. What usually happens is that later on the natives revisit such ghastly spellings and find a more appropriate way of spelling the sounds of their language. Parlever falls into the same category as Geelong, which in less garbled spelling is not Jillong. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually I support common English usage but with indigenous topics you need to exercise care when a term has become politicised or controversial. The Palawa debate is a very "touchy" area where "Palawa" has effectively become a political group. Wayne (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that sensitivity is sensible but we should also remember that Wikipedia does not consider "stepping on the toes of X" a reason for not saying something. Let me put this the other way round - is there any contemporary tribe/grouping/organisation that uses Parlever? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Academic sources often use Parlevar. When "Palawa Aborigines" are mentioned it refers to a specific minority group not the Indigenous community as a whole. All Palawa are of Bass Strait Island descent, specifically they are all descended from two grand-daughters of Mannalargenna of the Plangermaireener "tribe". Indigenous Tasmanians who claim descent from the other eight Tasmanian "tribes" are not Palawa. Wayne (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should avoid giving a "native" term altogether? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of supposedly extinct human populations on wikipedia?

If not, I suggest we start one... Please be in touch if you would like my help in compiling such a list as this is a subject near and dear to my area of academic research expertise and I have begun such a list, personally. Ancient Infant (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have so far found the following list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_indigenous_peoples_of_Russia Ancient Infant (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 28 October 2011

In the section "Tasmanian Aborigine shell necklace art" the verb should be singular : "A number..... IS held...."

80.189.176.92 (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a lovely pedantic request. It's fixed. Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing Request: Grammar, Intro

"There, a woman called Trugernanner (often rendered as Truganini), who is widely believed to be the last of the 'full-blooded' Aboriginal person, died in 1876."

Last of the 'full-blooded' Aboriginal people? 129.21.80.212 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)RSDB

 Done Sentence is a bit clearer now. Ignorant•Armies (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tribe Associated with the Risdon Area

Under the list of areas the respective tribes inhabited, The Moomairremener Tribe (from the Oyster Cove Peoples) are shown as being in the Risdon area. When looking at the South East Peoples, especially the Mouheneenner Tribe, it seems to imply they also were in this area due to written info regarding the first white settlement at Rison Cove. I believe the Mouheneenner Tribe (Hobart Town) were not actually on that side of the Derwent River. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.62.45 (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacqui Lambie

Jacqui Lambie claimed on 5/9/2014 that she is part Tasmanian Aboriginal, and that she is the first female indigenous senator to "cross the line". http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/09/05/jacqui-lambie-talks-about-indigenous-heritage --Zam864 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

The novel Korunah's Gift by S. PItt (2014) The historical novel Wyemena's Story and the collection of short stories Trouwerner by S. Pitt Please add this to the Literature section of the article Elisade63 (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for your interest. However, that section is only for notable pieces of literature only. This means that either the author or the piece itself need a Wikipedia article. Stickee (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request.

I think Richard Flanagan's "Gould's Book of Fish: A Novel in Twelve Fish" (2001)shoud be added to the Literature and Entertainment section for obvious reasons. Cheers, Geoffrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.173.72 (talk) 06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request.

There has been some material added, without any source or reference, to this page in the History section, Before European Settlement, regarding "the Amazon Hypothesis" apparently a theory regarding Tasmanian Aboriginal people originating in South America. In the absence of a source, this material should be edited out. 58.173.152.141 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

deliberate massacre

about fifteen years ago i had an aussie neighbor who told this story * at some point after disease had done it*s work the white inhabitants formed an armed line across the entire island and marched from end to end killing all aborigines * he was prompted to tell this story by a news article from home saying that the sole survivor * a woman * had just passed on from old age * there seems to be enough detail to this tale to enable someone to verify or discredit it * especially the part about a newspaper article * 184.74.68.171 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)grumpy

Didn't happen in Tasmania but it did happen in 1918 on Bentinck Island in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a mixed-up retelling of the Black Line campaign of 1830. In October 1831 settlers also formed a cordon to try to trap and capture Aboriginals on the Freycinet Peninsula. That was no more successful. BlackCab (TALK) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ben Lomond Nation Discussion

I have added some information to the Ben Lomond nation which probably deserves some explanation as some is inferred from the historical record.

Nomenclature

I have postulated that the use of the term 'Pennyroyal creek people' or 'Pennyroyal people' is a misnomer. As mentioned in the article, the use of the term 'Pennyroyal/Ben Lomond' come from one entry in Plomley's 'Friendly mission;' and is transcribed from a diary entry by Robinson. In all other instances Robinson (and Plomley) write about the Ben Lomond people without reference to 'Pennyroyal creek'.

There is no 'Pennyroyal creek' in the Ben Lomond or North-east Tasmanian area. So what is to be made of this - why would Robinson's guides (members of the Eastern and Northern nations),and Robinson himself, have referred to people they clearly would have known of as belonging to a region that lay on the other side of the Midlands with that of the Ben Lomond people? And why refer to the Ben Lomond people eponymously from the mountain in the text except in one instance?

Pennyroyal creek was the colonial and contemporary name of the Liffey River on the western midlands and was also the name (attributed by Robinson and Plomley ) of the people occupying this land - The Pennyroyal Creek people (Panninher). Robinson himself traveled over this country when passing through the midlands but by this time there were no aboriginal people left there which infers that they were deceased or had moved to lands not their own. There are several other examples of dwindling tribes forming coalitions during the black war (e.g. Oyster bay and Big River tribes, Tyerernotepanner and Plangermaireener etc)Sean Parker (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to infer that these people in the North-east region (at the time of this diary entry Robinson was in the north east)were Plangermaireener (Ben Lomond) and Panninher (Pennyroyal creek) people in confederation. If they were only Ben Lomond people manarlargenna (Robinson's guide) would have known this (coming from the adjoining region himself). So I contend that the reference 'Ben Lomond -PennyroyalCreek Natives' should be read as 'BL natives + Pennyroyal Creek natives' not 'BL/Pennyroyal Creek natives'.

It may state later in Plomley's history the composition of this group in question as they may have been 'conciliated' by him (or others) at a later date - if the people were a composite of Midlands and Ben Lomond it would lend weight to this contention, if not it would remove some support - subject for later research into this matter.

Nevertheless, Ben Lomond-Pennyroyal creek is now commonly used by contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal people (see Patsy Cameron's "Grease and ochre")to describe members of the Ben Lomond Nation in the 1800s. So, if it is a misnomer it is now an accepted name - historically and geographically correct or not.

Clan Locations

Tribal locations in Tasmania essentially derive from historical records at the time - where tribes were named as per the region in which they were commonly observed i.e. the Ben Lomond tribe were often seen in the ben Lomond locality, although they ranged anywhere from the ochre mines in the Western tiers, to Cape portland in the north east to Oyster Bay. The first historian to do major work on tribal names and locations was Plomley followed by the archaeologist Rhys Jones (published in Norman Tindale's text). Lyndall Ryan follows Rhys Jones' tribal boundaries exactly in her works. Rhys Jones does not appear to have read all of plomley's published notes on aboriginal tribal locations and nomenclature as he does not describe the location of any of the Ben Lomond clans - describing their locations as 'unknown'. Ryan follows this in her history. I have made the following inferences about tribal locations based mainly on Plomley's transcription of Robinson's notes, as follows:

• Plangermaireener. Plomley has transcribed Robinson's notoriously nebulous and contradictory notes at length and, from this, it appears that the referent Plangermaireener is used as a term for the Ben Lomond people generally and the clan variously inhabiting the eastern Ben Lomond and coastal region specifically. Manarlargenna is also described as a Plangermaireener AND an Oyster bay (sometimes Cape Portland) chief, or Chief of the Ben Lomond Tribe. This infers that he was a chief of an eastern coastal clan and that and the Plangermaireener country is on (or towards)the east Coast. Confusingly, or perhaps in support, the northern (i.e. coastal) Oyster Bay clan is also called Plangumaireener and in one instance, by Robinson (cited by Plomley), plangermaireener!

Plomley also specifically states that Plangermaireener refers to the Ben Lomond Tribe along the South Esk valley (Fingal area). As stated in the entry 'maireener' is a suffix indicating 'people' or 'plenty of them' - indicating a whole people, not just a clan necessarily - although other clans have the suffix mairenerpairener (plenty of them). So from this contradictory material the word Plangermaireener refers to both the entire Ben Lomond nation and the eastern (towards or on the coast) clans of that nation. If the Plangermaireener were a separate clan, as proposed and mapped by Rhys Jones and followed by Ryan, than it is most likely that they occupied the Eastern aspect of the Ben Lomond area from the Fingal Valley, probably (given the nomenclature) to the coast or at least the St Mary's plains region.

• Plindermairhemener. The plindermairhemener clan are mentioned briefly by plomley in his works and he make some mention of their location as south of the Ben Lomond Plateau. This would place them in a narrow strip of land between Stacks Bluff and the South Esk, as the plangermaireener lay to the east and the Tyrernotepanner lay to the southwest (the Tyrernotepanner were known as the 'Stony Creek Tribe' by colonials from the small tributary of the South Esk some 15 Km from Avoca by river). This is too small a section of land to support a clan so it seems reasonable to infer that they occupied the region of the western flank of Ben Lomond as well. As the south-esk river is the natural boundary between the Ben Lomond and North Midlands (Tyerernotepanner/Panninher) nations it seems reasonable (but conjectural) that the Plindermairhemener occupied the Glen Esk -Nile -Deddington region.

There are two mentions in the literature of the Plindermairhemener in the western Ben Lomond region (one relating to the Nile), but both sources have no clear attribution to the historical record. There are archeological remains on the eastern South-esk and Nile river areas which support their occupation - by someone.

• Tonenerweenerlarmenne. There is almost nothing in the historical record about this clan. If the regions previously mentioned were occupied already it seems reasonable to infer that the Tonenerweenerlarmenne occupied at lest some of the remaining tribal region of the ben Lomond Nation. This land lies in the extensive region of the Lower South Esk (Evandale, Gordon Plains) Upper North Esk (White hills, Blessington, Roses Tier) and Upper South Esk (Mathinna) as well as the hills bordering the surrounding mountains (Mt Barrow, Ben nevis, Saddleback, Victori) beyond which lay the country of the Pyemairernerpairener. There is one citation mentioning the Tonenerweenerlarmenne as being located in the South Esk valley, which I have referenced, but I could find no attribution to primary source material in the citation.

• Fourth Clan?. Plomley,Rhys Jones and Ryan mention that the Ben Lomond Nation had 'three, possibly four' divisions. If so it is plausible that the lower South Esk/Upper North Esk had a clan bounding the Port Dalrymple nation (the closest clan to the colonial occupation of Launceston - and the first subjected to disease and violence) and a separate clan in the upper South Esk. The area is large enough to support this but it is entirely conjectural and no names are mentioned in the historical record.

Sean Parker (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on cave dwellings

{{edit semi-protected}} There's this line in the article: "It is now believed that they also constructed basic wooden shelters and small domed 'huts' to protect themselves during chilly winter months, although it seems they preferred to live in cave dwellings" The source for this statement is given as [5] but it contains no mentions of huts or caves. I would like somebody to add a citation-needed tag to the statement, or provide a better source that proves they lived in cave dwellings.

Sentence removed, as not in the citation. Thanks. Discuss below if necc.  Chzz  ►  23:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No evidence of 'cave dwellings' so far as I am aware. There is evidence of use of caves and Extensive use of rock shelters I.e. Overhangs in NE Western Tiers and Lake Dulverton. Sean Parker (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

North Midlands Nation discussion

This dicussion centres on what is known and can be inferred from the archaeololgical and ethnographic data primarily related to the Panninher and Tyerrernotepanner clans.

Panninher

This is relatively uncontroversial but I have alluded to uncertainty of the northern border of the North Midlands Nation. Several sources (Ryan.Jones) attribute the western Tamar region as the country of the letteremairrener. This seems unlikely give the distance from known clan regions (i.e. the east Tamar) and that the Panninher were known to visit the south west Tamar valley. It seems likely that the western tamar valley was the province of a hitherto unknown clan of the North midlands nation (a possibility entertained by Ryan) or was country belonging to clans of the North nation ( asserted by plomley). Given that clan/nation boundaries overlapped it is probable that no certainty can be established. Which is why I have described the NNW border of the North Midlands Nation as being the West Tamar region or lying somewhere around the natural border of cluan tier/ meander river valley.Sean Parker (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Tyerrernotepanner

This is a puzzle which probably requires linguistic investigation. The Tyerrernotepanner were a clan centred at Campbell Town. We know this from Robinson who had members of this clan in his conciliatory mission. Contemporary sources, other than robinson, are of little help as they simply record all peoples of the south midlands as 'Stony creek tribe'. It is also clear that the modern use of the term 'tyerrernotepanner' really describes the population of at least 3 clans. It has long been conjectured that there were more than one clans in the south central midlands region and Robinson describes many clan names, often variants of the name 'tyerrernotepanner' (see Plomley's Tribes and Cicatrices). Ryan, rhys jones and others do ascribe some certainty to the probablility that there were clans centered at the Isis, Tunbridge and Ross regions. Pulling together the nomenclature and regions from Plomley shows this:

  tyerrernotepanner: 'Campbell Town region'
  peenrymairmemener : clan at Koannerwe country Lake Leake/ Glen Morriston region
   tareernotemmeter: clan at Ellinthorpe Hall 
   Rolemairre: clan at Tunbridge area
   Marwemairrener//truemairremener: clan at Mt Morriston, east of Ross  - alternative name

If we throw these names at a map we get:

• tyrrernotepanner + peenry__ :clan at Campbell Town/Lake river/ South Fingal Valley (possibly with as alternate spelling/name
• tareernotemmeter: Auburn/Isis region
• marwemairer: Ross/Mt Morriston region:
• rolemairre: clan at Tunbridge area

There are endless permutations but what it IS known is:

There are archeological remains + some historical data suggesting large groups at:

1. Bells lagoon (near Isis/Ellinthorpe hall) which infers but doesn't confirm a clan area
2. Cleveland/ campbell town/ south esk + historical references
3. Campbell town tier, lake leake
4. Mt Morrison area + Tooms lake (?Oyster Bay nation) , including tool quarries + historical references
5. Tunbridge - archeological remains

This is conjectural and I suggest that:

• Tyrrernotepanner + tareernotemmeter + peenrymairmemener at Campbell town/ campbelltown north + n/west region isis/lake river is consistent + archeological evidence of significant use
• Rolemmaire in Tunbridge region is consistent + archeological evidence of significant use
• marwemairrener as separate from tyrrernotepanner in SE Ross region

I suggest that we could remove all reference to other clans in the main page and leave it as discussion on the Talk Page but I think that it does a disservice to history and the probable presence of these other clan groups not to mention them on the main page, if not in this detail. I am wary of postulating clan locations and have them as being read as 'fact' by wikipedia browsers. Sean Parker (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Audio recording

Could someone please put 'Indigenous Australians are advised that this recording contains voices of people who are now deceased' in the comment box under the recording please?

Thanks.

Carcass1900 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not necessary unless expressly requested. Whilst this is common practice in traditional areas of northern Australia there is no indication that Aboriginal Tasmanians now practice or desire such a warning. Sean Parker (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tasmanian people ??!

I can't figure how to fix this: a search on: "Tasmanian people" gives the result: "There is a page named "Tasmanian people" on Wikipedia", but there is no entry in it for "Aboriginal Tasmanians". To me this result seems both unhelpful and insulting. How can the situation be rectified?

LookingGlass (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Culture

Why is there nothing written about their culture and language? It isn't as if nothing is known about either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Tasmanian aboriginal culture section commenced - additions welcome! Language is covered already in language pages.Sean Parker (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Genocide

First of all sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker. When I see the claims that there was no genocide of Native Tasmanians I feel a great indignation. Simple logic: a group of native peoples who lived in an isolated island for thousands or tens of thousands years, "mysteriously" disappeared in the 19-th century, just few decades after the arrival of the European settlers. Not culturally assimilated neither intermarried, but physically died without leaving descendants. You can debate about "full blood" or "criteria of Aboriginality", but the fact is that there's no proof of living descendants of the Tasmanian Aborigines, the rest is nothing but demagogy. The only known exception appears to be Fanny Cochrane Smith who married an English man and had 11 children, so the only possible way to be a descendant of the Aboriginal Tasmanians is to be a descendant of that woman. Other definitions such as "self-identification" and "spiritual connection" are nice and politically correct, I can also claim that I came from Mars, but it doesn't mean I really did. Except Fanny Smith the rest of the Native Tasmanians perished between 1804 - 1876 (one generation) without leaving any know descendants. The article Genocide says that one of the forms of genocide is "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". That's exactly what happened to the Tasmanians.--84.94.165.130 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not seem to make any claim that there was no genocide: see the lead –

Geoffrey Blainey wrote that by 1830 in Tasmania: "Disease had killed most of them but warfare and private violence had also been devastating."[7] Other historians regard the Black War as one of the earliest recorded modern genocides.[8] Benjamin Madley wrote: "Despite over 170 years of debate over who or what was responsible for this near-extinction, no consensus exists on its origins, process, or whether or not it was genocide" however, using the "UN definition, sufficient evidence exists to designate the Tasmanian catastrophe genocide."[1] . . . dave souza, talk 02:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Genocide implies a deliberate attempt to kill all or most of a group. There was no systematic plan to kill Tasmanian Aborigines.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology

There ought to be a section on anthropology. The Tasmanians were much more primitive than mainland Aborigines, and had a number of distinct characteristics that ought to be recorded.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC) This is a curious suggestion - what do you mean by more 'primitive'? If you mean that tasmanian aboriginals used less artefacts than mainland aboriginal people than I think that is discussed, or implied. Any implication that any people is 'more primitive' than another is 19th century thinking. What the tasmanian people had was appropriate for their environment. There is no suggestion in the anthropological record, such as it is, that the spiritual or cultural life of tasmanian aboriginal people was 'more primitive' than mainland aboriginal people. We do not know enough of their oral culture to know. What 'distinct characteristics' do you mean? Sean Parker (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Tasmanian Aboriginals were probably more complex thinkers as the different environment they lived in would require abstract thinking to survive (thinking about the future, changes in seasons, etc) its insanely different down here climate wise compared to the dry deserts in the mainland. - Mick

'Full Blooded'

Perhaps the debate on genocide can be more thoughtfully considered with a language edit. Throughout the article, the term 'full-blood' is used to describe people of differing degrees of 'Aboriginality', with the implied 'half-blood', or 'half-caste' - which is, by definition, everyone else - highly offensive. For reference, the wiki article on half-caste establishes that determining aboriginality based on a level of blood is inappropriate and no longer used.

This article points out the confusion caused by the death of the 'last full-blood' Trugernanner or Fanny Cochrane Smith for those unaware of the survival of Tasmanian Aboriginal culture after forced migration to the mainland and later returns to traditional homelands by these survivors - but implying that Aboriginality is due to a prescribed percentage of Aboriginal blood is highly offensive. I suggest an edit where the term 'full-blooded' is only used in historical references (e.g., Fanny being recognised by Parliament) or references to common historical misconceptions and in these cases, always in quotation marks. In other sections - "Contact with Sealers on the North and East Coasts" and the first part of "After European Settlement" the term should be removed entirely as the number of Tasmanian Aboriginal *people* was dropping significantly due to these events and clashes.

As for the Genocide debate - I'd like to point out that the definitions on the wiki page, the UN definitions and otherwise do not suggest that use of the term Genocide is not related to the success or the operation (survival of victims doesn't negate the use of the term), the formality of the actions (who authorised them) but the link between actions and intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.184.74 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The term 'half-caste' is not "by definition" highly offensive. Some people may take offense at the term, but others may chose to use it.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The term half-caste is highly offensive to aboriginal people. Inclusion as an aboriginal person is defined by kinship ties not degrees of genetic lineage. Moreover, the classification of aboriginal people by degree was a criterion for removal of children or allocation of benefits during the period of the Aboriginal Protection Board i.e. the period of Stolen Generations. The term still resonates today and ought not be used in any discussion around aboriginality. Sean Parker (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

References

George Robinson

The reference to George Robinson is inaccurate and highly defamatory. He was not a missionary, and his assurances to the aborigines were not false. He wanted to resettle the surviving Aboringines at the camp of Wybalenna, and did so.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The sources I used for the major rewrite of the Black War article described Robinson as an evangelical humanitarian, and that term would be more accurate than "missionary". I agree that the current wording accusing Robinson of deliberately lying to the remaining Aboriginal people is wrong. There seems no doubt he meant well, though it's also clear he resorted to force and began herding them at gunpoint to the settlements where their health began deteriorating immediately. BlackCab (TALK) 06:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How Robinson should be perceived is a subject of contemporary debate. Modern scholars (and contemporaries, I might add) regard him as vain, arrogant, aloof, humane, yes, but also highly contributory to the demise of Tasmanian aboriginal culture. Boyce has a very articulate article asserting Robinson's failures of character and action. This must be balanced against some of his comment's from his diary (found in Plomley's Friendly Mision') which clearly show his profound respect and humanitarian approach to Aboriginal people, specifically; but also his patronising approach and actions, generally. There is nothing defamatory in asserting that Robinson misled the Aboriginal people. This indeed appears to be the case - he advocated for the removal of the aboriginal people to Flinders Island knowing that there was no plan from government to return them to their traditional lands - a promise relayed to the people via Mannarlargenna. Robinson then went on to oversee the abysmal, and ultimately lethal, incarceration of aboriginal people on Flinders island. Unfortunately, Robinson's actions on removing the west coast clans was not only unnecessary but also removed the final hope that some aboriginal people might retain their traditional culture in toto. The motive for this removal appears to be vanity and self-aggrandisement - as a dispassionate reading of Robinson's own diary reveals.Sean Parker (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the history section to reduce the inflammatory content alluded to above. Contemporary historians make a strong case that Robinson, at best, obfuscated, at worse, misled the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.Sean Parker (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose name change to "Aboriginal Tasmanians"

The word "Aborigines" is now considered outdated and offensive to many Aboriginal Australians. See http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/working_with_aboriginal.pdf and discussion on Australian Aborigines. Hexyhex (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Yes. Completely the right thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Seems resonable to me, so support. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I will bump this discussion for a day or so to see if anyone new comes along who might object. Otherwise, I will move the article then. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If we are getting on the Euphemism treadmill, it is time to step up. "Aboriginal Tasmanians" is now considered offensive by some, and replaced with "Indigenous Tasmanians". Balgaboy (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

colonial times reference

i have just removed an untitled colonial times reference: {{cite news| title = *** Missing Title *** Missing Title ***

| newspaper = Colonial Times | location = Hobart
| date = 30 Oct 1829
| ref = CITEREFColonial_Times1829

from the article which appeared as reference no. 63 after the statement - "Lake Leake (previously Kearney's Bogs), Campbell Town, Ellinthorpe Plains (near modern day Auburn) and Tooms Lake were described as 'resorts of the natives' by settlers and showed substantial evidence of seasonal occupation.", as after reading the entire 4 pages of the paper available at the reference, found nothing concerning this. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)