This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
note many of the discussion on this page include edits by Banned users
History sectionWhile 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. Ga rr ie 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Culture sectionThe 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 Category:Torres Strait Islands culture. Ga rr ie 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Damien Russell, while were at it, please provide proof of the mass murders of Chinese and Europeans by our "savage ancestors". I await with joyful anticipation of your response!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.100.84 ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC) requestI 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)
MapI 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)
uncited statements galore - possible original researchThis 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)
Related Ethnic GroupsIs 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)
Bathurst Island photographWhile 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 datesThis 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 materialMonths 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)
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 -
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. Satu Suro 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline Satu Suro 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does if whole sections are unreferenced. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence And Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material
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:
I will quote Jimmy Wales from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
To respond to:
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 sectionsThe 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)
Fact tagsI 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. Gnan garra 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) ContradictionThe first paragraph says:
The "History" section however says:
There appears to be some contradiction here. Should I fix it? Suggestions? OzWoden ( talk) 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Crico ( talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Prominent Indigenous AustraliansI 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 AboriginesWhat 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 informationI 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)
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)
That may be so but the article should mention something somewhere about Aboriginal assimilation and the extent of it. Readers should know that the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people live modern western lifestyle fully engaged in the economy in a urban area. That should know that integration has been taking place and that contrary to what many people seem to believe no Aborigines live a traditional lifestyle. One leading indicator of this absorption was contained in the 2001 census and showed intermixed couples made up 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal member (Source: Birrell, R and J Hirst, 2002, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place, 10(3): 27.) There should be a lot more demographical information in this article.
Can we just plainly say that the majority of people who identify as 'indigenous' in the census are of mixed descent? My point is that the intermarriage rate is 69% for black people in Australia. For blacks in America it is less than 2%. People have been predicting aboriginal assimilation since 1788 and this view still finds expression today. There is a group called the Bennelong Society. With regards to the last 30 years of assimilation statistics contained in the census we could comment on the emerging trends. I think this is a very poor article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it said somewhere responsible most aboriginal people are of mixed descent. According to One Nation (NSW) out of 500,000 people only 30,000 are full blooded. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Second waveI edited the article to say that modern day aboriginal people are descendants of the second wave of immigration to Australia as the Parathions were the first wave. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this would not be a source we could use, but the claim is made here: http://www.onenation.com.au/Policy%20document.htm I called this organisation to discuss the issue. They said scientists know because they know. I remember during the preamble referendum debate in 1999 people like Jeff Kennett pointed out that Ancient Aborignies displaced some other people who were here before them. He gave this group of people a different name which I have quite forgotten. Let's look into it hay? This is interesting prehistory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Uni of Sydney Prof Madden population figuresQuite simply a figured refernced to a repsected academic at one of Australia's better unis is more than sufficient for inclusion in Wiki. In contrast the claim that the standard figure is 30, 000 is not refernced in any way whtsoever. It is disingeuosu to claim that the Madden article makes such a claim, It does not. So please do not revert this again. If you wish to add reputable refercnes disputing Madden's figues you are encouraged to do so. If you wsh to discuss it the then discussion page is the place to do so. But to revert without refernces is not allowable. Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I would not piss on the history sections of modern universities. They are the most politically biased institutions in the world. I do think it is relevant to include his population assertion, but it needs to be made very clear that it is Madden that is saying it, and that it is not the traditional estimate on the census roll, or indeed not the consensus on the figure, as it reads if left as is. That was why I was reverting. Because you kept deleting the reference to Madden making the assertion. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) As well as the government website saying that the figure is 100 000, and that is already a compromise. Personally I await the day when we will be told that there was a whole civilisation of some 5 000 000 aborigines who were every bit as advanced as our ancestors except that they did not have gunpowder. Use your brain. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia has a simple policy: any material from a reputable source may be added so long a sit is referenced. There is no need to spell out the names of all authors. If you wish to add contrary references then have at it. If you don't have any such references then by definition it isn't controversial. Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
By this link [1] which was already among the footnotes, it has the aboriginal population at 80 000 at 1966. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Another government source already in the footnotes [2] which has the population estimate in 1900 at about 80 000. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is a messWe really need to get a consensus on what this page is actually about. At the moment it is neither fish nor fowl and is almost unreadable. I haven't looked at it for several months and it has much gotten worse in that time. A lot of important information and good work is being buried in a lot of academic debate that the casual reader won’t care about and will just be intimidated by. Balance is one thing, but the online argument that this article has degenerated into is way to much for the main portal article for one for the great ethnic and geographic groups of the planet. I think it would be a good idea to split this article along the following lines: The current article should be retained as a general overview of the topic. Very basic information on history, linguistics, demography, culture etc. No more than two or three paragraphs on each topic and try to keep it uncontroversial (not easy). Basically information for the casual reader or school kids. Essentially this will include everything down and including the “culture section” approximately as is and incorporate the bare bines form the mainland Australian, Tasmania, Torres Strait sections. We then split off separate articles for the more controversial sections. These are what are making the article so messy and as it is the basic information is being lost to most readers because it is being buried in an online argument. I’m proposing we replace “Issues facing Indigenous Australians today” with a few paragraphs saying basically “Like many other minority groups Indigenous Australians are overrepresented in terms of the criminal justice system, literacy, health etc.” Everything uncontroversial and well referenced. The rest of the section then gets its own article. Same for “Environment”. A single paragraph stating that “traditionally Aboriginals had reached an equilibrium with the environment, were believed for a long tome to have had mininmal environmental impact, but that a body of scholars now believe that they may have caused major environmental change”. Then split the rest of the material to its own article. Similarly most of the stuff in the Tasmania section can be moved right back into the culture wars artiicle where it seems ot have originated. I think this would be a win for all sides. The basic information is presented here with an acknowledgment that there is controversy and then the facts can be presented in frightening detail with reference and counter-reference in another article fro those interested. It will require restraint and goodwill from all sides so that just a little additional line isn’t slipped in here to bolster their position, and it will require work for those of us watching this article so they get moved out to the appropriate articles ASAP, otherwise the whoel process will snowball again. But I think it’s got to be worth it. This subject and the article is too important to be allowed to degenerate into this dog’s breakfast. Any thoughts Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Article assessmentI have reassessd the article as a "C" rather than "B". Issues include a large number of unsoruced statements, some inconsistent layouts and some sections in need of major copyediting (notably the Tasmania and the Environment sections). Obviously, having identified these I'll be doing some work to improve them. If there is disagreement with the reassessment I'm happy to discuss here and see if consensus can be reached. Euryalus ( talk) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Self-identificationArticle stated that "the only method of determining indigenous population is from self-identification on census forms". This isn't quite true. Besides the Census, the ABS also runs a post-Census survey (PES) aimed at quantifying various errors in the Census; that includes indigenous undercount and non-identification, and population estimates are adjusted accordingly. See e.g. 4713.0 - Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Australians, 2001. -- 144.53.251.2 ( talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) First AustraliansApparently science has confirmed that there were people living in Australia when the first Aboriginal people arrived. Apparently it has been written out of history books. We here at wikipedia are blind to political correctness. We are only concerned with the verifiablity of references. Who has some regarding prior occupation of these islands? This article gets it wrong from the very first sentence. 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Ancient Aborigines were the second people. There was a civilisation here when they arrived. I asked an Aboriginal lecturer in Aboriginal studies from my local university today and he confirmed it. Different authorities give this group of people different names. We might have trouble finding a source for this claim. Apparently these are forgotten people who have been written out of history books. As soon as I can find their anthropological designation and a verifiable reference I will edit the article accordingly. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A list of verifiable references for the claim Ancient Aborigines were the second Australians is pending. Apparently these works still exist. Made hard to find. But haven't all been burnt. If wikipedia still thinks it is a tiny minority view I will create an international news incident that will make these facts well known in a matter of minutes. What is victory without a struggle? 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 02:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The first source for the claim that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands that I want to discuss is Cape York - The Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell ISBN 0 646 28348 0. According to http://www.copyright.net.au/details.php?id=102 it was researched from original documentation in libraries and archives. Is this a verifiable reference? READERS REVIEWS => I also would recommend that it be available in all libraries - schools and public. As well as this opportunity, perhaps many Queensland and Federal politicians should have it on their own "must read" list... Especially the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs people. => I found this book's contents and claims to be fascinating - it was a "can't put down" type of book. If nothing else, it should warrant the historical academics to actully validate their own publications. A truly good book to read which opens the readers mind that "truth is sometimes more worrying than fiction". 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell's work has around since the 80s. There has been plenty of time to rebutt his claims. But I take it as a no for this book as a whole then? Are we ready for some forensic analysis of Mr Liddell's sources then? 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have ordered a copy of this book. I am going to examine his sources. Maybe we can use some of them to support the claim Australian Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands? It took a long time to get the exogamy rate into this article. I enjoy the struggle. I'll get jailed on go on a hunger strike if I have to. 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 09:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Rodney Liddell is a well known and thought of author. But we won't consider his book as a whole. We'll consider his sources in minute detail. Some really eminent and well known men have told me privately Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands. It is interesting that people have donated Mr Liddells monumental work to libraries such as the one at Newcastle University and it has gone missing. If it is true then there is a verifiable reference out there waiting to be cited. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
134.148.4.14 ( talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In his Flag Day 2001 speech Professor Geoffrey Blainey speaks of the "arrival" of Aboriginal people: http://www.australianflag.org.au/blainey.php When I say emminent men have told me Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the islands I mean people of that stature. Are they all wrong? We will consider another source tomorrow. That's if I don't go berserk before then and create an international news incident out of the matter. One way or another the truth will come to light. Very very soon...... 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell may or may not dribble a degree of shit in his controversial, hard to find, censored book. The only claim we need consider is the one that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to these islands. He has been notified his book was not accepted as a reference by wikipedia and asked to provide other sources for his claim. Sources that can be used to amend this article. Sources that would hold up under the scrutiny of binding arbitration and which would allow the claim to stay in article in a way that cannot be legally challenged. And given that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave these citations should theoretically be forthcoming. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher step by step wikipedia is winding back the chains of political correctness! Watch this space. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I favour getting jailed and a hunger strike. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 10:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell has been advised of the situation. He knows to provide verifiable references for use by wikipedia. His book might not be one in and of itself but I'm sure it was written upon a foundation of such sources. I can see that this will be a long and technical mediation process. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. My writing is distinctive in style. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It is with great interest I have been following this debate. I too have a copy of Mr Liddells work. Chapter 1 - "The Aboriginal Invasion of Australia" "Whilst researching the history of Cape York, I found it necessary to re-trace the 'ORIGINS OF MAN' on the Australian Continent. It soon became apparent that the ORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS were definitely NOT the people we now refer to as aboriginals. For over 200 years, Australians have been constantly indoctrinated into accepting the dark skinned natives that Captain Cook saw in 1770, as being the original Australians. Yet, truth is stranger than fiction. For all the latest anthropological evidence shows very clearly that the original Australians were PAUPANS, who came down from New_Guinea when both countries were connected by a natural land bridge estimated to have been 100 miles wide [160km], consisting of vast lowlands and undulating hills." Lets start with that. True? The book came out in 1996. Has there been an attempt at a rebuttal like happened to Keith Windshuttle's "Fabrication of Aboriginal History"? 12 years is a long time. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Controversial Australian historian Keith Windschuttle insisted that the first occupants of Australia were not the Aboriginal people but Negritos. "The Extinction of the Australian Pygmies" (June 2002) http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm Asidemes ( talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
note many of the discussion on this page include edits by Banned users
History sectionWhile 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. Ga rr ie 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Culture sectionThe 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 Category:Torres Strait Islands culture. Ga rr ie 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Damien Russell, while were at it, please provide proof of the mass murders of Chinese and Europeans by our "savage ancestors". I await with joyful anticipation of your response!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.100.84 ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC) requestI 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)
MapI 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)
uncited statements galore - possible original researchThis 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)
Related Ethnic GroupsIs 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)
Bathurst Island photographWhile 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 datesThis 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 materialMonths 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)
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 -
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. Satu Suro 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline Satu Suro 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does if whole sections are unreferenced. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence And Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material
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:
I will quote Jimmy Wales from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
To respond to:
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 sectionsThe 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)
Fact tagsI 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. Gnan garra 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) ContradictionThe first paragraph says:
The "History" section however says:
There appears to be some contradiction here. Should I fix it? Suggestions? OzWoden ( talk) 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Crico ( talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Prominent Indigenous AustraliansI 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 AboriginesWhat 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 informationI 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)
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)
That may be so but the article should mention something somewhere about Aboriginal assimilation and the extent of it. Readers should know that the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people live modern western lifestyle fully engaged in the economy in a urban area. That should know that integration has been taking place and that contrary to what many people seem to believe no Aborigines live a traditional lifestyle. One leading indicator of this absorption was contained in the 2001 census and showed intermixed couples made up 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal member (Source: Birrell, R and J Hirst, 2002, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place, 10(3): 27.) There should be a lot more demographical information in this article.
Can we just plainly say that the majority of people who identify as 'indigenous' in the census are of mixed descent? My point is that the intermarriage rate is 69% for black people in Australia. For blacks in America it is less than 2%. People have been predicting aboriginal assimilation since 1788 and this view still finds expression today. There is a group called the Bennelong Society. With regards to the last 30 years of assimilation statistics contained in the census we could comment on the emerging trends. I think this is a very poor article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it said somewhere responsible most aboriginal people are of mixed descent. According to One Nation (NSW) out of 500,000 people only 30,000 are full blooded. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Second waveI edited the article to say that modern day aboriginal people are descendants of the second wave of immigration to Australia as the Parathions were the first wave. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this would not be a source we could use, but the claim is made here: http://www.onenation.com.au/Policy%20document.htm I called this organisation to discuss the issue. They said scientists know because they know. I remember during the preamble referendum debate in 1999 people like Jeff Kennett pointed out that Ancient Aborignies displaced some other people who were here before them. He gave this group of people a different name which I have quite forgotten. Let's look into it hay? This is interesting prehistory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Uni of Sydney Prof Madden population figuresQuite simply a figured refernced to a repsected academic at one of Australia's better unis is more than sufficient for inclusion in Wiki. In contrast the claim that the standard figure is 30, 000 is not refernced in any way whtsoever. It is disingeuosu to claim that the Madden article makes such a claim, It does not. So please do not revert this again. If you wish to add reputable refercnes disputing Madden's figues you are encouraged to do so. If you wsh to discuss it the then discussion page is the place to do so. But to revert without refernces is not allowable. Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) I would not piss on the history sections of modern universities. They are the most politically biased institutions in the world. I do think it is relevant to include his population assertion, but it needs to be made very clear that it is Madden that is saying it, and that it is not the traditional estimate on the census roll, or indeed not the consensus on the figure, as it reads if left as is. That was why I was reverting. Because you kept deleting the reference to Madden making the assertion. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC) As well as the government website saying that the figure is 100 000, and that is already a compromise. Personally I await the day when we will be told that there was a whole civilisation of some 5 000 000 aborigines who were every bit as advanced as our ancestors except that they did not have gunpowder. Use your brain. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia has a simple policy: any material from a reputable source may be added so long a sit is referenced. There is no need to spell out the names of all authors. If you wish to add contrary references then have at it. If you don't have any such references then by definition it isn't controversial. Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
By this link [1] which was already among the footnotes, it has the aboriginal population at 80 000 at 1966. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 11:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Another government source already in the footnotes [2] which has the population estimate in 1900 at about 80 000. -- 58.172.251.46 ( talk) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is a messWe really need to get a consensus on what this page is actually about. At the moment it is neither fish nor fowl and is almost unreadable. I haven't looked at it for several months and it has much gotten worse in that time. A lot of important information and good work is being buried in a lot of academic debate that the casual reader won’t care about and will just be intimidated by. Balance is one thing, but the online argument that this article has degenerated into is way to much for the main portal article for one for the great ethnic and geographic groups of the planet. I think it would be a good idea to split this article along the following lines: The current article should be retained as a general overview of the topic. Very basic information on history, linguistics, demography, culture etc. No more than two or three paragraphs on each topic and try to keep it uncontroversial (not easy). Basically information for the casual reader or school kids. Essentially this will include everything down and including the “culture section” approximately as is and incorporate the bare bines form the mainland Australian, Tasmania, Torres Strait sections. We then split off separate articles for the more controversial sections. These are what are making the article so messy and as it is the basic information is being lost to most readers because it is being buried in an online argument. I’m proposing we replace “Issues facing Indigenous Australians today” with a few paragraphs saying basically “Like many other minority groups Indigenous Australians are overrepresented in terms of the criminal justice system, literacy, health etc.” Everything uncontroversial and well referenced. The rest of the section then gets its own article. Same for “Environment”. A single paragraph stating that “traditionally Aboriginals had reached an equilibrium with the environment, were believed for a long tome to have had mininmal environmental impact, but that a body of scholars now believe that they may have caused major environmental change”. Then split the rest of the material to its own article. Similarly most of the stuff in the Tasmania section can be moved right back into the culture wars artiicle where it seems ot have originated. I think this would be a win for all sides. The basic information is presented here with an acknowledgment that there is controversy and then the facts can be presented in frightening detail with reference and counter-reference in another article fro those interested. It will require restraint and goodwill from all sides so that just a little additional line isn’t slipped in here to bolster their position, and it will require work for those of us watching this article so they get moved out to the appropriate articles ASAP, otherwise the whoel process will snowball again. But I think it’s got to be worth it. This subject and the article is too important to be allowed to degenerate into this dog’s breakfast. Any thoughts Ethel Aardvark ( talk) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Article assessmentI have reassessd the article as a "C" rather than "B". Issues include a large number of unsoruced statements, some inconsistent layouts and some sections in need of major copyediting (notably the Tasmania and the Environment sections). Obviously, having identified these I'll be doing some work to improve them. If there is disagreement with the reassessment I'm happy to discuss here and see if consensus can be reached. Euryalus ( talk) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Self-identificationArticle stated that "the only method of determining indigenous population is from self-identification on census forms". This isn't quite true. Besides the Census, the ABS also runs a post-Census survey (PES) aimed at quantifying various errors in the Census; that includes indigenous undercount and non-identification, and population estimates are adjusted accordingly. See e.g. 4713.0 - Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Australians, 2001. -- 144.53.251.2 ( talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC) First AustraliansApparently science has confirmed that there were people living in Australia when the first Aboriginal people arrived. Apparently it has been written out of history books. We here at wikipedia are blind to political correctness. We are only concerned with the verifiablity of references. Who has some regarding prior occupation of these islands? This article gets it wrong from the very first sentence. 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Ancient Aborigines were the second people. There was a civilisation here when they arrived. I asked an Aboriginal lecturer in Aboriginal studies from my local university today and he confirmed it. Different authorities give this group of people different names. We might have trouble finding a source for this claim. Apparently these are forgotten people who have been written out of history books. As soon as I can find their anthropological designation and a verifiable reference I will edit the article accordingly. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A list of verifiable references for the claim Ancient Aborigines were the second Australians is pending. Apparently these works still exist. Made hard to find. But haven't all been burnt. If wikipedia still thinks it is a tiny minority view I will create an international news incident that will make these facts well known in a matter of minutes. What is victory without a struggle? 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 02:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The first source for the claim that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands that I want to discuss is Cape York - The Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell ISBN 0 646 28348 0. According to http://www.copyright.net.au/details.php?id=102 it was researched from original documentation in libraries and archives. Is this a verifiable reference? READERS REVIEWS => I also would recommend that it be available in all libraries - schools and public. As well as this opportunity, perhaps many Queensland and Federal politicians should have it on their own "must read" list... Especially the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs people. => I found this book's contents and claims to be fascinating - it was a "can't put down" type of book. If nothing else, it should warrant the historical academics to actully validate their own publications. A truly good book to read which opens the readers mind that "truth is sometimes more worrying than fiction". 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell's work has around since the 80s. There has been plenty of time to rebutt his claims. But I take it as a no for this book as a whole then? Are we ready for some forensic analysis of Mr Liddell's sources then? 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have ordered a copy of this book. I am going to examine his sources. Maybe we can use some of them to support the claim Australian Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands? It took a long time to get the exogamy rate into this article. I enjoy the struggle. I'll get jailed on go on a hunger strike if I have to. 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 09:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Rodney Liddell is a well known and thought of author. But we won't consider his book as a whole. We'll consider his sources in minute detail. Some really eminent and well known men have told me privately Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands. It is interesting that people have donated Mr Liddells monumental work to libraries such as the one at Newcastle University and it has gone missing. If it is true then there is a verifiable reference out there waiting to be cited. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
134.148.4.14 ( talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In his Flag Day 2001 speech Professor Geoffrey Blainey speaks of the "arrival" of Aboriginal people: http://www.australianflag.org.au/blainey.php When I say emminent men have told me Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the islands I mean people of that stature. Are they all wrong? We will consider another source tomorrow. That's if I don't go berserk before then and create an international news incident out of the matter. One way or another the truth will come to light. Very very soon...... 134.148.4.14 ( talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell may or may not dribble a degree of shit in his controversial, hard to find, censored book. The only claim we need consider is the one that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to these islands. He has been notified his book was not accepted as a reference by wikipedia and asked to provide other sources for his claim. Sources that can be used to amend this article. Sources that would hold up under the scrutiny of binding arbitration and which would allow the claim to stay in article in a way that cannot be legally challenged. And given that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave these citations should theoretically be forthcoming. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher step by step wikipedia is winding back the chains of political correctness! Watch this space. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I favour getting jailed and a hunger strike. 134.148.5.104 ( talk) 10:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell has been advised of the situation. He knows to provide verifiable references for use by wikipedia. His book might not be one in and of itself but I'm sure it was written upon a foundation of such sources. I can see that this will be a long and technical mediation process. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. My writing is distinctive in style. 121.216.35.172 ( talk) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It is with great interest I have been following this debate. I too have a copy of Mr Liddells work. Chapter 1 - "The Aboriginal Invasion of Australia" "Whilst researching the history of Cape York, I found it necessary to re-trace the 'ORIGINS OF MAN' on the Australian Continent. It soon became apparent that the ORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS were definitely NOT the people we now refer to as aboriginals. For over 200 years, Australians have been constantly indoctrinated into accepting the dark skinned natives that Captain Cook saw in 1770, as being the original Australians. Yet, truth is stranger than fiction. For all the latest anthropological evidence shows very clearly that the original Australians were PAUPANS, who came down from New_Guinea when both countries were connected by a natural land bridge estimated to have been 100 miles wide [160km], consisting of vast lowlands and undulating hills." Lets start with that. True? The book came out in 1996. Has there been an attempt at a rebuttal like happened to Keith Windshuttle's "Fabrication of Aboriginal History"? 12 years is a long time. 134.148.4.20 ( talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Controversial Australian historian Keith Windschuttle insisted that the first occupants of Australia were not the Aboriginal people but Negritos. "The Extinction of the Australian Pygmies" (June 2002) http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm Asidemes ( talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
|