This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I'm looking at gaining consensus for this proposed edit:
"Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [1] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of pure blood respondents.. [2]"
With respect to the editor who goes under the name of hilo, I don't understand his concern about the 'conservative politician' Peter Howson used to be the minister of the crown responsible for aboriginal affairs. However, could we just cite page 50 of the book "Aboriginal Self Determination: The whiteman's dream" by Dr Gary Johns instead as the way forward?
As a substitute for the term "pure blood respondents", may I suggest we could replace it with "respondents without a non aboriginal ancestry".
So then the new edit would be as follows:
"Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [3] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of respondents without a non aboriginal ancestry.. [4]"
If that's not acceptable, perhaps hilo could demonstrate his or her own good faith by making constructive suggestions as to ways this information could be included into the article in a lasting way that would be acceptable to all?
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 02:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
With respect hilo, I'm pretty sure your revisions are being made in bad faith. I came to this article wanting to know how many aborigines there are of pure blood. Aren't other people going to want to come along wanting to know?
You apparently haven't noticed I've removed Mr Howson's newspaper article, and replaced it with a reference from a book. It's not a self published title. I've removed the references to pure blood. How about we go with the wording "with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number respondents with sole aboriginal ancestry." Or how about "a single ancestry"?
What more can I do to accommodate you? Why don't you make a constructive suggestion?
Can I put the information back up in one form or another, or do we ask for a third opinion?
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble joining up. My aim is to include the common estimate for the number of aboriginals of untainted bloodlines in the article on indigenous Australians. I came here wanting to know this information and couldn't find it. The reason I wanted that information is that Australian aborigines are notable for their propensity to intermarry, and I need a citiion for an essay I am writing. I think wikipedia is a fantastic concept. It's probably the greatest repository of knowledge the world has ever know. I want to make it bigger and better. That's about it.
I think we'll just refer it.
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
References
The contested edit is that this be incorporated into the section of the article entitled "intermarriage rate":
Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [1] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of respondents with a single ancestry.. [2]
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if it's just a matter of finding further verifiable references. Let's just decide to make such an addition in principle first. I say the form of words itself is about right. 129.180.171.124 ( talk) 05:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Dr Gary Johns mentions in his book that most indigenous Australians are of mixed descent in the context of the intermarriage rate being the blue ribband lagging indicator of integration. But it occurs to me that if we can find a verifiable reference for the most common estimate of the number of full bloods being 80,000, then the fact that most people who self identify in the census as aboriginal are of mixed descent is a corollary anyway. So for the sake of uncomplicating matters, I'm quite happy to drop the idea of using his book as a reference.
But are you all happy to proceed with that form of words if and when a verifiable reference for the figure of 80,000 can be supplied?
I think we are going to be in business.
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying it's anything other than an estimate. A ball park figure. To me all that matters is that the estimate has been made and that it has been written up in a responsible source. I'm sure the third party will see it that way.
I've put a professional researcher onto it, so that might take up to 2 weeks. My man is sure the figure of 80,000 appeared in a peer reviewed journal one time recently. Can't we simply add a footnote discussing reliability issues? Surely that's the way reasonable people would deal with it. So if we can find and substitute another verifiable reference and add a disclaimer, do we have a deal?
I'm bending over backwards to be compromising.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 05:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The reason is this: I visited this article hoping to find figures for the number of full bloods and I didn't find it, so I decided to be bold.
We couldn't reach agreement. That's ok. We didn't necessarily have too. Let's just wait for the third party.
80,000 would be about right if you look at the intermarriage trend line over the last 30 years. Maybe even a little bit on the high side, but as part of the compromise, I'm prepared to leave the drafting of the disclaimer up to you people.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 06:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a reference from a peer reviewed journal on the way, but in the meantime I believe The National Observer is held in the PANDORA archive at the national library is it not?
It has stated:
"Full-blood aboriginals are few in number — perhaps 50,000 — and are subjected to intense cultural pressures." http://www.nationalobserver.net/1999_winter_ed2.htm
I'm happy for your disclaimer to state it could b a high end estimate. But what about that as one of the references?
Try to be constructive and dispassionate, I certainly am.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 06:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't help it that people have made these estimates. What I propose now is that you folks come up with a disclaimer we can add as a footnote to the new material. That's your contribution.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 07:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for a third umpire. Is that you?
It's ready to run now, we can keep on improving it over time.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 07:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you're going on a bit silly about it and showing bad faith. It seems amazing I found any intermix statistics in the article at all, given census information itself is all volunteered and nothing to live by.
We will see what comes of the dispute resolution process.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 10:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I want it to go to binding arbitration, but don't you have to ask for a third opinion first?
49.181.188.221 ( talk) 01:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. Your request has been removed due to the number of editors involved here. 3O is only for disputes involving exactly 2 editors. If you still need content dispute resolution, consider a RFC or a filing at DRN or MedCom. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
References
This section is about the mainstream political system and has been developed, so far, only as to federal politics. I think it needs additions for States and Territories. For example, in NSW there is Linda Burney. Maybe we could assemble suggestions here and then move them into the section when they seem to be sufficiently comprehensive. To add other levels of government would be more complex. To be a local councillor might not be sufficiently notable, though the Torres Strait Regional Authority is a special case. Specifically Indigenous bodies, such as the Land Councils and (once) ATSIC, may need a different focus.-- Wikiain ( talk) 01:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The data in this article are relatively old — population estimates in Section 4 are based on 2006 census data. Suggest that Section 4 be updated with the results from the 2011 Census of Population and Housing from the Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2076.0. Data in sections 6.3-6.10 are also relatively old. Suggest that these be updated with data from the forthcoming 2014 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report to be released by the Productivity Commission in late 2014 http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMCD PC ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Bosom has twice attempted to introduce text to this article and to History of Australia about Indian migration, and these edits have been reverted by User:HiLo48 who requested bringing it here. The original editor appears to be new to Wikipedia, so may not have understood short edit comments. The article cited is from Nature [1] which in turn reports on research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [2]
I'm not convinced that Bosom's text has correctly interpreted either source, nor indeed that Nature accurately described the outcomes of the original research, however the concept does appear to be worthy of a small addition to both articles. I don't know if the sample sizes used in the research are large enough to be representative of entire populations, as genetics is not my field.
I propose adding a sentence to the 4th paragraph of Arrival and occupation of Australia after the Denisovan sentence along the lines of
Are they subgroups of one ethnicity? Erieadieu ( talk) 16:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggested subheading: Controversies
It might be a propos to briefly mention the controversy over the 1990 book Mutant Message Down Under, by Marlo Morgan, which purported to be based on personal interactions with the "Real People" tribe but was later debunked as fictitious. /info/en/?search=Marlo_Morgan
(Suggestion of a more authoritative non-fiction book would be good to append to this.) Cliffewiki ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I ran across this some time ago while writing a thesis on racial discrimination around the world, and wonder if some mention should be made in regards to a common term (racially motivated) used in regards to the indigenous Australians. The term I'm thinking of is "Abo" or "Abbo." It's noted here: List_of_ethnic_slurs as having originated within the indigenous culture to begin with, and was considered racist in the 1950's, with a mild racist consideration today. IE: Some consider it racist, while others take a neutral tone. My question is, considering the history of this particular word, should it too be included, perhaps after "Black?" Kitsunedawn ( talk) 05:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
>"Although there were over 250–300 spoken languages with 600 dialects at the start of European settlement, fewer than 200 of these remain in use,...."
Does the "200" refer to the "250-300 spoken languages," or does it refer to the "600 dialects"? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 02:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The introduction seems to present hypotheses as facts.
To say that "Indigenous Australians are the original inhabitants of the Australian continent and nearby islands" is formally false (obviously the original inhabitants are long since dead). If we were take it to mean the descendants of the original inhabitants, it is still on very shaky ground.
The ancestry and origin of Indigenous Australians is a complex and contentious issue and will no doubt continue to be a matter for scholarly debate, and all of this discussion is too detailed for the intro, but we can't start the article by assuming facts not in evidence.
We use the term Indigenous Australians to refer to members of groups that were in Australia prior to European settlement and their descendants. It can arguably be extended to their known ancestors or cultural predecessors.
I'm going to get the ball rolling by "being bold" and editing the intro.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 04:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Indigenous Australians are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia, descended from groups that existed in Australia and surrounding islands prior to European colonisation. The earliest definite human remains found in Australia are those of Mungo Man, which have been dated at about 40,000 years old, although the time of arrival of the first Indigenous Australians is a matter of debate among researchers, with estimates dating back as far as 125,000 years."
Population figures are all over the place in this article with source date range for "current" number anywhere between 2006-2014 even the info uses 2001-2014 dates. While there the "Regions with significant populations" in the info box is just a list of State population numbers which has no direct correlation to the subjects owns demographic distribution. Gnan garra 03:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the bottom population map of the four doesn't make sense. It says that "Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a percentage of the population" is much lower than the percentage of Aboriginals alone. Robert Ayers, 3 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:103:1981:52AC:C04A:D919 ( talk) 21:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Regard this edit [4] - I don't think the info box is improved by listing some of the several hundred indigenous languages. There are enough listed that the info box is cluttered, but the list is not definitive. Given that Indigenous Australian languages is linked, I think the original is preferable. That fact that most are extinct (assuming that to be true) is probably more important - in the limited space of an info box - than a partial list.
What do other editors think? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it known how often Aboriginal women fell pregnant while they still lived as foragers? I wonder because they were culturally more like farmers than typical hunter-gatherers.
2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 ( talk) 19:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The portrait gallery has been quickly removed by ExRat, applying the very recently adopted policy WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. While I note the misgivings of some users about the origin of the RfC that has produced this policy, it appears to be a current general policy which has been produced through a huge discussion that came to a clear predominance of view.
So that the present article may be taken forward from this point, I reproduce first the RfC decision and next the gallery in its final form (it had many forms), which may be used as inspiration for including further portraits of notable people at specifically relevant places in the body of the article. (I have done the same with Aboriginal Australians.) Wikiain ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
{{infobox ethnic group|
|group=Indigenous Australians
(
Aboriginal Australians and
Torres Strait Islanders)
|image=
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"A smallpox epidemic in 1789 is estimated to have killed up to 90% of the Darug people. Some scholars have attributed the outbreak to European settlers,[46][47][48] while other writers, such as Judy Campbell,[49] argue that Macassan fishermen from South Sulawesi and nearby islands may have introduced smallpox to Australia prior to European settlement. Reviews by Christopher Warren (2007)[50] and in 2013[51] and Craig Mear[52] suggest that the outbreak was most likely caused by British supplies of virus imported with the First Fleet. Warren (2013) proposed that the British had no choice as they were confronted with dire circumstances when, among other factors, they ran out of ammunition for their muskets."
"... British supplies of virus imported.." because "..they ran out of ammunition for their muskets." I am in no position to attempt a correction but it looks pretty odd to me. 60.241.75.153 ( talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)Re 'scholarly articles by Christopher Warren in regards to the claim of SmallPox.
Perhaps you can tell me what Mr Warrens' 'academic' qualifications are ?
As far as I can tell : he is a political agitator who has been heavily involved so called 'History Wars'
I doubt that his claims over the use of smallpox as a weapon have any scholarly weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.60.10 ( talk) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I was also baffled by this paragraph, esp. since viruses have not been discovered until the 20th century; so what was it that the First Fleet brought with them? I am not convinced that the word "import" is appropriate here (would you say that the US imported the nuclear bomb to Hiroshima?), and the use of the scientific term in vitro only adds to the confusion because it seems to indicate some kind of research technique (?). Not so sure about that. Corwin.amber ( talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly the idea of the British carrying In Vitro supplies of smallpox and deliberately using viruses in germ warfare in 1789, is patently ridiculous. This was a decade before Edward Jenner, 70 years before germ theory and 100 years before the discovery of viruses. Unless they had a time machine, this could never happen. Why we're even debating this stupid claim is beyond me. Philip72 ( talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes: Warren's claim that the British had "viable smallpox virus in bottles" is anachronistically expressed, implying that the British knew about the virus. But it does not exclude bottles of material that in fact contained the virus - material that the British knew was infectious although they did not know exactly how. The knowledge at the time was effective: see Smallpox as to variolation. Warren perhaps should have been supposing bottles of powdered smallpox scab—perhaps not brought from Britain but picked up on the voyage in order to ensure "freshness". Regarding smallpox infection as a contemporary weapon of war, using blankets and handkerchieves, see Elizabeth A. Fenn, "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst" (2000) 86 Journal of American History 1552, linked from Siege of Fort Pitt#Biological warfare involving smallpox. However, as to what could result in variolation and what could be fatal, let us hear from someone who is medically qualified. Wikiain ( talk) 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a map available at ABC.net. Does anybody know whether there is a vectorized version of it for use on WP ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.youmeunity.org.au/uploads/assets/html-report/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen62.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen63.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen64.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen65.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen66.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen67.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen68.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen69.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen70.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen10.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the table from the current article on numbers of Aboriginal Australians before the British invasion; to which I've added a column showing the relative population densities in each state or territory:
State/territory | 1930-estimated share of population | 1988-estimated share of population | Distribution of trad. tribal land | 1988-relative population density |
---|---|---|---|---|
Queensland | 38.2% | 37.9% | 34.2% | 122.1% |
Western Australia | 19.7% | 20.2% | 22.1% | 100.7% |
Northern Territory | 15.9% | 12.6% | 17.2% | 80.7% |
New South Wales | 15.3% | 18.9% | 10.3% | 202.1% |
Victoria | 4.8% | 5.7% | 5.7% | 110.2% |
South Australia | 4.8% | 4.0% | 8.6% | 51.2% |
Tasmania | 1.4% | 0.6% | 2.0% | 33.0% |
And here's one of the absurd conclusions drawn from this data:
The evidence based on two independent sources thus suggests that the territory of Queensland had a pre-contact Indigenous population density twice that of New South Wales, at least six times that of Victoria and more than twenty times that of Tasmania.
which I naturally marked with the "dubious" template for further discussion here. Clearly, from these calculations, NSW had about twice the average population density, whereas Queensland only had about an extra one in five persons (120%). Since these calculations are my OR, I don't expect anybody to use them in the article. However, there's no clear evidence for the ridiculous numbers which do already appear there. So I'm wondering whether those are also OR by somebody pushing a non-neutral point of view.
Has anybody some solid data on pre-invasion population densities? yoyo ( talk) 15:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Equally, there are signs that the population density of Indigenous Australia was comparatively higher in the north-eastern sections of New South Wales, and along the northern coast from the Gulf of Carpentaria and westward including certain sections of Northern Territory and Western Australia. (See also Horton's Map of Aboriginal Australia.)
The section "Before European contact" refers to Aboriginal "clans" and "nations". From today, these names appear without scare (single quotation) marks - removed by an editor at 220.244.169.6 as "unnecessary and therefore somewhat offensive". I agree that the scare marking can look that way, but it may also have had a respectable reason - that these classifications are uncertain, both in their general meanings and perhaps also in their application to Australian Aborigines. I would suggest that, while the scare marking should stay out for the reason given, there should be an explanation of their use in this context. For example, that "nations" may be meant as in speaking of "First Nations". (I can't see anything about this in the Talk Archives.) Wikiain ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Towards the end of the introductory paragraph it says "Systematic massacre and genocide of Indigenous Australians by British colonisers has also contributed greatly to depopulation" The words 'systematic' and 'genocide' have clear definitions that many if not most historians do not believe match up to what occurred in colonial Australia. I also note neither word is used in the main body of the article under "British colonisation". So do you think this part of the introductory paragraph needs to be reworded either to remove these words or to present them as an interpretation of history and not as fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty axe ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This article presents a link to Australoid and that article is simply uncritical description of scientific racism. The concept of an Australoid race is entirely debunked, but neither the link or the article mentions that this was a false concept imposed by European proponents of scientific racism. It is very likely that many impressionable people could their views about Australian indigenous culture from these sources. This should be fixed urgently. 43.243.12.69 ( talk) 09:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The infobox says "Religion: Majority Christianity, with minority following traditional animist (Dreamtime) beliefs and Islam." The source for this claim is a BBC article that estimates there are 1,000 Aboriginal Muslims in Australia, about the size of a large high school. This is roughly 1000/517000 = 0.2% of Aborigines. I think it is misleading to list Islam in the infobox when there are so few Aboriginal adherents. It should give people an idea of the dominant religious views among Aboriginal people, which are 1 - Christian, 2 - No Religion, 3 - Traditional Beliefs. Mr john luke ( talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Update: I changed the infobox. If you disagree with my change please explain why here. Mr john luke ( talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The main text continues to state: "A small but growing minority of Aborigines are followers of Islam. [1]" This is from way back in 2003 and (as a non-statistician) I can't find an update from the 2006 census or the 2011 census. Can someone update it? If not, should it be removed as unreliable? Wikiain ( talk) 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think is more than 1000 Zakizak8 ( talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders How do editors imagine these pages working together? (in a perfect world for practically) ( Dushan Jugum ( talk) 10:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)).
I am no expert in genetics, but looking at the sources in the Genetics section of this article, it seems to me that they are referring to Aboriginal (mainland) Australians, i.e. not including Torres Strait Islanders (who are predominantly Melanesian, more akin to New Guineans). There is already quite a long section on "Origins" in the other article, and it seems to me that this material needs to be integrated with that section, and removed from here. What do others think? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As per several related discussions on this page and that for Aboriginal Australians, just so that people know what I am currently doing... As a first pass, I'm trying to sift through the content to see if and where the info can or should be properly confined to either Aboriginal Australians or Torres Strait Islander people, or both, and clearly labelling as whichever with either subheadings or changes in the text (mainly, changing Indigenous to Aboriginal where the sources are only referencing Aboriginal peoples). When I've gone through it all, I'd like to discuss what if any should be moved to the Aboriginal Australians page and how to better define each page in the lead sections. I'm not very good at the citation style used in this article yet, so may short-cut by using what I'm used to here and there, and come back and do a cleanup later. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
| ref = {{harvid|...}}
, but that still requires manual inspection, as it's not possible to allow for everything automatically.) Thanks for all your work here. --
NSH001 (
talk)
11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, at least not yet. Actually , I don't think it will ever delete unused sources, rather it will mark them as unused. The reason is obvious: an unused source is not necessarily an error condition, for example it is good practice to make a list of sources before actually writing an article, or part of an article. It's on my bucket list to do sometime in the future, but it has a low priority. Of course, it's easy to manually delete a source when it's all neatly laid out in correct order in one of my biblio listings, the hard bit is identifying the ones that should be deleted.
But my script does do the opposite job - it will mark a short cite ({{ sfn}}, or one of its siblings) whose target appears to be missing. Usually this is caused by a typo (either in the short cite or in the long cite), so that the name(s) and/or year in a short cite don't match any of the long cites, but sometimes it is the case that the long cite is missing. There are a few cases that my script can fix automatically, but usually it's not possible to tell which of the two (short or long) is correct without a human looking at the sources. Most of the ones it does find I will correct myself, but if it's not obvious, or I'm short of time, I'll just leave it, with a note in the edit summary ("xx cite errors found, xx fixed"). Such unfixed cite errors are marked with a bold, red question mark at the end of the short cite.
I can't see why you would need to be "copying the citations from the separate list" – if it's already in the biblio listing, you can just use an sfn to cite it?
There is a reasonably good tool for generating cites to books and journal articles at < https://tools.wmflabs.org/citer/citer.fcgi>, which I find quite useful. Needs extra work if you're citing a chapter in a book, of course, plus I find it usually does need some small clean up, but not bad overall.
Hope this helps. -- NSH001 ( talk) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. There is Javascript tool you might want to try at
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. To install it, just copy-paste this code importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
into your common.js file at
User:Laterthanyouthink/common.js, and refresh the page. It checks for both missing targets and unused citations. I've never used it, as my script does a better job with the short cites missing a target, and I have no need to identify unused citations. Hence I can't vouch for it. --
NSH001 (
talk)
11:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
P.P.S. If you have any queries about Ucucha's script, ask Ucucha, not me. -- NSH001 ( talk) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
What do people thinking of creating a new article for Indigenous politics? What was in this article was a bit out of date, so I've updated it a bit and done a bit of copyediting, but I would think that there's lots that could be added in a new article - and remove some of the bulk in this one. (
NSH001, could you hold off running your citations conversion script until this is settled, please? It'll be easier to copy over into a new article if the refs remain in situ.)
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
07:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
p.s. I should add, one of the motivators is the sheer size of this article - must be pushing the limits - which can a barrier for both readers and editors.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So would you propose removing this section from this article as well? We are faced with a problem: a too-large article and not enough space to even attempt to do the topic justice here. There are articles on many topics on Wikipedia that are fraught with risk, but editors still create and modify them in an attempt to present something to those who seek information. Wikipedia is not expected to be an academic tome nor the last say in anything. I don't see the point of having all of the scattered articles if there is nothing to bring them together (except some categories - but most casual readers don't even know they exist). I long ago wondered about these two: Native title in Australia (with a short summary and see ref in Aboriginal title#Australia) and Aboriginal land rights in Australia, and then just yesterday by chance I stumbled across this one History of Indigenous Australian self-determination, created a few months ago and far from complete. So IMO there is a need to at least make an attempt to draw the issues together, possibly even with minimal text and a lot of links to other articles via timelines and/or broken into sections by state, or whatever seems appropriate for the content. (The timeline in the SMH article - which I started using here - could be a useful starting point.) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It needs also more than a few editors with ideas to actually work to put a well sourced timeline into place. From that articles can grow. JarrahTree 05:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi ItsPugle. Thanks for your recent edits, but I just want to point out that the reason for the bolding of the various terms is because of the style standards set out in MOS:BOLDLEAD, etc. Also, I'm not sure why you changed the citation style for Common Ground, and that source indicates that the term "blackfella" is still in use (and I'm pretty sure I've encountered it?) among Aboriginal people. Would you please have another look at your changes? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 09:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this article may be interested in this discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Austhistory99/Indigenous_Australian_Inter-tribal_Wars_and_Violence Cheers Bacon drum 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re this change, I haven't had time to dig deep, but I know that there have been lots of studies and opinions on the topic, and I am uncomfortable with the wording "There is increasing evidence...". As far as I can see, the editor is extracting and potentially WP:SYNTH. This overlaps with other articles (also edited by the same IP), and Aboriginal Australians, which contains more detail (but not this). The source may well be a good study, but I don't know that Wikipedia, in a general article such as this, should be representing this source and ignoring others, and attempting to extract bits from a detailed scientific study. Is anyone familiar with other sources, and/or in general, this area of science and history? I feel that we should probably be using more secondary sources here. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the great importance of land ownership to Indigenous peoples, both economically and culturally, a separate section on it seems desirable. It would have to include subsections for Indigenous and state conceptions of land ownership. The latter could refer to the current project "Who Owns Australia?". The Guardian. 17 May 2021. Retrieved 17 May 2021. Errantius ( talk) 00:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to include a sentence or two (or short paragraph) on how the effects of climate change impact the lives of Indigenous Australians - e.g. in Central Australia which might get too hot and dry to live there. To do that, I would also link to this sub-article: /info/en/?search=Climate_change_in_Australia#Indigenous_Australians . Do you agree that this would be relevant for this article? EMsmile ( talk) 14:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I'm looking at gaining consensus for this proposed edit:
"Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [1] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of pure blood respondents.. [2]"
With respect to the editor who goes under the name of hilo, I don't understand his concern about the 'conservative politician' Peter Howson used to be the minister of the crown responsible for aboriginal affairs. However, could we just cite page 50 of the book "Aboriginal Self Determination: The whiteman's dream" by Dr Gary Johns instead as the way forward?
As a substitute for the term "pure blood respondents", may I suggest we could replace it with "respondents without a non aboriginal ancestry".
So then the new edit would be as follows:
"Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [3] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of respondents without a non aboriginal ancestry.. [4]"
If that's not acceptable, perhaps hilo could demonstrate his or her own good faith by making constructive suggestions as to ways this information could be included into the article in a lasting way that would be acceptable to all?
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 02:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
With respect hilo, I'm pretty sure your revisions are being made in bad faith. I came to this article wanting to know how many aborigines there are of pure blood. Aren't other people going to want to come along wanting to know?
You apparently haven't noticed I've removed Mr Howson's newspaper article, and replaced it with a reference from a book. It's not a self published title. I've removed the references to pure blood. How about we go with the wording "with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number respondents with sole aboriginal ancestry." Or how about "a single ancestry"?
What more can I do to accommodate you? Why don't you make a constructive suggestion?
Can I put the information back up in one form or another, or do we ask for a third opinion?
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble joining up. My aim is to include the common estimate for the number of aboriginals of untainted bloodlines in the article on indigenous Australians. I came here wanting to know this information and couldn't find it. The reason I wanted that information is that Australian aborigines are notable for their propensity to intermarry, and I need a citiion for an essay I am writing. I think wikipedia is a fantastic concept. It's probably the greatest repository of knowledge the world has ever know. I want to make it bigger and better. That's about it.
I think we'll just refer it.
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
References
The contested edit is that this be incorporated into the section of the article entitled "intermarriage rate":
Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, [1] with a figure of 80,000 being given as a common estimate for the number of respondents with a single ancestry.. [2]
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if it's just a matter of finding further verifiable references. Let's just decide to make such an addition in principle first. I say the form of words itself is about right. 129.180.171.124 ( talk) 05:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Dr Gary Johns mentions in his book that most indigenous Australians are of mixed descent in the context of the intermarriage rate being the blue ribband lagging indicator of integration. But it occurs to me that if we can find a verifiable reference for the most common estimate of the number of full bloods being 80,000, then the fact that most people who self identify in the census as aboriginal are of mixed descent is a corollary anyway. So for the sake of uncomplicating matters, I'm quite happy to drop the idea of using his book as a reference.
But are you all happy to proceed with that form of words if and when a verifiable reference for the figure of 80,000 can be supplied?
I think we are going to be in business.
129.180.171.124 ( talk) 05:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying it's anything other than an estimate. A ball park figure. To me all that matters is that the estimate has been made and that it has been written up in a responsible source. I'm sure the third party will see it that way.
I've put a professional researcher onto it, so that might take up to 2 weeks. My man is sure the figure of 80,000 appeared in a peer reviewed journal one time recently. Can't we simply add a footnote discussing reliability issues? Surely that's the way reasonable people would deal with it. So if we can find and substitute another verifiable reference and add a disclaimer, do we have a deal?
I'm bending over backwards to be compromising.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 05:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The reason is this: I visited this article hoping to find figures for the number of full bloods and I didn't find it, so I decided to be bold.
We couldn't reach agreement. That's ok. We didn't necessarily have too. Let's just wait for the third party.
80,000 would be about right if you look at the intermarriage trend line over the last 30 years. Maybe even a little bit on the high side, but as part of the compromise, I'm prepared to leave the drafting of the disclaimer up to you people.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 06:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a reference from a peer reviewed journal on the way, but in the meantime I believe The National Observer is held in the PANDORA archive at the national library is it not?
It has stated:
"Full-blood aboriginals are few in number — perhaps 50,000 — and are subjected to intense cultural pressures." http://www.nationalobserver.net/1999_winter_ed2.htm
I'm happy for your disclaimer to state it could b a high end estimate. But what about that as one of the references?
Try to be constructive and dispassionate, I certainly am.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 06:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't help it that people have made these estimates. What I propose now is that you folks come up with a disclaimer we can add as a footnote to the new material. That's your contribution.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 07:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for a third umpire. Is that you?
It's ready to run now, we can keep on improving it over time.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 07:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you're going on a bit silly about it and showing bad faith. It seems amazing I found any intermix statistics in the article at all, given census information itself is all volunteered and nothing to live by.
We will see what comes of the dispute resolution process.
49.181.85.177 ( talk) 10:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I want it to go to binding arbitration, but don't you have to ask for a third opinion first?
49.181.188.221 ( talk) 01:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a regular volunteer at 3O. Your request has been removed due to the number of editors involved here. 3O is only for disputes involving exactly 2 editors. If you still need content dispute resolution, consider a RFC or a filing at DRN or MedCom. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
References
This section is about the mainstream political system and has been developed, so far, only as to federal politics. I think it needs additions for States and Territories. For example, in NSW there is Linda Burney. Maybe we could assemble suggestions here and then move them into the section when they seem to be sufficiently comprehensive. To add other levels of government would be more complex. To be a local councillor might not be sufficiently notable, though the Torres Strait Regional Authority is a special case. Specifically Indigenous bodies, such as the Land Councils and (once) ATSIC, may need a different focus.-- Wikiain ( talk) 01:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The data in this article are relatively old — population estimates in Section 4 are based on 2006 census data. Suggest that Section 4 be updated with the results from the 2011 Census of Population and Housing from the Australian Bureau of Statistics http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2076.0. Data in sections 6.3-6.10 are also relatively old. Suggest that these be updated with data from the forthcoming 2014 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report to be released by the Productivity Commission in late 2014 http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMCD PC ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Bosom has twice attempted to introduce text to this article and to History of Australia about Indian migration, and these edits have been reverted by User:HiLo48 who requested bringing it here. The original editor appears to be new to Wikipedia, so may not have understood short edit comments. The article cited is from Nature [1] which in turn reports on research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [2]
I'm not convinced that Bosom's text has correctly interpreted either source, nor indeed that Nature accurately described the outcomes of the original research, however the concept does appear to be worthy of a small addition to both articles. I don't know if the sample sizes used in the research are large enough to be representative of entire populations, as genetics is not my field.
I propose adding a sentence to the 4th paragraph of Arrival and occupation of Australia after the Denisovan sentence along the lines of
Are they subgroups of one ethnicity? Erieadieu ( talk) 16:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggested subheading: Controversies
It might be a propos to briefly mention the controversy over the 1990 book Mutant Message Down Under, by Marlo Morgan, which purported to be based on personal interactions with the "Real People" tribe but was later debunked as fictitious. /info/en/?search=Marlo_Morgan
(Suggestion of a more authoritative non-fiction book would be good to append to this.) Cliffewiki ( talk) 18:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I ran across this some time ago while writing a thesis on racial discrimination around the world, and wonder if some mention should be made in regards to a common term (racially motivated) used in regards to the indigenous Australians. The term I'm thinking of is "Abo" or "Abbo." It's noted here: List_of_ethnic_slurs as having originated within the indigenous culture to begin with, and was considered racist in the 1950's, with a mild racist consideration today. IE: Some consider it racist, while others take a neutral tone. My question is, considering the history of this particular word, should it too be included, perhaps after "Black?" Kitsunedawn ( talk) 05:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
>"Although there were over 250–300 spoken languages with 600 dialects at the start of European settlement, fewer than 200 of these remain in use,...."
Does the "200" refer to the "250-300 spoken languages," or does it refer to the "600 dialects"? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 02:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The introduction seems to present hypotheses as facts.
To say that "Indigenous Australians are the original inhabitants of the Australian continent and nearby islands" is formally false (obviously the original inhabitants are long since dead). If we were take it to mean the descendants of the original inhabitants, it is still on very shaky ground.
The ancestry and origin of Indigenous Australians is a complex and contentious issue and will no doubt continue to be a matter for scholarly debate, and all of this discussion is too detailed for the intro, but we can't start the article by assuming facts not in evidence.
We use the term Indigenous Australians to refer to members of groups that were in Australia prior to European settlement and their descendants. It can arguably be extended to their known ancestors or cultural predecessors.
I'm going to get the ball rolling by "being bold" and editing the intro.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 04:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"Indigenous Australians are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Australia, descended from groups that existed in Australia and surrounding islands prior to European colonisation. The earliest definite human remains found in Australia are those of Mungo Man, which have been dated at about 40,000 years old, although the time of arrival of the first Indigenous Australians is a matter of debate among researchers, with estimates dating back as far as 125,000 years."
Population figures are all over the place in this article with source date range for "current" number anywhere between 2006-2014 even the info uses 2001-2014 dates. While there the "Regions with significant populations" in the info box is just a list of State population numbers which has no direct correlation to the subjects owns demographic distribution. Gnan garra 03:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the bottom population map of the four doesn't make sense. It says that "Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a percentage of the population" is much lower than the percentage of Aboriginals alone. Robert Ayers, 3 July 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6045:103:1981:52AC:C04A:D919 ( talk) 21:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Regard this edit [4] - I don't think the info box is improved by listing some of the several hundred indigenous languages. There are enough listed that the info box is cluttered, but the list is not definitive. Given that Indigenous Australian languages is linked, I think the original is preferable. That fact that most are extinct (assuming that to be true) is probably more important - in the limited space of an info box - than a partial list.
What do other editors think? Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it known how often Aboriginal women fell pregnant while they still lived as foragers? I wonder because they were culturally more like farmers than typical hunter-gatherers.
2015-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.9 ( talk) 19:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The portrait gallery has been quickly removed by ExRat, applying the very recently adopted policy WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. While I note the misgivings of some users about the origin of the RfC that has produced this policy, it appears to be a current general policy which has been produced through a huge discussion that came to a clear predominance of view.
So that the present article may be taken forward from this point, I reproduce first the RfC decision and next the gallery in its final form (it had many forms), which may be used as inspiration for including further portraits of notable people at specifically relevant places in the body of the article. (I have done the same with Aboriginal Australians.) Wikiain ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
{{infobox ethnic group|
|group=Indigenous Australians
(
Aboriginal Australians and
Torres Strait Islanders)
|image=
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"A smallpox epidemic in 1789 is estimated to have killed up to 90% of the Darug people. Some scholars have attributed the outbreak to European settlers,[46][47][48] while other writers, such as Judy Campbell,[49] argue that Macassan fishermen from South Sulawesi and nearby islands may have introduced smallpox to Australia prior to European settlement. Reviews by Christopher Warren (2007)[50] and in 2013[51] and Craig Mear[52] suggest that the outbreak was most likely caused by British supplies of virus imported with the First Fleet. Warren (2013) proposed that the British had no choice as they were confronted with dire circumstances when, among other factors, they ran out of ammunition for their muskets."
"... British supplies of virus imported.." because "..they ran out of ammunition for their muskets." I am in no position to attempt a correction but it looks pretty odd to me. 60.241.75.153 ( talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)Re 'scholarly articles by Christopher Warren in regards to the claim of SmallPox.
Perhaps you can tell me what Mr Warrens' 'academic' qualifications are ?
As far as I can tell : he is a political agitator who has been heavily involved so called 'History Wars'
I doubt that his claims over the use of smallpox as a weapon have any scholarly weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.60.10 ( talk) 11:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I was also baffled by this paragraph, esp. since viruses have not been discovered until the 20th century; so what was it that the First Fleet brought with them? I am not convinced that the word "import" is appropriate here (would you say that the US imported the nuclear bomb to Hiroshima?), and the use of the scientific term in vitro only adds to the confusion because it seems to indicate some kind of research technique (?). Not so sure about that. Corwin.amber ( talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Quite frankly the idea of the British carrying In Vitro supplies of smallpox and deliberately using viruses in germ warfare in 1789, is patently ridiculous. This was a decade before Edward Jenner, 70 years before germ theory and 100 years before the discovery of viruses. Unless they had a time machine, this could never happen. Why we're even debating this stupid claim is beyond me. Philip72 ( talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes: Warren's claim that the British had "viable smallpox virus in bottles" is anachronistically expressed, implying that the British knew about the virus. But it does not exclude bottles of material that in fact contained the virus - material that the British knew was infectious although they did not know exactly how. The knowledge at the time was effective: see Smallpox as to variolation. Warren perhaps should have been supposing bottles of powdered smallpox scab—perhaps not brought from Britain but picked up on the voyage in order to ensure "freshness". Regarding smallpox infection as a contemporary weapon of war, using blankets and handkerchieves, see Elizabeth A. Fenn, "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst" (2000) 86 Journal of American History 1552, linked from Siege of Fort Pitt#Biological warfare involving smallpox. However, as to what could result in variolation and what could be fatal, let us hear from someone who is medically qualified. Wikiain ( talk) 02:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a map available at ABC.net. Does anybody know whether there is a vectorized version of it for use on WP ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Indigenous Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.youmeunity.org.au/uploads/assets/html-report/index.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen62.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen63.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen64.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen65.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen66.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen67.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen68.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen69.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen70.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen10.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the table from the current article on numbers of Aboriginal Australians before the British invasion; to which I've added a column showing the relative population densities in each state or territory:
State/territory | 1930-estimated share of population | 1988-estimated share of population | Distribution of trad. tribal land | 1988-relative population density |
---|---|---|---|---|
Queensland | 38.2% | 37.9% | 34.2% | 122.1% |
Western Australia | 19.7% | 20.2% | 22.1% | 100.7% |
Northern Territory | 15.9% | 12.6% | 17.2% | 80.7% |
New South Wales | 15.3% | 18.9% | 10.3% | 202.1% |
Victoria | 4.8% | 5.7% | 5.7% | 110.2% |
South Australia | 4.8% | 4.0% | 8.6% | 51.2% |
Tasmania | 1.4% | 0.6% | 2.0% | 33.0% |
And here's one of the absurd conclusions drawn from this data:
The evidence based on two independent sources thus suggests that the territory of Queensland had a pre-contact Indigenous population density twice that of New South Wales, at least six times that of Victoria and more than twenty times that of Tasmania.
which I naturally marked with the "dubious" template for further discussion here. Clearly, from these calculations, NSW had about twice the average population density, whereas Queensland only had about an extra one in five persons (120%). Since these calculations are my OR, I don't expect anybody to use them in the article. However, there's no clear evidence for the ridiculous numbers which do already appear there. So I'm wondering whether those are also OR by somebody pushing a non-neutral point of view.
Has anybody some solid data on pre-invasion population densities? yoyo ( talk) 15:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Equally, there are signs that the population density of Indigenous Australia was comparatively higher in the north-eastern sections of New South Wales, and along the northern coast from the Gulf of Carpentaria and westward including certain sections of Northern Territory and Western Australia. (See also Horton's Map of Aboriginal Australia.)
The section "Before European contact" refers to Aboriginal "clans" and "nations". From today, these names appear without scare (single quotation) marks - removed by an editor at 220.244.169.6 as "unnecessary and therefore somewhat offensive". I agree that the scare marking can look that way, but it may also have had a respectable reason - that these classifications are uncertain, both in their general meanings and perhaps also in their application to Australian Aborigines. I would suggest that, while the scare marking should stay out for the reason given, there should be an explanation of their use in this context. For example, that "nations" may be meant as in speaking of "First Nations". (I can't see anything about this in the Talk Archives.) Wikiain ( talk) 02:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Towards the end of the introductory paragraph it says "Systematic massacre and genocide of Indigenous Australians by British colonisers has also contributed greatly to depopulation" The words 'systematic' and 'genocide' have clear definitions that many if not most historians do not believe match up to what occurred in colonial Australia. I also note neither word is used in the main body of the article under "British colonisation". So do you think this part of the introductory paragraph needs to be reworded either to remove these words or to present them as an interpretation of history and not as fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty axe ( talk • contribs) 11:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This article presents a link to Australoid and that article is simply uncritical description of scientific racism. The concept of an Australoid race is entirely debunked, but neither the link or the article mentions that this was a false concept imposed by European proponents of scientific racism. It is very likely that many impressionable people could their views about Australian indigenous culture from these sources. This should be fixed urgently. 43.243.12.69 ( talk) 09:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The infobox says "Religion: Majority Christianity, with minority following traditional animist (Dreamtime) beliefs and Islam." The source for this claim is a BBC article that estimates there are 1,000 Aboriginal Muslims in Australia, about the size of a large high school. This is roughly 1000/517000 = 0.2% of Aborigines. I think it is misleading to list Islam in the infobox when there are so few Aboriginal adherents. It should give people an idea of the dominant religious views among Aboriginal people, which are 1 - Christian, 2 - No Religion, 3 - Traditional Beliefs. Mr john luke ( talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Update: I changed the infobox. If you disagree with my change please explain why here. Mr john luke ( talk) 23:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The main text continues to state: "A small but growing minority of Aborigines are followers of Islam. [1]" This is from way back in 2003 and (as a non-statistician) I can't find an update from the 2006 census or the 2011 census. Can someone update it? If not, should it be removed as unreliable? Wikiain ( talk) 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think is more than 1000 Zakizak8 ( talk) 16:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders How do editors imagine these pages working together? (in a perfect world for practically) ( Dushan Jugum ( talk) 10:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)).
I am no expert in genetics, but looking at the sources in the Genetics section of this article, it seems to me that they are referring to Aboriginal (mainland) Australians, i.e. not including Torres Strait Islanders (who are predominantly Melanesian, more akin to New Guineans). There is already quite a long section on "Origins" in the other article, and it seems to me that this material needs to be integrated with that section, and removed from here. What do others think? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As per several related discussions on this page and that for Aboriginal Australians, just so that people know what I am currently doing... As a first pass, I'm trying to sift through the content to see if and where the info can or should be properly confined to either Aboriginal Australians or Torres Strait Islander people, or both, and clearly labelling as whichever with either subheadings or changes in the text (mainly, changing Indigenous to Aboriginal where the sources are only referencing Aboriginal peoples). When I've gone through it all, I'd like to discuss what if any should be moved to the Aboriginal Australians page and how to better define each page in the lead sections. I'm not very good at the citation style used in this article yet, so may short-cut by using what I'm used to here and there, and come back and do a cleanup later. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
| ref = {{harvid|...}}
, but that still requires manual inspection, as it's not possible to allow for everything automatically.) Thanks for all your work here. --
NSH001 (
talk)
11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, at least not yet. Actually , I don't think it will ever delete unused sources, rather it will mark them as unused. The reason is obvious: an unused source is not necessarily an error condition, for example it is good practice to make a list of sources before actually writing an article, or part of an article. It's on my bucket list to do sometime in the future, but it has a low priority. Of course, it's easy to manually delete a source when it's all neatly laid out in correct order in one of my biblio listings, the hard bit is identifying the ones that should be deleted.
But my script does do the opposite job - it will mark a short cite ({{ sfn}}, or one of its siblings) whose target appears to be missing. Usually this is caused by a typo (either in the short cite or in the long cite), so that the name(s) and/or year in a short cite don't match any of the long cites, but sometimes it is the case that the long cite is missing. There are a few cases that my script can fix automatically, but usually it's not possible to tell which of the two (short or long) is correct without a human looking at the sources. Most of the ones it does find I will correct myself, but if it's not obvious, or I'm short of time, I'll just leave it, with a note in the edit summary ("xx cite errors found, xx fixed"). Such unfixed cite errors are marked with a bold, red question mark at the end of the short cite.
I can't see why you would need to be "copying the citations from the separate list" – if it's already in the biblio listing, you can just use an sfn to cite it?
There is a reasonably good tool for generating cites to books and journal articles at < https://tools.wmflabs.org/citer/citer.fcgi>, which I find quite useful. Needs extra work if you're citing a chapter in a book, of course, plus I find it usually does need some small clean up, but not bad overall.
Hope this helps. -- NSH001 ( talk) 10:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. There is Javascript tool you might want to try at
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js. To install it, just copy-paste this code importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
into your common.js file at
User:Laterthanyouthink/common.js, and refresh the page. It checks for both missing targets and unused citations. I've never used it, as my script does a better job with the short cites missing a target, and I have no need to identify unused citations. Hence I can't vouch for it. --
NSH001 (
talk)
11:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
P.P.S. If you have any queries about Ucucha's script, ask Ucucha, not me. -- NSH001 ( talk) 12:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
What do people thinking of creating a new article for Indigenous politics? What was in this article was a bit out of date, so I've updated it a bit and done a bit of copyediting, but I would think that there's lots that could be added in a new article - and remove some of the bulk in this one. (
NSH001, could you hold off running your citations conversion script until this is settled, please? It'll be easier to copy over into a new article if the refs remain in situ.)
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
07:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
p.s. I should add, one of the motivators is the sheer size of this article - must be pushing the limits - which can a barrier for both readers and editors.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
07:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
So would you propose removing this section from this article as well? We are faced with a problem: a too-large article and not enough space to even attempt to do the topic justice here. There are articles on many topics on Wikipedia that are fraught with risk, but editors still create and modify them in an attempt to present something to those who seek information. Wikipedia is not expected to be an academic tome nor the last say in anything. I don't see the point of having all of the scattered articles if there is nothing to bring them together (except some categories - but most casual readers don't even know they exist). I long ago wondered about these two: Native title in Australia (with a short summary and see ref in Aboriginal title#Australia) and Aboriginal land rights in Australia, and then just yesterday by chance I stumbled across this one History of Indigenous Australian self-determination, created a few months ago and far from complete. So IMO there is a need to at least make an attempt to draw the issues together, possibly even with minimal text and a lot of links to other articles via timelines and/or broken into sections by state, or whatever seems appropriate for the content. (The timeline in the SMH article - which I started using here - could be a useful starting point.) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It needs also more than a few editors with ideas to actually work to put a well sourced timeline into place. From that articles can grow. JarrahTree 05:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi ItsPugle. Thanks for your recent edits, but I just want to point out that the reason for the bolding of the various terms is because of the style standards set out in MOS:BOLDLEAD, etc. Also, I'm not sure why you changed the citation style for Common Ground, and that source indicates that the term "blackfella" is still in use (and I'm pretty sure I've encountered it?) among Aboriginal people. Would you please have another look at your changes? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 09:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors at this article may be interested in this discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Austhistory99/Indigenous_Australian_Inter-tribal_Wars_and_Violence Cheers Bacon drum 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Re this change, I haven't had time to dig deep, but I know that there have been lots of studies and opinions on the topic, and I am uncomfortable with the wording "There is increasing evidence...". As far as I can see, the editor is extracting and potentially WP:SYNTH. This overlaps with other articles (also edited by the same IP), and Aboriginal Australians, which contains more detail (but not this). The source may well be a good study, but I don't know that Wikipedia, in a general article such as this, should be representing this source and ignoring others, and attempting to extract bits from a detailed scientific study. Is anyone familiar with other sources, and/or in general, this area of science and history? I feel that we should probably be using more secondary sources here. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the great importance of land ownership to Indigenous peoples, both economically and culturally, a separate section on it seems desirable. It would have to include subsections for Indigenous and state conceptions of land ownership. The latter could refer to the current project "Who Owns Australia?". The Guardian. 17 May 2021. Retrieved 17 May 2021. Errantius ( talk) 00:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to include a sentence or two (or short paragraph) on how the effects of climate change impact the lives of Indigenous Australians - e.g. in Central Australia which might get too hot and dry to live there. To do that, I would also link to this sub-article: /info/en/?search=Climate_change_in_Australia#Indigenous_Australians . Do you agree that this would be relevant for this article? EMsmile ( talk) 14:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)