Talk:Indigenous Australians/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Intermarriage rate

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)

1. "Blood quantum" is ancient racist nonsense, based on some view that if one's ancestors are not 100% Aboriginal, then one isn't Aboriginal. That view disappeared in any legal or practical sense decades ago.
2. If you don't see a problem with using as a source the personal musings of a conservative politician, no matter what his role over 40 years ago, you have no idea of what an independent source is. FFS, he's from the party whose Prime Minister wouldn't even apologise to Aboriginal people just 8 years ago!
3. I will admit to struggling with the meaning of "respondents without a non aboriginal ancestry".
4. As a general point I think the aim of these additions needs to be clarified. What, precisely, is the point of them? HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 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)

129.180.171.124 - are you the same person as 49.181.85.177? Any chance you (both?) could register so that conversation here can become more coherent?
Beyond that, I shall simply reiterate point 4. from above - What is your goal? HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 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)

You will not find a reliable source for the number of indigenous Australians whose ancestry is entirely drawn from other indigenous Australians, because there are too few official records to make such an estimate. That's why all we have are random opinions like Dr Johns', or haphazard calculations like that made by the Queensland Protector in the 1920s. However if you need a source for an essay and you're comfortable with Dr Johns' views, you should use his book as your source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for essays, so there's no need to seek an amendment to this article in order to complete your essay. Euryalus (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ipe.net.au/remote.html
  2. ^ http://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/AAJ_Vol15_Iss2_web.pdf
  3. ^ Dr Gary Johns, Aboriginal Self Determination: The Whiteman's Dream (2010) 50.
  4. ^ http://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/AAJ_Vol15_Iss2_web.pdf

Third opinion

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)

A couple of things:
  • Intermarriage rates are already pretty well represented in the current article wording, which references the Census.
  • Your second source doesn't seem to support your wording - it simply quotes the 80,000 figure as an estimate made by the Queensland Protector of Aboriginals in the 1920s, 40 years prior to any rigorous process of census-taking among indigenous populations.
  • The phrase "although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available" implies that official blood quantum statistics were accurate. This is explicitly not the case, as the pre-1971 census does not warrant any reliability in its calculations of indigenous heritage.
  • Removing this wording and also the wording wrongly attributed to the second source, we are left with something like: "Blood quantum statistics are no longer available, and were unreliable when calculated. In the 1920s, 40 years before a census would be taken, the Queensland Protector of Aboriginals asserted that the population of pure-blood Aborigines was 80,000. A former Commonwealth Minister, Dr Gary Johns, has written that a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent." And all this runs up against the actual data in the article, which covers these points already but with more reliable sources.
  • Lastly, and per HiLo, the proposed insertion needs a point. The majority of every people are of mixed descent, if you go back far enough. The article isn't an indiscriminate mass of opinion - to make an addition regarding Dr Johns' work, we'd need to have an idea of what significant argument Dr Johns was advancing. This is not meant as disrespect to Dr Johns - I hhavent read his book but no doubt he is advancing some kind of theory when he makes the statement you're quoting. But what is it, and is it significant enough for inclusion here?
Views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 04:55, 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)

I think that is the reverse of the approach we should be taking. I think we need to establish several things, one of them is whether the Protector was talking about all of Australia or just Queensland. Another one is what point Dr Johns is trying to make. Surely this information can be brought here to discuss? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. In passing the Protector's estimate is also unreliable as it was made in the 1920s, prior to the first actual Census of indigenous Australians in 1971. Sorry anon, but it remains unclear to me what the "principle" behind a proposed insertion is. That Dr Johns believes most indigenous Australians have mixed ancestry? That alone is not a sufficiently notable point for inclusion - can you indicate what the wider view is (as in the answer to the question "And therefore ...")? Euryalus (talk) 05:18, 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)

Well, no. For starters, there are the issues with accuracy given the age of the information, as well as lack of information about what population the Protector was talking about. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:36, 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)

LOL. You're bending over backwards to get meaningless information into the article for unexplained reasons. It's also time to mention that the kind of claims you're wanting in the article are precisely those made by people arguing against ongoing government support for Aboriginal people in Australia. My suspicions are growing in proportion to your persistence and lack of anything solid here. You have been told why such figures are effectively unavailable, yet you persist. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
This and some related issues have been discussed several times on this talk page over the years - unfortunately some of those discussions involved sockpuppets of User:Premier so their value became limited. But good news that you've put a "professional researcher" on the case, we can surely await the publication of their findings in a peer-reviewed journal or the identification of genuinely credible alternative sources, before we add anything to the article. There is after all no rush. - Euryalus (talk) 06:32, 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)

Peacemaker67 and I are the third parties. And a view that a figure "looks about right" based on your analysis of other data, is original research. - Euryalus (talk) 06:43, 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)

  • Latest revision:
We could go this way as well in the interim:
Although official blood quantum statistics are no longer available, a majority of indigenous Australians are now of mixed descent, with figures of around 50,000 being given as common estimates for the number of respondents with a single ancestry. [3] [4]
49.181.85.177 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
You have been told that any figure you obtain for "the number of full bloods" will be very, very uncertain. Why persist, in both seeking the number and, even worse, putting such a meaningless figure in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 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)

The estimates are not wild and woolly. There was an accurate census of the number of full bloods in 1961. Since then we know the aggravate numbers from the census. And the intermarriage rates.
We've put men on the moon mate.
49.181.85.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus in favour of you or anyone else adding original research to this article. Just as there was no consensus when it was proposed on every previous occasion. When your "professional researcher" produces reliable statistics on pre-1967 indigenous ancestry, and has their findings published in an independent peer-reviewed journal (and not in political opinion mags like the National Observer) we can no doubt discuss again. But for now, as always it has been fun to discuss this with you but from my perspective the conversation might be heading towards a natural end. Euryalus (talk) 07:46, 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)

It's not ready to run, you have no consensus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:54, 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)

What dispute resolution process? HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 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)

If you want to get anywhere, you need consensus. So far, nobody has agreed with you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:Third opinion is only for 2-party disputes, you've already got more than 3 opinions here so if you filed a request there it would be removed. What you probably want is to start an WP:RFC and if that fails to reach a consensus take it to WP:DRN... but since you've yet to provide a reliable source it would all be a waste of time. I suggest you read WP:RS and stop arguing until you have something concrete to base a discussion on. Tobus2 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well put, Tobus2 --Wikiain (talk) 23:13, 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

  1. ^ http://www.ipe.net.au/remote.html
  2. ^ http://www.actuaries.asn.au/Library/AAJ_Vol15_Iss2_web.pdf
  3. ^ 'The Courage to Say No to Fraudulent Aboriginal Claims' (1999) No. 41 <http://www.nationalobserver.net/1999_winter_ed2.htm>
  4. ^ http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/au.php

Australian politicians of Indigenous ancestry

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)

There is the List of Indigenous Australian politicians article, which may prove useful. --Roisterer (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Most helpful! I've incorporated that information and also improved the List article. I've put hidden notes into both articles that they may be wrong about Norfolk Island.--Wikiain (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Old data

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)

we cant use data from an unpublished report, once the productivity commission officially releases the report later in 2014 editors will be able evaluate its usability then Gnangarra 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

migration from India ~4000 years ago

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

A 2012 paper reports that there is also evidence of genetic flow from India to northern Australia estimated at slightly over four thousand years ago.
ref: Irina Pugach; Frederick Delfin; Ellen Gunnarsdóttir; Manfred Kayser; Mark Stoneking (January 14, 2013). "Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia". PNAS. 110 (5): 1803–1808. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211927110. PMC 3562786. PMID 23319617.
That looks to me like a sensible addition, and that it be cited to the Proceedings paper, so people aren't checking a second-hand source. A similar addition at History of Australia could be appropriate, before the words "But trepang fisherman did..." - and get rid of the "But" in that sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
the only issue I see is in the small area from which the sample was drawn, they refer to Northern Territories in the abstract. in the body they refer to solely Northern Territory[3] with data sourced from this to find the sample size of just 10 8 from NT and 2 from elsewhere. I would suggest that what is suggest for here is appropriate, but not for History of Australia while the genetic link is there there is nothing specific which indicates how it occurred, history of Australia article is about actual recorded people movements. Gnangarra 12:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an intersting point Gnangarra, re appropriateness for History of Australia, and I think I am persuaded by it. Perhaps just for this article, then.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have put it in this article, and agree that it's not significant for History of Australia until and unless more is known. I was also concerned about giving undue weight to something likely fairly small (although interesting and potentially significant to some people's ancestry). --Scott Davis Talk 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Are they one ethnicity or separate ethnic groups?

Are they subgroups of one ethnicity? Erieadieu (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a question that doesn't really work with Australia's indigenous people. Ethnicity is such a nebulous concept, the answer could be whatever the respondent felt on the day. If language is considered, then no, because there are maybe 400 different language groups. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

possible addition to Culture or Issues

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Thanks Cliffewiki, but my sense is that this is a broad top-level article, and to include things like Morgan's little escapade would be giving it undue weight. I wouldn't include a 'controversies'-type section at all - Marlo Morgan, Sally Morgan, that western Australian painter-writer whose name escapes me and her infamous alter-ego - i think they are all distractions from the important content we want to deliver in this article about Australia's first peoples. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Term missing?

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)

200 languages or dialects left

>"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)

Those numbers go back to a 1994 source (the Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia) so should be updated using more recent sources. I'll do so shortly. Dougg (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, done. Does it look ok? I've taken out the number of dialects as it's extremely speculative (and any counting of dialects is going to be very dodgy). Dougg (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction present hypotheses as facts

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)

That certainly is bold, and thank you for raising some of the issues. There's a couple of problems here. The first is that both the old lead and the new one focus on the question of origin. But this is not the primary use of the term. The main use of the term is to refer to contemporary Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, not those who were here "prior to European colonisation". The second is that the lead is far too involved with the question of origin, which is actually not that important in real life, nor in the article (most of which is about society, language, culture, population, and contemporary issues). The lead already gave undue weight to the definitional issues and now it gives it even more undue weight. The debate about gene flow etc is covered in the body text. If you think there's a line of evidence that is generally accepted in the scientific community (which tends to be an issue in this area) but omitted from the body text, then it would potentially be worth introducing, but in the main text rather than in the lead.
For the introduction, how about this, replacing the entire first four paragraphs:

"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."

That's all we need in the lead on this subject in my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Population figures

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. Gnangarra 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)

Languages in info box

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)

suggest that it states just that there were in excess of 300 languages with 700 dialects and link the language article, though I have reservations about the accuracy of that article as well. After working so long on Noongar language project I have yet to see any serious language studies that even come close to identifying the reality of the languages spoken Gnangarra 13:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted to "Several hundred Indigenous Australian languages (many extinct or nearly so) ...". I also removed Pama–Nyungan, because it is a subset of "Indigenous Australian languages". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Frequency of pregnancy in historically recorded Aborigines

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)

Gallery removal

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)

I'm closing this following a request at WP:AN. The result of this RfC is that there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well. Sandstein 10:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

{{infobox ethnic group| |group=Indigenous Australians
(Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders)

|image=

External links modified

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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Para on Smallpox doesn't seem to make sense.

"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)

It made sense to me, but I've added a bit of clarification as stated in the source. Tobus (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Smallpox
I get what’s being said in the paragraph. i don’t think it’s perfect wording; rather the wordings of its intended meanings could have a little improvement, but the problems aren’t huge nor is it unintelligible. It helps me that i have read many scholarly sources on the general subject and many of the original eye–witness accounts written by people there at the time.
I don’t know what looks 'odd from your point of view'. Do you mean from your personal opinion point of view? Do you mean from points in evidence sources in mind in your point of view? If so which evidence sources?
We have more quality scholarly sources available for this unpleasant history of my British ancestors’ "colonialist war invasion" and convict 'dump'—and i base that description on many more scholarly sources and sources written by eye witnesses at the time (eg. Tench); – obviously, i wasn’t there at the time as one of the eye–witnesses nor, obviously, there at the time in a position of European decision making power, thus i don’t have an opinion as if i did it would come out of personal no–knowledge and of first–hand ignorance, not having been there. Today, obviously, that applies to all of us.
Can you see that the expression "… but it looks pretty odd to me" without any reference to sources, suggests your personal opinion point of view, rather than your specifying scholarly sources and their point(s) of view, with which to compare the paragraph. Correct me with sources if i got that tiny interpretation wrong of your too few words above. Correct me if i’m worrying about your meaning more than due—because Wikipedia has had, in my 8 years of experiences, so many personal opinion propagandists here to push their view onto it, which i have done too many painstaking corrections of, from scholarly sources—which shouldn’t be necessary; hence the worry.
Reliable sources have the fundamental role here in encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Opinions of all of us editors do not stand for anything in the published articles of Wikipedia here.
Europeans then had extraordinarily different whole world views from us Europeans today … ; notably, British just prior to 1788 had lost the American War of Independence, in what became the U.S.A., as a colony–outlet for their mounting numbers of convicts, for one very significant scholarly established recorded piece of history pressuring towards colonisation of 'Terra Australis'. Not to mention the couple of centuries from the 1600s until 1807 of my European ancestors’ massive slave trading from Africa to the Americas, and even some in 1788 to Australia. In my British ancestors’ world-views of those days, of waning Dickensian England, with its "satanic mills" …, coal mining … and pea soup fogs, and chimney sweeps …, their convicts, massive numbers from over–incarceration for the clichéd 'stealing a loaf of bread', were perceived by the then powers as if leper-like, undesirables.
The cited–in–the–article most current scholarly reference source:
--Macropneuma 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
A recent, helpfully–explanatory and concise brief few paragraphs, reference source, of pages 153–4 in:
--Macropneuma 11:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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've just noticed this, user 122.151.60.10 (please sign your contributions). Warren's articles should not be lightly dismissed. He describes himself in the 2013 article as an "independent scholar" and states no qualifications, but does provide an email address so he could be asked. However, what matters is that the articles cited have been published in well-established, refereed scholarly journals, Aboriginal History and Journal of Australian Studies. The latter states: "Journal of Australian Studies is a fully refereed international journal published by the University of Queensland Press on behalf of Australian Studies, Curtin University of Technology, in association with the International Australian Studies Association and the Australian Public Intellectual Network." Wikiain (talk) 23:23, 24 December 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)

PS - That link to the Fenn article (which is to teaching materials) may be a copyright breach. The journal's website says that some material is free, but I can't check whether that covers this article because (guess what?) Norton Antivirus tells me that the site contains a threat. Wikiain (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Map?

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)

That map is probably a reproduction from the source at http://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles/aiatsis-map-indigenous-australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish statistical conclusions (may be OR)

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:

Distribution of the pre-contact Indigenous population when imposed on the current Australian states and territories
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)

I agree with your analysis in that the population density is different from the relative population of each state. The original premise of dividing the country up using the current states doesn't apply well to aboriginal Australia, since the population density varied mostly between centre and coastline, rather than between states.
Additionally, I find the following sentence to be troublesome:

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 reason being, if the article used the Map of Aboriginal Australia as cited, it appears that the editor is making the assumption that a larger density of tribes in a region (eg. the Northern Coast) equates to a larger population, which only holds if all tribes have the same number of members (and besides, is Wikipedia:SYNT). It's known that the population clustered along the coastline, and the Northern coastline may have an abundance of natural resources, but I don't see how the conclusion is justified in the article. Alternatively, it's possible the author used the Yearbook cited with the table (a copy is available at [5]), which gives the methodology used; to summarize, the population estimates for different regions come from different sources, so it's not a very accurate estimate (however, a good attempt for the 1930s...), and in many cases the estimate comes from what the non-aboriginal author thinks the land could support, so the estimates for desert regions are bound to be very low coming from someone with a European mindset.
In terms of the numbers themselves, they do appear to relate to actual sources, although I'm confused as to how they calculated column 3... Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

"Clans", "nations"

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)

Thanks for the heads up, Wikiain. I seem to have missed that content change. I believe your suggestion to be an appropriate one as I don't believe the use of quotation marks were intended as WP:SCAREQUOTES for 'Nations'. From my own knowledge of the subject, 'clans' shouldn't be in quotations as it the term is used in academic sources in the same way that 'tribes' is used. At best, it's a generic reference and, if deemed appropriate, wikilinked to Clan. The use of 'Nations', however, has become the academic norm in the 21st century with about 250 individual living 'nations' having been identified as existing at the time of European colonisation. Obviously, I need to dig around for RS attesting to this in order to construct an appropriate note qualifying the term. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Nations is an inappropriate term for Australia. Its adoption is the result of 19th century aggregatons that created several tribal groupings which a more attentive ethnography later found to be dubious. Tindale in particular was opposed to the notion and in his 1974 work reasoned out why it struck him as an intrusive concept. We have a lot of problems with terminology since the old tribe/clan/horde language has been refined considerably in the last 30 years, as indeed has Tindale's notion of fixed territories. Unfortunately, few of these modern sources are being accessed, and we fall back, by default, on what much of the earlier ethnography uses.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem with introduction

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)

You are right to raise the issue. The main problem is the generally poor use of scholarship in parts of this article and the weakness of the section on British colonisation. It fails to cover the frontier wars or adequately address massacres. Until it does, those words do not represent a summary of the article, so probably shouldn't be there. I am not sure I agree that the "words 'systematic' and 'genocide' have clear definitions" - in particular, there are, i believe, debates about what should be considered genocide, with lawyers pointing to what they consider to be a clear definition, but to which others, such as historians, may not adhere. But regardless of that, the sentence cannot stand as uncontested fact in the lead, in the circumstances. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Do you have an idea of what would be the best change to make to the part that I mentioned? If you do you can make the change. Otherwise, I can try Liberty axe (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientific racism - Australoid

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)

Religious beliefs - Islam?

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)

Agreed. McKay (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:28, 3 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)

@Wikiain: Agreed. I'm a little flat out (or a big flat out) at the moment, however it is not appreciated when editors (i.e., Torygreen84) simply remove content without any form of edit summary, then revert again sans any attempt at WP:BRD. The BBC article is certainly dated, but it does say 'growing'. While I'm not certain that it was particularly WP:DUE for this article in the first place I think we need to consider how it's tackled given that it is long-standing content where WP:BURDEN has been met, and I'm inclined towards WP:PRESERVE until the fact of this having been WP:CRYSTAL can be established. It's a little problematic as the article on Islam in Australia#Aboriginal Muslims varies slightly... so a mention is DUE somewhere, but where?... and has it, indeed, remained a growing trend? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 23 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

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)).

Its really simple, firstly Indigenous Australians is the main article as that refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a whole. Aboriginal is a generic reference to Indigenous people of the mainland and should really be depreciated with preference to the country of origin for individuals, languages, and communities. Torres Strait Islander for those connected to the Islands of Queensland, and Tiwi Islander for those communities & people on the islands off of Darwin. Gnangarra 10:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
names/words shouldn't defined as "an aboriginal word" it should preference the language of origin, ie its a nyungar word, or its a Yidinji word, . Gnangarra 10:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Good Gnan, I have not been too far off. I am imagining the Aboriginal Australians page being mostly a terminology section followed by a very detailed disambiguation section to the different ethnicities of Australia and Tasmania. This is mosly as we don't need a copy of the very detailed Indigenous Australians page.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)).
The overlap between this article and Aboriginal Australians has bothered me for a long time and I think confuses many editors, and I suspect that some of the links to both are guessed at rather than selected after looking at both and coming to a considered decision (which isn't that easy!). See also this discussion on the AA page (but I suggest keeping future comments here for convenience). The job is daunting but it would be nice to see a collaborative effort to look at both pages and try to eliminate duplication and see a way forward that more clearly distinguishes between the descriptive and functional use of each. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Genetics section - move to Aboriginal Australians?

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)

That seems reasonable. However if Aboriginal (mainland) Australians, and Torres Strait Islanders are genetically distinct, it might be worth mentioning that in the Indigenous Australians article - although possibly it's not enough for a whole section. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Just to provide some more background, the people of the Torres Strait fall into two groups, those of the west, who speak an Australian language (often called Kala Kawaw Ya, Pama-Nyungan family) and those of the east who speak the Papuan language Meriam Mer (Trans-Fly family). All the Indigenous Australians of the Torres Strait prefer to be known as 'Torres Strait Islanders' even though they fall into these two quite distinct groups, but this is more about shared cultural heritage and homeland than about genetics. To call them all 'Melanesian' doesn't really mean anything as this term conflates Austronesian peoples with Papuan peoples, two very distinct groups. Reading the cited papers, the Kayser et al used Aboriginal samples from Arnhem Land and the Sandy Desert, so no Islanders; the Nagle et al had 18 samples from 'far North Queensland', so quite possibly including TSI; the Macauley et al paper used genomic info from yet another paper (Ingman Gyllensten) which had Aboriginal samples only from the NT. So-- it's not correct to say that Torres Strait Islanders as a whole are genetically distinct from Aboriginal Australians (at least, not yet, as work of that detail does not appear to have been done), these papers have a mix of samples that are predominantly mainland Australian (ie 'Aboriginal') but may well have included TSI. They also all show that Aboriginal Australian genetics have a lot in common with those of people of New Guinea. Having said all that, yes it may be useful to integrate this information with that on 'Origins' in the other article. Dougg (talk)
  • When writing content care should be taken to maintain the distinction scientific genetic origins, theoretical migration models, and from the individual cultural origins of each country. Any use of Origins should include an initial qualifier as what the section is exploring and always qualify when discussing multiple distinct areas. Linguistically words will travel across adjoining language communities, and between trading partners to cause commonalities. There are also storylines(historical documentation) that cross these boundaries and have additional differential origin relational dynamics, welcome to complex world of other than colonial Australia. While joyously there is next to zero understanding outside of Australia of how many and the variety of individual countries that made up Australia before the arrival period, with being described as one. Gnangarra 07:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to sort out

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)

Laterthanyouthink, don't worry too much about the citation style, my ETVP script makes it easy to clean up. There is however one favour you can do, and that is to check that every citation you add has at least last/first (and/or variants) and year/date. Many of the standard citation-generating tools leave out these crucial items, so I have to add them manually by inspecting the source. Of course, some sources genuinely lack author(s) and/or date, in which case there's nothing you can do. (In the latter case my script automatically generates a | 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)
Okay, thanks NSH001, that's useful to know. I do always add author in that format, and date if available anywhere (although my order is often random!). It could still take me quite a while as I am trying to do at least basic cross-checks with other articles relating to each section, and sometimes can get sidetracked chasing down citations, adding extra info to either or both articles, tidying the other articles, etc. Perhaps I should add an Under construction template so that people know it's still a WIP? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I had noticed that your cites needed less work then most cites I encounter, so thanks for that. Every wiki article is a WIP, so I don't think you need to add such a template unless what you mean is "please stay off this page until I'm done, because otherwise you'll mess up my changes". Regards, NSH001 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
NSH001, does your script remove unused sources? With all of the chopping, moving and copying I'm doing in an effort to reduce detail in this article where appropriate and update in a more general fashion, I'm finding it a slow process, copying the citations from the separate list and then trying to clean up after my edits where they're not used any more. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 15 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)

Thanks, NSH001. Thanks for all that. I am somewhat unfamiliar with all of those different styles of citing, and having tried to read up a bit on them a while ago, soon hit brain overload trying to absorb the many parameters and "If that, then this" logic that weaves among them. So since then have just tried to replicate whatever citation style I could (until recently, a great relief, allowing your script to convert the type I usually use). That citer tool looks very handy though - thank you for that!
My issue with the style (or any style apart from the usual direct footnotes) in this article is, when copying or moving portions of script to another article (e.g. at the moment, trying to move or copy chunks out of the Health section into the Indigenous health article) occurs because the other article is using the other (footnote) style. So I have been manually looking for the short cite, then the long version, and copying over the long version into the text between "ref" brackets. Then, where moved, and deeming it unlikely that this article will ever need the source again, I have removed the source from the Sources list. To me it seems much easier to be able to see the references in-line, and to be able to move the whole chunk of text, and also be able to check the references in mid-edit. But I know that everyone has their preferences and we all like what we are used to. One of many problems with this article is that it's not only huge, but includes a lot of fairly useless stats dating from 15+ years ago, where (especially where a main article exists elsewhere with more detail and best updated there) it should be giving a general overview that doesn't need updating in two places, and/or include "as of" dates. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New Politics article

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)

What would an article on indigenous politics cover? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
More or less what is currently there, plus bring together numerous other scattered articles on the many and various organisations. I'm not necessarily putting my hand up to do it, because for me (as with most Australian history) it is a journey of discovery, and it might be best left to someone closer to the topic - but I have touched on various people and organisations related to the topic (private reading and wp editing) and found there are many. Also, having a look at the Category:Indigenous Australian politics would bring a few more ideas. Impossible to cover everything but it could provide some signposting to the more significant events, people and organisations. What is covered in this article is probably not a good historical overview, and there just isn't room for it to grow here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
most of the indigenous article range in the australian has not been planned or organised, and has been ad hoc at the best of times, - discovery is sufficient as there always in the larger project the fixers (sic), there are the dimensions of the politics as well - time - stages of the history that way, and the spatial - states and regions. It would be very very good to have some centralised over-view as the localised tendencies in current articles are not linked with others very well at this stage. JarrahTree 09:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I think there is enormous potential for that to be an absolute trainwreck unless we're very clear about what it's supposed to cover and where it's going. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- it would be very useful to explain what you mean by that, what do you see the problem(s) to be? JarrahTree 09:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time that white people trying to articulate indigenous politics have...done a terrible job of it, to put it very lightly. The best way to avoid doing that is to actually have a discussion about the scope of what you're trying to do rather than rush headlong into a nuanced topic that white people are great at fucking up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I am very strongly in agreement with User:The Drover's Wife here. We don't have a clear, finite definition of what the goal is. It's about a culture foreign to most of us. It's a subject area with rapid changes over short time frames. I cannot imagine how we would do this successfully. 01:51, 26 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)

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying you should think about what you're trying to do and discuss it first so we can work out how to do it properly. Deciding to tackle a nuanced, difficult and easily-fucked up topic one doesn't have expertise in without thinking of what, specifically, you might do with it is a recipe for a mess, and I don't understand the resistance to going into how you'd do that first. As I asked before: what do you think the article should cover and where do you want to go with it (besides general concepts about tying articles together)? The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
No resistance from me - this is the discussion. My immediate impetus came from my effort to improve and reduce the size of the current article, not to create new ones, but I realised that the section as it stands is problematical. I raised the question here so that a number of editors could contribute to what might be in the new article(s); I have already stated some of mine. Now that the History of self-determination article is already in existence, this might fulfil some of the need, although obviously needs more work. I'm not sure about the last section either, which is almost completely uncited and overlaps somewhat with politics, and who's in a position to pick the names that are included there? (And, another related article with multiple issues.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the History of Indigenous Australian self-determination is a great example of what I'm concerned we'd do with this: someone has, in good faith, created something aiming to tie a bunch of organisations together...and, out of well-meaning ignorance, framed efforts for indigenous self-determination as beginning in the 1970s, which is absolute nonsense. An accurate history of Indigenous self-determination would start with the frontier wars and work through things like Coranderrk and the earlier activist movements before remotely getting to that period (and it's hardly like I'm a hugely knowledgeable person to point out that much). It's not a topic I'm particularly confident with because I know enough to have an idea of what not to do but not enough knowledge to do it justice. I think an easier way of addressing the size of Indigenous Australians might be to start breaking it out summary style into its constituent sections because so many of them are massive enough for their own articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The problems self identified by drovers are very specifically exactly, why I would similarly wish to recuse myself from any creations or variations. Too many editors have literally no knowledge of any issues involved in the overview of the problems involved in the larger subject, and simply 'sit' on interpretations that they 'like' rather then any sense of an encyclopediac WP:NPOV article potentially being created. The WA project for a while had an interesting time-line, until it was pruned due to lack of WP:RS for verification, personally I think that a time line that is verifiable, of all the issues, might arrive at a more comprehensible and visible sign of progress than getting caught up in when something started and where.

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)

Recent changes

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)

Hey Laterthanyouthink! Sorry about the random change in citation for Common Ground, I accidentally deleted the original citation during my edit and it was just easier to recreate one than find and copy the old one. I also just simply have never used {{Sfn}} - rather, I use <ref name="xyz">{{Cite web|...}}</ref> then <ref name="xyz" />. I interpret MOS:BOLDLEAD talking directly and exclusively about the first sentence, which the given sentence isn't in. I don't mind though, so I'll go through and revert that bit. With blackfella, I forgot to cite this other source - QUT's guidance on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terminology which lists "blackfella" as inappropriate, explaining that it is "inaccurate and is considered to be offensive and insulting." Again, I'm not super fussed - I definitely came across a bit more strongly than what I really am in my edit message! ItsPugle (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey ItsPugle - no worries at all. I'm happy with the current version, but will just replace the Common Ground one with the other format (already cited elsewhere). I also use that usual format for citations, but this article was created using the other kind, and NSH001 runs a script on it now and again to bring them all into line, so at some point yours will be converted too. (I started work on trying to set style and terminology standards some months ago, after discussion on the project noticeboard, but the draft style guide has been left as is for a while. I tried to incorporate some of this into this article in the meantime. I will add that QUT guide to the draft in the meantime and would be happy for comments on it, on its slow journey to being parked somewhere where it can be used as a reference point for all users...) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi just wanting to clarify re that QUT guidance pdf. As far as I can see it does not say that "blackfella" is "inaccurate and is considered to be offensive and insulting", that statement is referring to the terms full-blood/halfcaste [etc]. What it says about "blackfella" is that it should only be used with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander permission, and recommends avoiding it as it "...may offend Indigenous Australians". I think it's pretty well established that "black fella" is an acceptable term in some parts of Australia (eg NT, parts of WA and SA), but is seen as somewhat offensive in some other areas. So it should be used with caution but is not an out-and-out offensive term. Dougg (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dougg - thanks for picking up on that, you're right. I'll either return it to what it was (with QUT citation added), or re-word slightly. (I've also recently seen "blackfulla" used by Aboriginal people, in an article in the Saturday Paper and a Facebook group name - but will leave that one out for now.) Please have a look at the draft style guide (see above) if/when you have time - any comments are welcome as I'd like to pick up on that again sometime in the not-too-distant. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey both! I think what we've got now is golden, but it seems like a bit of a disjointed and jarring sentence. Do you mind if I change it slightly to be a bit more concise and easy-reading (if I can) ? ItsPugle (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey ItsPugle, sure, fine by me, that's better. I just tweaked it slightly, as you have seen. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft deletion discussion

Editors at this article may be interested in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#User:Austhistory99/Indigenous_Australian_Inter-tribal_Wars_and_Violence Cheers Bacondrum 23:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetic studies, origin and migration

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)

I am sorry for the troubles. I have read again and seem to have misinterpreted some parts. I also agree to remove my additions. There seem also to be several studies with contradicting evidence and results (such as Boer et al. 2020 or Liu et al. 2019). I have reverted all my additions of Mc Coll et al. 2018, also per WP:SCIRS, which suggests to use only teritery studies and not secondary/primary research, especially with only one study. Sorry for the mess.213.162.73.127 (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for following up. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Land ownership section?

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)

My only suggestion would be to keep it brief in this article and expand Land rights in Australia and Native title in Australia, on which I did quite a bit of work some time ago but which could both do with more. The differing concepts of land ownership are not treated in any depth in either of those, but probably belongs more in the former. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate change impacts on Indigenous Australians

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Hi EMsmile. I'm fine with this, so long as it's short, given that the article is already rather long and unwieldy (and I've forgotten how to check the size). Maybe under "Contemporary issues", just another subheading with a sentence or two and a See also template to that section mentioned above? I don't have time to do a thorough read of it now, but I will get back to your climate change additions at some point. One thing I don't think is included (some of which I recently added to the Torres Straits Island article) is how rising sea levels are affecting those islands. The people have lodged a complaint against the government with the UN Human Rights Committee about it - see Torres Strait Islands#Climate change. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Laterthanyouthink. That's true, the article is very long already: 88 kB (13757 words) "readable prose size". I am a bit undecided where in "contemporary issues" it would fit and how best to include the sentence (I agree, just one sentence is enough). Maybe it is still too far into the future. Maybe I should just add it to the "See also" section. Awaiting inspiration from someone who is closer to this article and the issues... EMsmile (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mercer, Phil (31 March 2003). "Aborigines turn to Islam". BBC. Retrieved 25 May 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Australians/Archive_8&oldid=1141027003"