Talk:Stolen Generations

Historical debates over the Stolen Generations

Template:NPOV-Section This section is flat out appalling. It does not contain any debates at all, rather it is almost entirely a series of denials about the Stolen Generations. I'd also suggest that Andrew Bolt is NOT a reliable source on this issue as the Australian Courts have convicted him of hate speech before.

Ideally, this article would be best rewritten by informed opinions who are not Australian. This article is of a poor quality, especially this section. That said, it is still possible to retain it, but not in its current form. The "debate" takes more space than the explanation of the events.

In short, there is more on this page that disputes the Stolen Generations than explains what they were. The "denial" position is not the consensus historical view, and does not deserve such heavy weighting. Vision Insider (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate over the term Stolen Generations should absolutely not come within the lead in. Wikipedia's convention is to have criticisms towards the end, or at the end, of an article. There is still too much weight given to the debate and not a lot on the issue itself, the effects and the people involved.

I've also removed Andrew Bolt altogether. He is not a historian and is not a credible source, so doesn't belong whatsoever in this article. That's not sour grapes because I disagree with him; Windschuttle is a historian who disagrees with the consensus and his material remains within. That said, I read through the sources provided and one of them is not only NOT a reliable source, but didn't even include the quote being used.

I appeal to historians other than Australians to write this article because there is generally a lack of objectivity in such issues within Australia. For one thing, the "controversy" surrounding the Stolen Generations does not really exist outside of Australia and it is given too much weight here. It is similar to expecting that the Apartheid articles in South Africa would be better written by historians who are not South African. Vision Insider (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that I'm the only one writing in this thread, but this article desperately needs attention. Suggestion that the Stolen Generations do not exist are a minority opinion that is, for the most part, not credible (presumably this is why Windschuttle is used so much throughout this article; no other historians agree with him). That's not to say that the section debating it doesn't belong, as uncomfortable as it may make people. HOWEVER, the bulk of this article is either on the Federal Government apology OR the arguments surrounding the issue. There are many cases that could be used to explain what the Stolen Generations were, and how they affected people. Vision Insider (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've tried to improve the NPOV in this section, and for now have removed the issue sign, but if you think there are still issues or improvements please do add them. SpikeballUnion (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Text that reads that Windschuttle "argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have, in some cases, been exaggerated and in other cases, invented" is an accurate statement of his position. The terms 'denies', 'denier' and 'denial' are commonly linked to Holocaust Denial and their use with respect to a historian who does not deny that there were abuses but argues for an accurate assessment of what abuse did occur would fail the requirement for a NPOV.

2. Please refrain from using the terms 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines. Basically 'Aboriginal' is only to be used as an adjective, not as a noun. Some Aboriginal people consider being called an 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' insulting. It was explained to me by Aboriginal people that when they hear the terms used that way they feel like it is being deliberately done and that white people who use them are avoiding using the words 'person' or 'people', that they are being called an Aboriginal 'something' but not a person. It may not be intended that way but that is how they feel. It is so widely known that you don’t use 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines that this really shouldn’t be an issue anymore. The following are just a few of the references that are out there regarding this issue.

http://www.monash.edu/about/editorialstyle/writing/inclusive-language www.health.nsw.gov.au/aboriginal/Publications/pub-terminology.pdf https://www.flinders.edu.au/staff-development-files/CDIP%20documents/CDIP%20Toolkit%202015/2_%20Appropriate%20Terminology,%20Indigenous%20Australians.pdf

3. With regard to the use of the label 'Conservative' attached to Ron Brunton. Relevance and consistency: Labelling someone with a political tag might possibly be justified if all the relevant parties were labelled because it was necessary for the purposes of the discussion. It is clearly not in this case, Brunton simply makes the point that in the Commission, witnesses were not cross-examined nor was their evidence tested for accuracy in any other way, such as by examining the original records of their cases. The fact that the testimony was not checked for factual accuracy is not a conservative, left-wing, right-wing, progressive or whatever issue, unless you want to argue that only conservatives care about factual accuracy, therefore attaching the 'Conservative' label to Brunton is irrelevant. There are numerous persons referred to in the article. Is there a political label attached to all of them? No. Then why attach a label to Brunton unless you want to mark him out as a ‘special case’? That would violate the NPOV requirements for representing views fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Labelling one out of numerous sources with someone’s personal opinion of what that source’s political leanings are appears to be unfair and editorial bias. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:9D48:CF34:C2A8:3D72 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Adelaide Sun

I can find no other reference to "Adelaide Sun", other than the quoted cite. My guess is it's a reference to the Sunday Mail (Adelaide), but changing it, especially because it is referenced, would be OR. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

State Library of SA had trouble finding the Sun too, but see refs added. It would be OR to dig out the clipping and verify the exact quote, but a search on the mother's name revels extensive data on Priscilla Karpany and baby Manuel. Perhaps others will be motivated to do the OR and publish it, so I have left the query (so far as it concerns the exact words quoted)as it stood. Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Search re Adelaide Sun or The Sun goes like this. (Query): "A (probably) related event can be found at: [1] The reference is around p 145: (iv) C. E. Taplin, Honorary Protector of Aborigines to Chief Protector of Aborigines, Flinders Street, Adelaide, April 21 1924. Dear Sir My attention has been drawn to the case of the native girl – Precilla Karpany – having her baby, nine months old, taken away from her under the provisions of the Aborigines Act passed last year. Also to the report of the occurrence, with severe comments thereon, published in “The Adelaide Sun” of April 12th. The tenor of that article makes a vivid criticism of the gross inhumanity of such a ruthless, and cruel administration of the Act. That a woman should have her own baby recklessly dragged from her arms, and taken entirely away from her, at the behest of a Government Official, because some female inspectress thought the mother an unsuitable guardian, is shocking to contemplate. What does the female official know of the right way to treat an aboriginal baby? As a matter of fact I have taken this young native woman into my own home, and find her clean and well behaved. Not at all such a character as might be expected to illtreat her own child......

This suggests 1924 as the date, rather than 1923. I can find no reference to a newspaper of this name on (The State Library of South Australia) site, and only one at the NLA newspaper collection, namely a reference of to the Adelaide “Sun” losing a libel case in 1924, reported in the Melbourne Argus."

(Reply - in part- says) "Sands & McDougall's South Australian directory for 1924 has a listing for 'Sun (The), Adelaide, Saturday (midnight)' in the Mercantile directory listing for Newspapers but there is no listing in the 1923 and 1925 directories indicating that the Sun may have been shortlived and that it may not have survived the £200 damages claim for libel awarded to plaintiff Clifford Otto Roennfeldt, musician of 9 Rundle Street Adelaide (Argus, 19 Jan. 1924, p. 34 [p. 32 according to Index to "The Argus"] ). ... Australian Securities & Investments Commission Index of corporate and business names lists Sun newspaper(Melbourne),Deregistered 28/03/1927 and THE SUN NEWSPAPER CO. LIMITED (Vic.) Deregistered 30/06/1915 but not Sun (Adelaide) although there is an Adelaide Sun Limited(SA), Deregistered 12/12/1940. The article "A newspaper sued"(Advertiser, p. 19 columns (c) - (d), 19/1/1924) names "the persons who are co-partners in the firm for the purposes of proceedings against them...[as] Thomas Alfred Humble of Fullarton - retired farmer; John McKellar Giles of Blackwood, journalist and Walter George Jones, of Willowie, pastoralist..." also naming Mr Giles as the editor who wrote the article. Also mentioned in the article are Archibald Alfred Thomas of Glenelg and Hugh Charles Howie of Goodwood Park, journalists of the Adelaide Sun. I am sorry that I have not been able to track issues of the Sun for you and hope that one or another of the suggested approaches above will lead you to a more detailed account of Ms Karpany's mistreatment. The State Library of South Australia maintains a listing of local newspapers we would like to microfilm for preservation purposes and if by any chance you do locate copies of this paper we would appreciate it if you could let (the) Coordinator of our Preservation Services Team, know where copies can be found." Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the {{verification needed}} tag. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mixed race

If these policies applied only to biracial people, why doesn't the lead say that? When I read it, I thought it meant only "full" Aboriginal and TSI children were taken away. 76.246.149.144 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Please remember to balance reports re the stolen generation with the true fact that many of the children taken from aboriginal parents were neglected and in fact close to death. The second born of twins, for example, was often left to another tribe member to be cared for, as the mother was only able to carry one child when on walkabout. Many nursing sisters and police officers from regional areas were concerned regarding the health of these children as they arrived close to death to be treated for various medical conditions. Some children would present 2 or 3 times and when this happened, the nursing staff would approach the local police officer to take the child to provide better care. I have no doubt that some children were given less than adequate care, but so were many white children also in care at that time. There seems to be little balance to reports of the stolen generations. There is a need to report the fact that many of the "stolen generation" in fact owe their lives to the well-meaning intervention of caring nurses and police from remote areas of our great country. Don't take my word for this; go and talk to retired nurses and police who worked in the remote parts of Australia. You may be surprised at what you learn. Kerry Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.26.84 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This may or may not be true, but to go and talk to "retired nurses and police" would constitute original research and should not be included in Wikipedia. What you need to do is find a secondary source, such as a history text, journal article, or biography, that confirms what you say and then include your statements in the article citing your sources.203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

fears of miscegenation and a desire to attain white racial purity

This claim should be removed if it is not supported by the reference given. It is illogical because to remove mixed race children from remote aboriginal communities to urban predominantly white areas would tend to reduce "white racial purity", not attain it. Qemist (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the quotes here? The explicit aim was biological absorption. "Half-castes" would be physically assimilated to produce white offspring, until Aboriginals "disappeared" and the entire population of Australia was white. It was quite coherent in the minds of those who advocated it. Aridd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that Qemist made is that people who are concerned about racial purity want to prevent intermarriage and mixed-descent children, not encourage it.

The idea that the Aboriginal race was disappearing wasn’t based on a sinister plan to ‘breed out the colour’. It was based on a widely-held belief that full-blooded Aboriginal people weren’t reproducing fast enough to replace their numbers (negative population growth) and that eventually the full-blooded Aboriginal people would all be gone; widespread infertility due to introduced venereal diseases was the major factor in this situation. It’s been argued that, in many areas of Australia, this was an accurate assessment of the situation until the development and distribution of effective antibiotics post-WW2.

Along with that was an ‘expectation’ that people whose ancestry was ‘only’ 1/8th, 1/32nd, 1/124th Aboriginal and who had been raised in a Westernised culture wouldn’t identify as Aborigines.

The quotes referred to are the personal opinions of 2 public servants not a statement of government policy. It is, as anyone who has any knowledge of the public service knows, quite common for public servants to hold and advocate positions that are contrary to the government policy. It’s not a problem so long as, when they are acting in their official capacity, they apply the government policy and not their own personal preferences. Any public servant who spent public funds implementing their own policies rather than the government's would be placing themselves in danger of going to prison for misuse of funds.

When the notion of controlling the marriage of mixed descent Aboriginal people was put to the government, it was completely rejected. J.A. Perkins, the minister in the Lyons’ government whose department covered what’s now called Aboriginal Affairs, stated in Parliament in August 1934 that: “It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter.”

There’s been an unfortunate practice of quoting the personal opinions of various people and then claiming that this was the government policy, rather than stating the real government policy.Webley442 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage! My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too). This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook. Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo. It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue. If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote. It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can. So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”. Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons

I think that the comparison (at the bottom) with New Zealand's 'Native Schools' is unfair. The Stolen Generations involved taking children away from their parents. The Native Schools involved instruction in Maori to Maori children. One is a form of state-sponsored kidnapping (if not cultural genocide), the other is not. Perhaps the comparison should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.158.29 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that the "Native Schools" in New Zealand are different, since they were taught in Maori. However even now Family and Children’s' Services have the power to take into care a child whose welfare has been deemed to be neglected by the parent(s). I dare say this happens in New Zealand too. Even if there were no specific idea of "taking aboriginal children" simply because they were aboriginal (this is disputed), Aboriginals were clearly going to make up a disproportionately high number of such removals due to the dislocation of their society (with many single mothers - a sign of poor conditions for children for most welfare people in those days), the wretched poverty of most aboriginals and aboriginal communities, and the lack of education (or access to it) of most such children and their parents. It’s easy for a welfare officer to come in and say the children are living in appalling conditions (many probably were) and this proves neglect or unfitness by the parents. So the “kidnapping” you talk of still continues, it is just that it is mostly non-aboriginals affected these days. The law still allows the state to take children away from their parents if an officer deems it in the child’s “best interest”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

After apology

I read this article on the ABC's website -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/24/2992280.htm?section=justin

A conference in Darwin has heard that there's been no changes after the apology.

This is probably notable enough to be worked in somewhere.70.189.214.56 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the article dwells excessively upon the "apology" which, let's face it, was little more than political theatre, and undertaken specifically on the understanding that there would be "no compensation" as a result of it. Rudd specifically claimed that was his legal advice, although he didn't formally release it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Extent of policy

Should it be mentioned in a small section that the child removal legislation wasn't limited to Indigenous families? More than 200,000 white children were forcebly removed from their "white" parents over the same time period and they are also seeking an apology. Western Australia apologised to them last year but are the only state to do so so far. Wayne (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Genocide

In Canada, the term Cultural Genocide is often used to describe the Commonwealth policy of the Residential schools to "take the Indian out of the child". It was the systematic stripping of a person of their language, culture and identity.50.71.50.203 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that something about this should be added to the article? If so, you would need a reliable source that mentions it. Do note that near the bottom of the article is a link to Cultural genocide, part of our Genocide article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Andrew Bolt

Really a credible commentator on history? I personally think if he's included it should be under some kind of media-sub heading because as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as far as the academic community is concerned his 'opinion' is worth just about nothing to the actual discussion. It feels like the equivalent of putting Glenn Beck into the article on the Holodomor.--27.32.168.222 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

He's not credible. He is paid to be controversial. It's therefore hard to know what his real views are. He appears to have no particular qualifications to comment authoritatively on Aboriginal history. But he is influential. I see less value in his opinions than mine, and I no better qualified than him. (Not quite true, actually, but leave it at that.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

He is absolutely NOT credible on this matter, having been criminally charged for the promotion of his views about Indigenous Australians. Keith Windschuttle is different because he is a historian and has a published book critiquing the historiography of the Stolen Generations. It's very much a minority view, but nonetheless done with historical analysis. A journalist is not a historian, though, and Andrew Bolt does not belong in this article at all. I have removed the references to him; they do not qualify as a credible source.

Vision Insider (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Source(s) required

Regarding the text added by user Soundofmusicals: "These incidents had been used to justify the introduction of deeply controversial legislation by the previous Liberal administration that had all the hallmarks of the paternalistic policies that had caused so much damage to the Aboriginal communities since the mid-1800s; indeed had led to the 'Stolen Generation' in the first place. By including these references, many felt that Nelson was using his speech to offer a moral justification for past atrocities, while at the same time justifying current prejudiced policy. "

Soundofmusicals, you state that it "May well need rewording and/or better citing..." That text has no source or citing at all, the only source linked to that paragraph makes no such statements. Wikipedia policies include Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Unless you are citing or paraphrasing something from a verifiable source, then you are just inserting your own personal point of view into the encyclopaedia. If you don't have a verifiable source for your text, don't put the text in. If you have a source, cite it. Otherwise you should remove the text.121.208.25.28 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The original research/original analysis has been removed as it is in clear breach of WP policy. If similar commentary is to be included, it needs suitable references. One can't include these types of comments without such references - at best it is original research and in this particular case also has a obvious POV bias. Even the remaining (reworded) content is borderline and one-sided, but at least it is factual and supported with references. Rather than simply reintroducing the removed content, the article would be well served with a balanced explanation of the reaction, supported by proper references Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Questioning existence of Stolen Generations

Some critics, such as Andrew Bolt, have questioned the very existence of the Stolen Generation. Bolt stated that it is a "preposterous and obscene" myth and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children. Robert Manne responded that Bolt did not address the documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generations and that this is a clear case of historical denialism.[74] Bolt then challenged Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justified the claim that children were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argued that Manne did not respond and that this was an indication of unreliability of the claim that there was policy of systematic removal.[75] In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names[76][77] Bolt stated that prior to a debate, Manne provided him with a list of 12 names that he was able to show during the debate was "a list of people abandoned, saved from abuse or voluntarily given up by their parents"; and that during the actual debate, Manne produced a list of 250 names without any details or documentation as to their circumstances. Bolt also stated that he was subsequently able to identify and ascertain the history of some of those on the list and was unable to find a case where there was evidence to justify the term ‘stolen’. He stated that one of the names on the list of allegedly stolen children was 13 year old Dolly, taken into the care of the State after being "found seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station".[78]

Why in the Hells is this not included in the article? 58.7.198.176 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

Probably because Bolt's commercially motivated displays of bigotry don't belong in a balanced, global encyclopaedia. (He gets paid to encourage real bigots.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it would give undue weight to this "debate" relative to the body of accepted knowledge on the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for opposition

What is the source for:

the main reasons put forward for the rejection were concerns that a formal apology could be construed as an admission of deliberate wrongdoing, rather than reflect on the claimed original "well intentioned aim of Child Protection".

According to the age the reasons were:

"I do not believe as a matter of principle that one generation can accept responsibility for the acts of earlier generation," he said. "In some cases, children were wrongly removed, in other cases they were removed for good reason, in other cases they were given up and in other cases, the judgement on the removal is obscure or difficult to make."

article here http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/03/11/1205125911264.html

Unchartered (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision needed

The article requires major revision to address the following points more prominently at the beginning of the article :

The majority of historians would concede that the High Court conclusion that the purpose of the legislation was to promote the protection and welfare of Aboriginal people, and it did not authorise any act that could result in genocide, was correct and the interpretation of genocide made by the Bring Them Home report was incorrect opinion. Currently this is buried and stated in weasel words.

I also think the article needs a section detailing the perpetration of the myth due to (a) its quasi-incorporation into the national curriculum (b) Sorry Day (c) providing an excuse for continuing chronic social dependence, the failure of social programs, and more aggressive intervention. Engleham (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is genuine debate surrounding the use of the term genocide. There is not, however, any historical relevance to your other observations, such as the national curriculum, social problems and the like. If you believe these matters are related or even directly caused by the Stolen Generations then they belong in this article. Otherwise, there is nothing to add. Vision Insider (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt references

You should just leave References about Andrew Bolt in the Articles. Whether you like it or not he has a large influence on many people. By editing his name\views out just makes the left sound fearful off him and makes is sound like the left is just trying to shut down debate instead of making the debate more detailed and complete. Have the courage to allow everyone to read as much as possible and come to there own personal, considered view point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.74.210 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the community's consensus regarding due weight as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is, we strive to provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding a subject. It is not a forum for debates or for pushing every contrarian viewpoint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Stolen Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402095143/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/ to http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703172827/http://www.unhchr.ch:80/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm#56th
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402163757/http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130208.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds130208.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216145347/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,23206550-29277,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23206550-29277,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216151539/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s163676.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s163676.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130525232709/http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf to http://www.aboriginaleducation.sa.edu.au/files/links/Timeline_of_legislation_af.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120121142744/http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s148775.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703172827/http://www.unhchr.ch:80/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cerd/cerds56.htm#56th
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214193209/http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au:80/sunday/film_reviews/article_2058.asp? to http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/film_reviews/article_2058.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106233048/http://www.kanyini.com:80/subject.html to http://www.kanyini.com/subject.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Split

I think the section on the apology needs to be split out into its own article because of the following reasons:

• The apology itself is a notable speech, and its own historical event.
• This article is a big article, and moving the apology to its own article will allow other sections of the article more closely connected to the topic of the Stolen Generations to grow.

Thank you for your consideration and views. The name I'm proposing, Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples, is what the speech is called on australia.gov.au. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that such a split would be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"church missions" in lead

The mentions that children were removed from their families by govt agencies and church missions. But the rest of the article leaves the role of church missions completely unclear. The article only the govt's reasons for removal of the children, and only govt laws and policies are described.

In the passage from "Bringing Them Home" (section "Social Impact...") the Aboriginal person says he was put in a "mission dormitory", but this is described as the "government's past actions".

Are these in fact church missions? The lead seems to give equal weight to the actions of the government and church missions, but the article is silent on any church activity.Snarfblaat (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stolen Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080205154402/http://www.dreamtime.net.au:80/indigenous/family.cfm to http://www.dreamtime.net.au/indigenous/family.cfm#bi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517163849/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Stolen Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310114305/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080228085617/http://www.theage.com.au:80/news/film-reviews/kanyini/2006/09/07/1157222255410.htm to http://www.theage.com.au/news/film-reviews/kanyini/2006/09/07/1157222255410.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808083502/http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/pdfs/cpaf-intro.pdf to http://www.sro.wa.gov.au/pdfs/cpaf-intro.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808083502/http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20(I-AD).PDF to http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20(I-AD).PDF
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090101110402/http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au:80/home/apology_responses to http://www.qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/home/apology_responses
• Added archive //web.archive.org/web/20080216184649/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/http://www.als.org.au/Publications/ to http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928054239/http://www.journeyofhealing.com/rpf.htm to http://www.journeyofhealing.com/rpf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stolen Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070310114305/http://www.abc.net.au:80/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/message/tv/ms/s731524.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "The Apology Was A Public Relations Exercise" and "The Apology Was Justified"

I've decided to be bold and remove two large sections of text added in good faith by an anonymous user on 21 September 2016.

My primary reason for deleting these sections is that they are written in an essay-like manner (see WP:NOTESSAY); they pitch two arguments against each other and present the lines of evidence that support each perspective, with conclusions at the end of each. This does not fit the tone or style of Wikipedia and risks constituting original research. For example, the titles of the sections are presumably meant as a way of saying "Here are the arguments that...", but they result in Wikipedia stating, in its own voice, that the apology was a public relations exercise, and then that the apology was justified, which is taking a stance on a subjective issue, and furthermore is contradictory.

However, it does seem that there is some potentially valuable content in there. The sections appear useful, just not for Wikipedia as they stand, but perhaps someone could work elements of them into a form that works for Wikipedia. Hence this talk page post: I didn't want to just delete willy-nilly some good work done in good faith that could potentially be used to improve the article; I'd rather explain my reasoning and point to the existence in the edit history of those sections for anyone who wants to draw on them for additions to this article.

If they are to do so, I would just highlight that any sort of conclusion statement or synthesis of perspectives in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided as that would effectively be original research, and that (less significantly, but personal MOS crusades of mine) straight rather than curly apostrophes and quote marks should be used and headings should be in sentence rather than title case. Also, the "Other" section was meant to remain in the Comparisons section and was presumably accidentally pushed down by the 21 September editor, so try to keep that in place.

If anyone does read this and decide to make something of those sections, good luck, and thank you for contributing in more depth than I will today! BreakfastJr (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Keith Windschuttle – History Wars section

I've placed the NPOV tag to alert editors that the Keith Windschuttle's position is left wholly to represent the modern historiography in that section, without counterbalance from such historians as Robert Manne, leaving the section with issues of due weight. The editor in question only response is that I should do it myself (at the event, I am occupied elsewhere), but the onus is actually on the editor behind the new addition to ensure the article is well-balanced and not skewed outside of scholarly consensus. El_C 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the contentious info till it has been discussed here.[2] I agree, the onus is on the editor adding new claims, and it certainly seems to fall under the due weight guidlines. --Dmol (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the following is considered contentious and has been removed by an editor (Dmol) until it has been discussed here:

Extended content

Historian Keith Windschuttle argues that his analysis of the records shows that Aboriginal children "were never removed from their families in order to put an end to Aboriginality or, indeed, to serve any improper government policy or program". He argues that only a small number of children were actually removed (approximately 8,250 in the period 1880 to 1971), far less than the tens of thousands claimed, and that most of the removed children had been orphaned or were abandoned, destitute, neglected or subjected to various forms of violence, exploitation or abuse. These removals were based on traditional grounds of child welfare. He argues that his analysis of welfare policy shows that none of the policies that allowed the removal of Aboriginal children were unique to Aborigines and that the evidence shows they were removed for the same child welfare reasons as white children who were in similar circumstances. "A significant number of other children were voluntarily placed in institutions by Aboriginal parents to give them an education and a better chance in life" References

1. Windschuttle has written a book on the history of the Stolen Generations. All the material in the paragraph is sourced from the book, accurately reflects the arguments in it and contains accurate references to where the material may be found.

2. Another editor (El C) has argued that "The onus is on _you_, as the editor behind the new addition, to ensure that in the context of the article as a while, it is well-balanced and that it does not provide a one-sided interpretation of the modern historiography" and that "Not adding the response to him in the historiography" violates undue weight. The argument that it is on the editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also add critical material is not, and has never been, Wikipedia policy. It has never been the responsibility of an editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also locate and add any criticisms that may have been made. Please, point to an example of a situation where Administrators have upheld such an argument, if you can. I doubt that you will be able to because your arguments are a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy.

3. The article is heavily skewed towards the proposition that there are no flaws in the Stolen Generations thesis. Adding accurately sourced and relevant material from a critic of the thesis helps to balance the article.

4. Other editors are not constrained from adding any relevant criticism of Windschuttle's position on the issue.

5 This risks the appearance that the editors concerned are attempting to bias the article by removing material that they don't like on specious grounds. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

One further point - the heading of this section is Keith Windschuttle overrepresented in History Wars section. Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now. Overrepresented? The only way that there could be less representation of his work is if all mention of him was removed. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of text (try to be concise), that does little to respond to our argument: the onus is on you, as the editor behind the new addition, to have the article represent scholarly consensus (i.e. a balanced representation of the modern historiography). Because, otherwise, it lacks due weight thereby rendering the article non-neutral. El_C 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, the onus is on you to show that your removal of text complies with Wikipedia policy. I repeat as above "Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now." Removing all mention of his arguments violates undue weight by skewing the article towards one point of view. You are violating the undue weight policy, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying it does not make it so. I think you'll find (am finding} that according to consensus, it is up to you. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

His view should be represented according to the weight it bears on the modern historiography—no more, no less. El_C 08:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting. What arguments do you have to support the removal of the arguments of the chief critic of the thesis of the Stolen Generations so that readers of the article are left to wonder what those arguments are? Have you anything to say that can justify your violation of the undue weight policy by your removal of information about the opposing arguments regarding this issue? 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Because, it makes the section unbalanced—failing to fully represent the scholarly consensus and the modern historiography. It's problematic to have article prose make such a significant comment unqualified; it makes the section too one-sided. It is, indeed, about living up to due weight, which your edit fails to do. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Where there are opposing arguments in regard to a historical issue, the article is only unbalanced if the existence of, and the explanation of the opposing arguments are edited out. This amounts to clear bias by making the issue appear uncontested. That violates the requirement for a NPOV. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia NPOV policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." NOTE that it says "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". If the material seems one-sided to you (one-sided being the definition of bias) then follow Wikipedia policy which it that the material can be "balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective". If there are sourced criticisms of Windschuttle's arguments, then cite them as required by the policy. Do not violate the policy by removing sourced material. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes: "Remove material only where you have a good reason believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."—I have a good reason. The addition violates due weight: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It is not fairly doing so in that section about the History Wars. El_C 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

IP 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E: reiterating that the content is WP:UNDUE, that the ONUS is you present balanced addition content. As for claiming that you aren't edit warring: wrong. You either have a dynamic account, or have been IP hopping since early February in order to introduce your WP:POVPUSH. You fail to understand what WP:3RR means: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In other words, you must follow WP:BRD and not display the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been engaging in thus far. I would also suggest that you create an account. IP addresses do not guarantee you anonymity, nor do they assist other editors in knowing who they are addressing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. The section mentions that Howard opposed making an apology but makes no mention on his reasons for doing so, therefore the text explains nothing except that he opposed an apology. Herron made a semantic argument, not a historical one, when claiming that the term was wrong because 10% did not constitute an entire "generation" The text reporting that anthropologist Ron Brunton pointed out that the evidence in the testimonies was not tested for factual accuracy is neutral. There is no mention in the section of whether Brunton 'believes in' the Stolen Generation or not, merely mentioning that he criticised the flawed procedures in the Commission. The fact that the evidence was not tested doesn't mean that it was wrong, just untested. There is NO material in this section about the HISTORICAL DEBATE from the historian who has been the chief critic arguing that the historical evidence shows that the premise of the Stolen Generations is false. Every time some such material has been added it has been removed based on spurious NPOV claims. Removing the arguments made by one side of the debate does not create a NPOV, it creates, quite deliberately it appears, an article biased towards one POV, the one you clearly favour since you have only acted to help exclude material which criticises that POV. Interesting that you claim that I am the one pushing a POV when it is clear that you and others are the ones doing that by excluding as much material from an opposing POV as you can. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:6430:5D62:BCF1:678A (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor disagreeing with you, and you're the elephant in the room. Suggested reading: WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you are unable to address the real issue with any valid arguments. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can address that issue in a meaningful way, WP:BLUDGEON is a red herring, you are simply trying to divert attention from your own actions in trying to assist other editors to bias this article by excluding content which conflicts with their POV. The fact that a relatively small group of editors agree among themselves to bias an article by controlling what POV can be represented in the article is a matter of concern to anyone who uses Wikipedia. The phenomenon of editors 'commandeering' or 'sanitizing' articles to push only their favoured POV (along with the repeated failure of administrators to deal with it) is the great flaw in Wikipedia. 124.181.48.192 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, you are an SPA who doesn't want to get an account for fear of the recognition of all of your editing revolving around this article. Stop IP hopping and behave like a serious editor if you believe you should be taken seriously. Your WP:TL;DR tirades are getting tedious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again you are avoiding the real issue because you have no valid arguments in your favour. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can make a valid argument against including the opposing arguments, it is impossible to conclude anything but that you want to bias the article. Your attacks on me because I want a balanced article and obviously you don't, give you away to any objective reader of this talk page. Stop avoiding the real issue. Either produce a valid argument or admit your bias and stop obstructing. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:2D78:8AF9:62C0:3226 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. [3] 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

The following is the existing text in the section under dispute 'sorted' in order to show the relative proportions of text as it relates to each POV:

Neutral wording in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations”

Extended content

The word "stolen" is used here to refer to the Aboriginal children having been taken away from their families. It has been in use for this since the early 20th century. Historian Inga Clendinnen suggests that the term genocide rests on the "question of intentionality", saying: "There's not much doubt, with great murderous performances that were typically called genocide, that they were deliberate and intentional. Beyond that, it always gets very murky."[98] In most jurisdictions, Indigenous Australians put under the authority of a Protector, effectively being made wards of the State.[83][84] The protection was done through each jurisdiction's Aboriginal Protection Board; in Victoria and Western Australia these boards were also responsible for applying what were known as Half-Caste Acts. Anthropologist Ron Brunton also criticised the proceedings on the basis that there was no cross-examination of those giving their testimonies or critical examination of the factual basis of the testimony.[92]

Wording which favours the Stolen Generations thesis and containing statements regarding the historical basis for it.

Extended content

For instance, Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of New South Wales, objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 which authorised the Aborigines' Protection Board to remove Aboriginal children from their parents without having to establish cause. McGarry described the policy as "steal[ing] the child away from its parents".[32] In 1924,[80] the Adelaide Sun wrote: "The word 'stole' may sound a bit far-fetched but by the time we have told the story of the heart-broken Aboriginal mother we are sure the word will not be considered out of place."[81][82] More recent usage has developed since Peter Read's publication of The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (1981), which examined the history of these government actions.[3] The 1997 publication of the government's Bringing Them Home – Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families[85] heightened awareness of the Stolen Generations. The acceptance of the term in Australia is illustrated by the 2008 formal apology to the Stolen Generations,[86] led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and passed by both houses of the Parliament of Australia. Previous apologies had been offered by State and Territory governments in the period 1997–2001.[87] The Bringing Them Home report provided extensive details about the removal programs and their effects. Sir Ronald Wilson, former President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commissioner on the Inquiry, stated that "when it comes to the credibility of those stories, there is ample credibility, not from the cross-examination of the children themselves, but from the governments whose laws, practices and policies enabled these forced removals to take place. We had the support of every State government; they came to the Inquiry, came with lever-arch files setting out the laws from the earliest days right up to the end of the assimilation policy, that is up to the 1970s and more importantly, senior government offices attended. In every case, these senior officers acknowledged that there was a lot of cruelty in the application of those laws and policies."[92] Historian Peter Read referred to the children affected as the "Stolen Generations". Another historian, Robert Manne, defended that terminology, making the analogy that other people refer to the "generation that lost their lives in the First World War" without meaning over 50 per cent of the young people at the time; rather, people use that phrasing as a metaphor for a collective experience. Similarly, he believes, some of the Aboriginal community use the term to describe their collective suffering.[94] Sir Ronald Wilson, President of Australia's Human Rights Commission, alleged that the policies resulting in the Stolen Generations constitute attempted genocide by the government, as it was widely believed at the time that the Aborigines would die out.[95] In its 12th report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Australian Government denied that the removal policies and programs constituted a breach of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[96] Manne argues that the expressed views of government bureaucrats, such as A. O. Neville, to assimilate the mixed-race children into the white population by means of "breeding out the colour", and therefore eventually resulting in the full-bloods being "forgotten", bore strong similarities to the racial views of the Nazis in 1930s Nazi Germany.[97] Manne points out that, though the term "genocide" had not yet entered the English language, the policies of Neville and others were termed by some contemporaries as the "die out" or "breed out" policy, giving an indication of their proposed intent.[97] He also states that academics "generally acknowledge" that the authors of the Bringing Them Home report were wrong to argue that Australian authorities had committed genocide by removing indigenous children from their families. Social assimilation has never been regarded in law as equivalent to genocide.[97] Though historian Paul Bartrop rejects the use of the word genocide to describe Australian colonial history in general, he does believe that it applies to describing the Stolen Generations. Bartrop and US scholar Samuel Totten together wrote the Dictionary of Genocide, for which Bartrop wrote the entry on Australia. He said he used as the benchmark for usage of the term genocide the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which had also been cited by Wilson in his 1997 Bringing Them Home report.[98] Many historians argue against these denials, including to Windschuttle in particular.[91]

Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis

Extended content

There is some opposition to the concept of the term "Stolen Generations". Former Prime Minister John Howard did not believe the government should apologise to the Australian Aborigines. Then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs John Herron disputed usage of the term in April 2000.[88] Others who disputed the use of the term include Peter Howson, who was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from 1971 to 1972, and Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian who argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have been exaggerated and in some cases invented.[89][90] In April 2000, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron tabled a report in the Australian Parliament in response to the Human Rights Commission report which stated that, as "only 10% of Aboriginal children" had been removed, they did not constitute an entire "generation".[88] The report attracted media attention and protests.[93] Herron apologised for the "understandable offence taken by some people" as a result of his comments, although he refused to alter the report as it had been tabled.

Wording in this section that explains the historical basis for arguing that the Stolen Generations thesis is false.

ZERO, i.e. none, nothing - all edited out.

2001:8003:642A:6C00:7882:D1C3:9C8E:7DF6 (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Text excerpts hidden/collapsed 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) by Sangdeboeuf (talk))

You gotta condense your thoughts better. It's too lengthy. It's not fair subjecting us to this much text. And please consider registering an account, ZERO, it would make things much easier for everyone. The point is consensus, here on Wikipedia and in the historiography—try addressing that, briefly. El_C 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How horrible for you to have to read something longer than 140 characters. If you'd bothered to even glance at the text above you might have noticed that what is above, everything after the point where I noted that I have referred the issue to the NPOV Noticeboard, is just the text of the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” sorted in order to show the relative proportions of text as discussed from the differing POVs. You might have also noticed that the word ZERO at the end of it is under the category "Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis". It's there to make it easy for any objective readers of this page to realize that ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out, that while there is ample content representing the pro side of the argument, there is ZERO content left in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” from the opposing side of the historical debate. The article has been sanitised so that only one POV is represented. The historiography of the Stolen Generations is that it has been a hotly contested issue and still is. Since it has been a controversial issue, readers of the article might like to know why, i.e. they might like to know what arguments the opposing side presented. Sanitising an article is not presenting a NPOV, it is the exact opposite.

How about a response to the actual issue rather than obsess over the fact that I don't use an account?

PS there is a reason that I haven't registered an account. I am aware of at least 3 editors who were hounded off Wikipedia by trolls. The trolls all used the same technique - once they decided that they didn't like an editor, they identified what contributions that editor had made and set about reverting, overwriting and generally wiping out any contributions that editor had made. Dealing with them became so time-consuming that the editors all just gave up editing Wikipedia. Is that the sort of thing that you mean when you say "it would make things much easier for everyone"? No thanks, I'll stick with my dynamic IP address; it limits the potential damage. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I reject your assumptions of bad faith about registering an account—though maybe it helps when you are an single purpose account with only one aim on Wikipedia. I also reject the notion that you need to be so longwinded—you can and ought to condense your thoughts much more briefly, thereby having a better chance they'd be read closely, by myself, or anyone else. Drowning us in text is not the way to advance your argument. Finally, I reject the claim the article has been sanitized of opposing views—if anything, these are overrepresented well beyond scholarly consensus. El_C 07:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, avoiding the issue, denial, but no rational explanations as to how removing ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view makes for a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That is my response: I dispute that all opposing views had been removed, as you claim. And furthermore, I challenge that, if anything, the minority point of view is overrepresented in the article, enough to constitute undue weight. El_C 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

IP hopper: There is no 'break 2'. Again, read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If you look closely, Break 2 was inserted by El_C, not me, perhaps you could ask him why. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTHERE are more red herrings and more Wikilawyering [[4]] by you. I am simply trying to achieve a balanced article despite the efforts of you and the other editors to promote only one POV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I added break 1 and 2, for ease of use in the legend—because the IP's textwalls are rather lengthy. El_C 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, El_C. The WALLS were doing my head in, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have refactored this discussion somewhat to hide lengthy, quoted excerpts and more clearly indicate the flow of replies to comments. Hope it helps. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"On the other hand"

On the other hand, some Aboriginal people do not condemn the government's past actions. They believed that the government intended to offer them opportunities for education and an eventual job. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:

I guess the government didn't mean it as something bad but our mothers weren't treated as people having feelings…Who can imagine what a mother went through? But you have to learn to forgive.

I was put in a mission dormitory when I was eight, nine. I cried for two nights, then I was right with the rest of those kids. We weren't stolen; our family was there. It was a good system. Or a better system than now. At least my generation learnt to read and write properly.

This looks like an example of undue WP:WEIGHT or WP:FALSEBALANCE based entirely on WP:SYNTHESIS of primary sources. Any help finding reliable, secondary sources to support this analysis would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. El_C 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Gsell

Bishop Gsell, the Catholic bishop of Darwin in the 1940s, defended the policy of removing especially children of mixed race, writing:

[I]f they had families, and if they were surrounded by that love and affection family life offers to the young even amongst primitive peoples, it might be cruel. But these creatures roam miserably around the camps and their behaviour is often worse than that of native children. It is an act of mercy to remove them as soon as possible from surroundings so insecure."

This is another example of giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the opinion of some person, based entirely on WP:ORIGINAL analysis of a WP:PRIMARY source – if reliable, secondary sources have commented on Gsell's "defending" of the policy, then fine. If not, then why is the quote here other than to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE to mainstream scholarship on the issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again; looks like more WP:SYNTH. El_C 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I second that, Sangdeboeuf. The article has been in need of a clean-up for some time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Background

I think some background information regarding the European colonization of Australia would be very helpful for establishing the context in which the child removal policies occurred. A "See also" link such as to History of Australia (1788–1850) § Colonisation, or to Indigenous Australians § British colonisation could direct readers to more detailed information. Consider the following statements by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission concerning the Northern Territory:

Extended content

"Very soon explorers such as Leichhardt and Giles trekked across the Territory in earnest.This exploration revealed the great wealth of natural resources in the Northern Territory that would bring a flood of mining companies, pastoralists and gold diggers. By the late 1880s most lands were occupied for some kind of development, much of it by large companies. "The occupation and exploitation of land in the Northern Territory was achieved by dispossessing another community – Indigenous people. Forced off their land, Indigenous people moved to work on farm stations or in the mines (with Chinese immigrants).The farm stations were particularly dependent on Indigenous labour, but paid barely subsistence wages in the knowledge that Indigenous people had few other choices. "Other Indigenous people set up camps on the outskirts of non-Indigenous townships. "The rapid pace of development and non-Indigenous expansion gave rise to violence on both sides.The police played a strong role in controlling this violence, though usually by taking the side of the non-Indigenous developers". "The History: Northern Territory" (PDF). Sydney, Australia: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. December 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2008.

Any help finding other sources for background information would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Other - Imperial Russia, Ottoman Turkey

Russia (19 Century) kidnapped Asian children to educate them and use them as administrators.

Devshirme Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with improving this article unless reliable sources explicitly compare these things with the kidnapping of Indigenous Australian children. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So please remove the subsection, which lacks sources.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the section in question now. You're welcome to make edits to the page yourself. However, I have removed the content whose relevance to this article is not supported by sources, and placed links to those topics under "See also". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: FYE, Xx236 has been a Wikipedia gnome for many years. His English is awkward, so he's reticent to make content changes without someone at least proof reading them. I follow up on his observations on talk pages as he has a keen eye for detail, plus provides links to usable material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Source : http://www.originsamerica.org/adoption-trauma/adoption-induced-ptsd-in-mothers/ Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Minority historical view

According to the article:

A minority of historians dispute that substantial numbers of mixed-blood Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families. They contend that some children were removed mainly to protect them from neglect and abuse.

This work is not cited anywhere else but after this one short paragraph in the lead section. Surely there must be some further content worth summarizing for the article. Doesn't placing this material in the lead without any context give undue WP:WEIGHT to the minority view? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In answer to the first query, I'm sure there is material in the publication worth mining. As regards the WP:UNDUE, no I don't believe so. Per MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." [my emphasis]. The fact that denial has certainly become the minority position is probably worth noting in the lead as it was the antithesis being pushed prior the official apology. I'm uncomfortable with the "They contend..." as mixture of WP:CLAIM and WP:OPED. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dispute that denial is the minority view. My concern is that the placement of this text in the lead – and nowhere else – gives undue weight to the minority view itself. This article currently doesn't explain just who this "minority of historians" are – Windschuttle is the only historian mentioned by name as disputing the basic idea of the Stolen Generations – which is one reason the text in the lead looks suspect to me.

Using Google preview, I haven't found any mention of "neglect", "abuse", or the phrase "stolen generation(s)" at all in the above-cited work, which is another red flag to me. Most of the above-cited work is not shown in Google Books preview. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be helpful for someone who knows a bit more about it to verify this text, and to add sources that can establish the minority view's standing among serious scholars and historians. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The article reads as if it were stuck in another decade where the subject was extremely controversial, then left in limbo after edit wars. The Indigenous Law Resources site/database would be worth checking through, as would the Australian Government's Bringing them home: The 'Stolen Children' report (1997). I did try to muddle through archived versions being used throughout the article some time ago, and update them to reflect the current layout and live urls. It's probably a good time to do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue that the article needs to capture is that this is not really a controversial issue within academia anymore (with the exception of a few outlier pop-historians like Keith Windschuttle); the disagreement is in the media sphere stoked by journalists like Andrew Bolt and politicians like Pauline Hanson, and these people have significant followings who believe pronouncements that appeal to their own subconscious biases, and ignore the painstaking research done by people who are actually experts in the field. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC).

That was certainly my hunch. Ideally we would cite reliable secondary or tertiary sources that frame the issue in those terms. Any suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be editing the statement to represent the dissent as cited to conform with the majority opinion, making it a self-negating sentence, as is popular on Wikipedia whenever there is a minority opinion to be included. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this should not be in the lede, as it currently appears nowhere else in the article, and, lacking further explanation while still being notable, let it remain brief, understandable, and, if necessary, glossed over. There is no better place to do this than the lede. Undue weight will apply to the opposing (and common) view if this statement is moved to another section or removed, entirely. 24.144.46.236 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Strike that, it appears that zealots have made an article with little charge protected against editing by unregistered users. I will do nothing, including registration, in protest. 24.144.46.236 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Stolen Generations. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724105956/http://www.tim-richardson.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Athe-stolen-generations-robert-manne&catid=67%3Aopinion&Itemid=72 to http://www.tim-richardson.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Athe-stolen-generations-robert-manne&catid=67%3Aopinion&Itemid=72
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23229208-7583%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C23140963-662%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.smh.com.au/national/howard-will-not-attend-apology-20080208-1qzm.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C23206474-661%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23206550-29277%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23421344-2702%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20%28I-AD%29.PDF
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.multicultural.online.wa.gov.au/wppuser/owamc/march03news/noongar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/home/digital_stories/mt-isa_response
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C20371786-5000117%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.als.org.au/Publications/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)