Talk:Stolen Generations/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Historical debates over the Stolen Generations

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)

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 MOS: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)

Since the statement appears nowhere else in the article, it's definitely WP:UNDUE to have it in the lead section – see MOS:LEAD. I've moved the text to the "History wars" section accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that this statement was originally sourced only to Windschuttle, and added to the lead (and nowhere else) with the rationale that we had to "state the contrary view". That's not what a neutral point of view is about, and in any event it misrepresents Flood's book (the Flood citation was added later), so I've removed it from the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added back a similar paragraph to the lead acknowledging the minority historical viewpoint. Referenced are this ABC News editorial (which is in defence of the majority viewpoint) as well as Keith Windschuttle's book The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History Vol. 3, which serves as a critique of the majority viewpoint. trainsandtech (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph appears to conflate "a minority of historians" with "critics", most of whom are not historians, by jumping right from the first to the second without explaining the difference beyond adding brief qualifiers such as "anthropologist", "journalist", etc. Whether such critics are "noted" is not sufficiently supported by the references either. Per Due and undue weight, we shouldn't give disproportionate emphasis to minority viewpoints, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all – since the only "minority" scholar named is Windschuttle himself, and only a few of the named "critics" get any (brief) mention in the article, this material is out of place in the lead section, which is meant to be a summary of the article as a whole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

Please read the following link, your page is grossly inaccurate..https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/white-mothers-of-stolen-children-also-deserve-an-apology-20101207-18o7t.html 2001:8003:6D11:BB00:D587:9982:B4D5:F532 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)