|
While the section has a {{main}} link at the top - it was actually a duplicate of that article. I have tried to summarise it, I think it is still drastically way too long given that there is a seperate article dedicated to History of Indigenous Australians.
ie, in this article it should be a summary written in summary style of History of Indigenous Australians.
Garrie 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Up until the 60's or something, Aborigines were legally considered fauna and not humans from what I remember. I think that we need to find some citations and add a statement about their status somewhere in this section as it' very telling of previous attitudes, which somewhat permeate through to today in issues such as the Stolen Generation apology issue etc.petedavo (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page is not the appropriate place to vent urban myths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qemist (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually not an urban myth (see here for example), though the practical effect of the classification can be debated. I agree it would be good to have something on this in the article - will do it myself in a while but feel free to jump in ahead of me. Euryalus (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that an interviewee of the SMH repeats the myth doesn't stop it being a myth. I'm not saying that it isn't true, but the source you cite is not evidence. Ashmoo (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- See Voting rights of Australian Aboriginals, or this AEC article, which indicates that Aboriginals were (subject to a lot of exceptions, obstacles, and abuses) able to vote in Commonwealth elections as early as 1901. There were provisions in the 'Flora and Fauna Act' relating to Aboriginals, but that is not the same thing as legally classifying them as 'fauna'. (The Offshore Minerals Act makes mention of state ministers, but that doesn't make them minerals...) --122.109.120.221 (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The Culture section seems to not include ATSI people whatsoever. Which is in line with my suggestion that there should be an article for "mainland Indigenous Australians" equivalent to Tasmanian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.
I'm happy to see it expanded, but there is little similar information at Torres Strait Islanders, although there is a category Category:Torres Strait Islands culture.
Garrie 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Damien Russell, while were at it, please provide proof of the mass murders of Chinese and Europeans by our "savage ancestors". I await with joyful anticipation of your response!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.100.84 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I moved the following post to the bottom of the page. My response follows: Fred ☻ 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Please whenever refering to Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders, always capatlise the A and TSI as you are talikng about a race of people, you wouldn't ever refer to Australians with a lower case "a" so please don't do it in this case either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.224.19 (talk)
- I have no firm opinion on whether any group of australians should have their name capitalised. The name Aboriginal etc., usually refers to a type of Australian community - not a race. Fred ☻ 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- The words Aborigine/Aboriginal, when used to refer to Indigneous Australians, are proper nouns and so should always be capitalised. This is standard grammatical practice - check any good Oz dictionary. When referring to aborigines in other parts of the world, it tends not to be a proper noun. This is already in the article here
- It is wrong to capitalize "aboriginal" when it is used as an adjective, eg in "The aboriginal inhabitants of Tasmania were exterminated". Refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) which gives no license to the capitalization of adjectives. Qemist (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I am in great need of the map showing Australia's indigenous peoples, with each tribal region represented by a different color. I used it often and now find that it seems to have been deleted. Can someone please fill me in on where it's gone and why there's been no discussion of its deletion? Many thanks, Badagnani 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the same map. It would be immeasurably helpful to have it in this article. Badagnani 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that any map could only demarcate language groups. Aboriginal people didn't have sociocentric 'tribal' areas with clear boundaries; this is really a European conception of how people 'should' exist in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.11.160 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be filled with unreferenced statements. It also contains statements which may be original research or just unsubstatiated opinion. I have added the 'no original research' tag to the article and a number of {{fact}} tags to some of the unreferenced statements and paragraphs. I do not have time to tag all of the unreferenced material since there is so much of it. OzWoden (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adding the {{fact}} tags to items which concern you is fine. However I am removing the {{Original research}} tag as I disagree that the article has significant original research. You need to provide some specifics, or even better, improve the article. —Moondyne click! 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that there are uncited statements indicates possible original research. If it were not original reseach, or simply invention by the editor, then the particular editor who added the statements would have referenced them. OzWoden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence which can state, once and for all, who the Indigenous australians are more closely related to? --Maurice45 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Their birth certificates. Seriously, take a look at Recent African origin of modern humans and see how complex the question is. 202.7.183.132 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome which is referenced in Prehistory of Australia. --JWB (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
While this is a great photo, it does not represent the reality of aboriginal life today. It seems to suggest that to be aboriginal you have to look like those guys and carry a spear. Perhaps a montage of smaller photos representing both their traditional ways of life and new ways of life they have adopted.
I agree, but as a montage cannot be found at the moment, This picture is fine --Maurice45 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This recent edit amended the range of earliest occupational dates to between 125,000 and 40,000 BP. I realise that reasonable cites were given, but the couple of high-end dates that have been put forward (ca 100,000 BP and even earlier) are highly controversial, and remain unaccepted by the great majority of researchers. It might be technically correct to say this is the full range out of all of the dates that have been published, but I think it's misleading— hardly anyone thinks the high-end dates are valid.
Or to put another way - every researcher would probably agree that people were in Australia by 38–40,000 BP; a reasonable number, maybe half, would think it's likely (tho direct evidence is thin) that people were here 45–50,000 BP, but going higher than that is really pushing it; almost no-one stakes their claim on people being here earlier than 100,000 BP, or anywhere near that figure. Beyond the point where the radiocarbon dating limitation kicks in (beyond 45 kya) it's very doubtful, & researchers are more cautious. --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Months have passed, editors (and story-tellers) have come and gone and yet much of the article is still unreferenced.
In keeping with the rules and standards of Wikipedia I will remove any unreferenced material. OzWoden (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But does that mean removing whole sections? - please explain where you have found these rules and standards - and explain further regarding removing material wholesale works over and above other methods of sorting the problem out SatuSuro 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with OzWoden. If the request for citation tags have been on the text for over 3 months, it is obvious the editor who originally placed the text is not planning on adding it. Removal of long unsourced assertions is indeed a Wikipedia policy WP:V. OzWoden, I've often found that moving all the chopped material to the Talk page causes less upset amongst other editors. Ashmoo (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK so we have a different point of view (sic) the point is if the removal of whole sections is made - it is not adhering to what you consider - the fact tag or unreferenced tag is in the removed items not relevent for the whole section - that is a clear misreading.
Also if you went around removing red links on the same basis from articles you would be challenged within a very short time - such tags are as much to encourage further editing rather than simply something to remove - If you indeed think 3 months is a long time I could easily lead you to projects within wikipedia where unreferenced and similar tags have existed for longer than that and no editors have rushed in to remove material. In view of the general reduction in australian article maintenance and lower level of editing across the whole project it is not a reasonable time to be expecting either cleanup or maintenance to occur.
A more positive and creative approach would be to go to the various points of contact where assistance might in fact solve the problem rather than deletion -
It wouldnt take much effort to leave a comment at all three - and who knows even with the generally reduced involvement in WP Australia - you might even get a response. SatuSuro 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline SatuSuro 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To begin:
But does that mean removing whole sections?
Yes it does if whole sections are unreferenced.
…please explain where you have found these rules and standards… Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence
And Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material
…and explain further regarding removing material wholesale works over and above other methods of sorting the problem out…
Some editors add good referenced information. Others are slap happy about their referencing. Others again are not so much editors as they are authors or opinion piece writers. I like to add information that is referenced but I also like to remove unreferenced information.
Further, it is near impossible to turn a dogs breakfast into a gourmet dinner – it is similar for sections of Wikipedia articles.
Presumably the sections in question were added some time ago by another editor.
And presumably this other editor did one of two things:
1. He/she read other sources to find and contribute this information
2. OR He/she drew from his/her own knowledge and hence created original research (a Wikipedia no no)
Assuming “1” was the case, then this editor did not bother to reference his/her additions and seemingly does not plan on amending this fact. It would take much more effort to discover these sources and/or do one’s own reading and amend the sections than it would be to delete and let someone start again.
Assuming “2” then the section should simply be deleted imediately without discussion.
To respond to:
A more positive and creative approach would be to go to the various points of contact where assistance might in fact solve the problem rather than deletion -
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Collaboration (you could nominate the article there)
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board (point out the issue)
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_Australia (ask for help)
I will quote Jimmy Wales from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.–Jimmy Wales [3]
To respond to:
Also worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_no_deadline
Also worth reading is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material
OzWoden (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The section on 'Aborigines and the environment' and 'Tasmania' both have terrible in-line referencing. The references should be numbers that link to the bottom of the page where the reference list is.
Also what is the consensus on advertising blogs in the middle of Wikipedia articles (ie. see the Tasmania section of this article)?
A more cynical person may think that someone has written a blog under a pen name and decided to use that as a reference...
OzWoden (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think the 'Aborigines and the environment' section, while interesting, should not be in this article. This is the general article on Indigenous Australians, but the section is a long history of the European understanding of the effects of Indigenous Australian habitation upon the continent. If it exists at all, it should just summarise the current consensus (or factions) on IA's effect on the environment. Ashmoo (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that a disagreement over whether content should be removed because of a lack of response to the placing of {{fact}} but the what fact is being disputed isnt clear, as such I have added {{huh}}. Can what fact is being questioned please be clarified. Gnangarra 15:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph says:
When the first indigenous Australians migrated to Australia is disputed among researchers, as estimates range from 40,000 years ago to 125,000 years ago.
The "History" section however says:
The general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is placed at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a possible range of up to 70,000 years ago.
There appears to be some contradiction here.
Should I fix it? Suggestions?
OzWoden (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're right. The figures should be consistent. The reference for the first quote is a media release from the University for Wollongong. It doesn't give any detail for the reliability of the bookend figures but generally speaking it is probably a reliable source. There is no direct reference for the second quote although if you click through to the longer article History of Indigenous Australians, there are a number of references. One is a letter to the journal 'Nature' concerning human inhabitation at Lake Mungo which stretches estimated inhabitation out to around 60 or 70,000 years. Another reference is to Tim Flannery's 'The Future Eaters' which doesn't give a page number. Looking at my own copy, on p.145 he says Meganesia (Australia + New Guinea) was "colonised in its entirety at least 45,000 years ago and probably 60,000 years ago". Later on p.153 he offers a vague possibility of 120,000 years.
- I would suggest wording along the lines of:
The general consensus among scholars for the arrival of humans in Australia is at least 40,000 years ago with growing evidence for up to 70,000 years ago and speculation of occupation for much longer than that.
Crico (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- That would give the misleading impression that dates over about 47k BP are part of the consensus. Qemist (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I see this as being hopelessly POV. There's no inclusion criteria, so unless we include everyone listed in Category:Indigenous Australians the section will just ebb and flow forever. I think a link to the separate list article/s is sufficient without having a subset here. Moondyne 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
What is a "first-generation" Tasmanian native? The normal sense of the word would be the first generation to live there, who would have died about 40k BP. Qemist (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to draw this to the attention of wikipedia.
The article says: "In 2001 about 30% of the Aboriginal population was living in major cities (a decrease from the 46% living in urban areas in 1971) and another 43% in or close to rural towns."
Whereas the following source says this:
"It is evident, too, that the vast majority of Aborigines do not want to live in separate communities away from the rest of the Australian population: in 2001 about 30 per cent were living in major cities and another 43 per cent in or close to rural towns, a considerable increase compared with the 46 per cent living in urban areas in 1971." Source: http://www.bennelong.com.au/articles/pdf/howsonquadrant2004.pdf
They both can't be right. What is the source for the claim that urbanisation for aboriginal australians is decreasing?
Australians as a whole are fleeing remote areas, why would aboriginal australians be bucking this tread?
58.165.141.97 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch.
- It seems like the author of the initial claim has confused "urban" with "major metropolitan", and has assumed that the 46% living in urban areas in 1971 were all living in major cities. Of course rural towns are also urban areas, though not metropolitan, and as such 46% urban occupation increased to 73% by 2001, a considerable increase. I suggest we leave it for a couple of weeks to see if any other explanation is forthcoming, and if not we'll remove the claim of decreasing urbanisation of Indigenous Australians. Keep up the good work. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Quadrant may not be a reliable source from the point of view of this observation. Orderinchaos 11:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
We could use the 2006 census results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website.
www.abs.gov.au
134.148.5.118 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Census '01 and '06 used the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Structure, which divides Australia into five remoteness categories (plus a sixth covering 'migratory'). I can't find the 2001 figures just now, but for 2006, see ABS publication 4713.0 - Population Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006: "Almost one third of the preliminary estimated resident Indigenous population resided in Major Cities (32%); 21% lived in Inner Regional areas; 22% in Outer Regional areas; 10% in Remote areas and 16% in Very Remote areas. For the non-Indigenous population, there was a much higher concentration in Major Cities (69%) and less than 2% in Remote and Very Remote Australia." That "43% in or close to rural towns" looks like it might be a combination of Inner/Outer Regional.
- However, note that the ASGC remoteness structure was only created for the 2001 Census and as such it's highly unlikely that 1971 'Urban' is equivalent to 2001 'Major Cities + Inner/Outer Regional'.
Attempting to draw conclusions from a comparison between the two amounts to OR. On rereading, I guess it's not OR on the editor's part, but the analysis is no less flawed for having been published in Quadrant. For instance, virtually the entire land area of Victoria falls into the ASGCRS 'city'/'regional' categories, but I doubt anybody would attempt to claim that the entire state is 'urban'. Apples and oranges. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That may be so but the article should mention something somewhere about Aboriginal assimilation and the extent of it. Readers should know that the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people live modern western lifestyle fully engaged in the economy in a urban area. That should know that integration has been taking place and that contrary to what many people seem to believe no Aborigines live a traditional lifestyle. One leading indicator of this absorption was contained in the 2001 census and showed intermixed couples made up 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal member (Source: Birrell, R and J Hirst, 2002, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place, 10(3): 27.)
There should be a lot more demographical information in this article.
- "Readers should know that the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people live modern western lifestyle fully engaged in the economy in a urban area" - this is not accurate. Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 provides a breakdown of Indigenous population by remoteness for 2006: 31% "Major Cities of Australia", 22% "Inner Regional", 23% "Outer Regional", 24% "Remote"/"Very Remote". By contrast, the corresponding figures for the overall Australian population at that time are 68% "Major Cities", 20% "Inner Regional", 10% "Outer Regional", and 2% "Remote"/"Very Remote" Australian Social Trends, 2008. That is to say: Indigenous people are less than half as likely to live in a major city, and about twelve times as likely to live in remote/very remote areas, compared to the general population. The majority do live in major cities or 'inner regional' - if we count that as 'urban' - but 53% is hardly an 'overwhelming' majority, and it's a lot less than the corresponding 88% for Australians as a whole.
- 'One leading indicator of this absorption was contained in the 2001 census and showed intermixed couples made up 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal member' - this is certainly evidence of partial integration, but it's still far less than one would expect under total integration for a group that makes up less than 3% of the total population. Birrell and Hirst highlight the fact that a lot of integration has happened, but they also observe that this integration is by no means universal - in fact, much of the paper is concerned with the differences between integrated and non-integrated couples. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we just plainly say that the majority of people who identify as 'indigenous' in the census are of mixed descent? My point is that the intermarriage rate is 69% for black people in Australia. For blacks in America it is less than 2%. People have been predicting aboriginal assimilation since 1788 and this view still finds expression today. There is a group called the Bennelong Society.
With regards to the last 30 years of assimilation statistics contained in the census we could comment on the emerging trends.
I think this is a very poor article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.14 (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Can we just plainly say that the majority of people who identify as 'indigenous' in the census are of mixed descent?" - I would expect that to be true, but it would be good to attribute it to a source.
- "My point is that the intermarriage rate is 69% for black people in Australia." - careful with terminology. The figure there is that 69% of *couples* that have at least one Aboriginal member are mixed. This is not same as the rate for Aboriginal *persons*. To see the difference, consider 100 such couples, with 69 mixed couples and 31 unmixed. There are 69 Aboriginal people in mixed couples, and 31x2=62 in unmixed couples, so the rate of intermarriage for Indigenous *people* is only 69/(69+62)=53%.
- "For blacks in America it is less than 2%." - this number doesn't look right. Paper here gives US figures of 0.28% (1970) and 1.13% (1988) black/non-black intermarriage - but these are percentages of ALL marriages, while the Australian figures are only for those involving at least one Indigenous person. Taking that into account, the US 1988 figure would be somewhere around 10%; considering that intermarriage quadrupled between 1970 and 1988, presumably it has risen somewhat more in the last 20 years. There are also questions of definition/identification here - without knowing where people of mixed ancestry fit into the US stats, it's not clear just how comparable they are. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have heard it said somewhere responsible most aboriginal people are of mixed descent.
According to One Nation (NSW) out of 500,000 people only 30,000 are full blooded.
121.216.35.172 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article to say that modern day aboriginal people are descendants of the second wave of immigration to Australia as the Parathions were the first wave.
134.148.5.104 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cite please? The only 'Parathion' I or my dictionary have heard of is a type of insecticide. --122.105.33.63 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this would not be a source we could use, but the claim is made here: http://www.onenation.com.au/Policy%20document.htm
I called this organisation to discuss the issue. They said scientists know because they know.
I remember during the preamble referendum debate in 1999 people like Jeff Kennett pointed out that Ancient Aborignies displaced some other people who were here before them. He gave this group of people a different name which I have quite forgotten.
Let's look into it hay? This is interesting prehistory.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.4.20 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite simply a figured refernced to a repsected academic at one of Australia's better unis is more than sufficient for inclusion in Wiki. In contrast the claim that the standard figure is 30, 000 is not refernced in any way whtsoever. It is disingeuosu to claim that the Madden article makes such a claim, It does not. So please do not revert this again.
If you wish to add reputable refercnes disputing Madden's figues you are encouraged to do so.
If you wsh to discuss it the then discussion page is the place to do so.
But to revert without refernces is not allowable.
Ethel Aardvark (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I would not piss on the history sections of modern universities. They are the most politically biased institutions in the world. I do think it is relevant to include his population assertion, but it needs to be made very clear that it is Madden that is saying it, and that it is not the traditional estimate on the census roll, or indeed not the consensus on the figure, as it reads if left as is. That was why I was reverting. Because you kept deleting the reference to Madden making the assertion. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As well as the government website saying that the figure is 100 000, and that is already a compromise. Personally I await the day when we will be told that there was a whole civilisation of some 5 000 000 aborigines who were every bit as advanced as our ancestors except that they did not have gunpowder. Use your brain. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a simple policy: any material from a reputable source may be added so long a sit is referenced. There is no need to spell out the names of all authors. If you wish to add contrary references then have at it. If you don't have any such references then by definition it isn't controversial. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind - I moved this and the next section to the bottom of the page per the layout standards at WP:TALK. It makes it easier to follow the flow of conversation if the sections are roughly chronological.
- On the topic, Ethel Aardvark is right - a particular number has been quoted by a referenced, reliable secondary source. An alternative figure is proposed - its been included with a {{fact}} tag,but its up to the person who included it to find a source backing it up. Otherwise its liable to be removed at any time. Your negative view of university history departments is a personal opinion unless you can back it up with reliable sources showing this particular history department has it wrong. As to noting it is Madden making the claims, anyone interested in the issue can simply click on the link and find out who is claiming it. There's no need to repeat these details in the artcle text. If you think Madden is wrong, provide a reliable secondary source saying so.
- You also mention a government website quoting different figures - adding these numbers with an appropriate reference would feel free to add these figures along with the reference details to support the case. Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a referenced reliable source, it is a new hypothesis by a university professor. The fact that it is such is absolutely necessary to mention the name behind the estimate and passing it off as incontestable fact is a despicable betrayal of the reader. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
By this link [1] which was already among the footnotes, it has the aboriginal population at 80 000 at 1966. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Another government source already in the footnotes [2] which has the population estimate in 1900 at about 80 000. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking the sources above. I have replaced the population figure with the 1901 estimate from the ABS, which we would surely all agree is a reliable source. I was tempted to keep the Madden reference as well to show the range of estimates, but the linked-to page didn't actually quote a number so the development of 150,000 using his percentage figures would be coming close to a synthesis. I removed the 30,000 estimate as it was unreferenced from any source. Hopefully this resolves the issue.
- In passing I'd point out that referring to other people's edits as "a despicable betrayal of the reader" is needlessly offensive. Please consider this policy when preparing your comments on talk pages or in edit summaries. Euryalus (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go a little further and say that the figure of '150,000' is unintentional synthesis - we should avoid this sort of thing here even when it looks straightforward. There are a couple of issues involved:
- In quantitative disciplines, when you give a number, you're not just giving an estimate of some quantity - you're also saying something about the accuracy of that estimate. Giving a figure as '150,000' without further qualification implies that the expected error in that estimate is no more than ~ 5000 either way (i.e. a relative error of about 3%). However, Madden's words as quoted in the reference are "probably... 4% to 5% of the Australian population"; from the lack of decimal places there, that could mean anything from 3.51% to 5.49%, which is a relative error of around 20%. (Also, the figure of 150k seems to be derived from the 4% figure, rather than the midrange of the estimate - doing it this way increases the possible relative error, potentially to almost 40%.)
- You can Google and find a reference stating that "in 1901, the new federal nation of Australia had a population of 3,824,913", and if you multiply that by Madden's '4%' you'll get something around 150,000. But there are several different ways to measure the 'Australian population' - are you counting everybody in the country, or only long-term residents, or only British/Australian citizens? All ages, or only adults? Only those who were actually recorded in a census, or are you adjusting your numbers for undercount? It's unsafe to combine two separate sources in this way without confirmation that they're using the same definitions. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly so, though your explanation is much better than mine. We don't know Madden's assumptions without the full text of his comments or research and these are not provided in the link. Equally we don't know the assumptions or basis for the 30,000 figure which was added earlier but never sourced. The ABS figure may be substantially wrong given the likelihood of poor information-gathering in 1901 and the challenges of defining Aboriginality even today. But at least the ABS figure is directly supported by the source. Euryalus (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look, I think giving the source of the estimate is the best way to resolve this issue about which figure is best because than it gives the reader the opportunity to make their own inquiries into the validity of the source. Obviously you can not always mention every source, but in controversial estimation of figures, it is prudent to acknowledge maybe the 2 or 3 most prominent sources. Whether Madden constitutes as one of these is disputable, but seeing that he is already sourced, I am not going to call for his removal from the article. I think trying to evaluate what the actual number was is quite outside the scope of our editorialship, we just parrot the analysis of what others think it was. Maybe viewing how different number estimates are treated in Ancient Greek articles like Battle of Plataea will shed some insight on this. The 30 000 comes from a 1967 year 10 school textbook for N.S.W.. It may well underestimate. The sources I entered above WERE ALREADY CITED IN THE ARTICLE, so I assumed they were already part of the references for the article. I really do think that presenting a controversial statistic as fact is "a despicable betrayal of the reader", especially when the source of that figure is a university professor. Notice that I was attacking the edit, not the editor. I'm Irish Australian and am used to vigorous argument as I believe it produces the best results, so long as it is not personal attacks. Either way I am willing to move on. --58.172.251.46 (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
We really need to get a consensus on what this page is actually about. At the moment it is neither fish nor fowl and is almost unreadable. I haven't looked at it for several months and it has much gotten worse in that time. A lot of important information and good work is being buried in a lot of academic debate that the casual reader won’t care about and will just be intimidated by. Balance is one thing, but the online argument that this article has degenerated into is way to much for the main portal article for one for the great ethnic and geographic groups of the planet.
I think it would be a good idea to split this article along the following lines:
The current article should be retained as a general overview of the topic. Very basic information on history, linguistics, demography, culture etc. No more than two or three paragraphs on each topic and try to keep it uncontroversial (not easy). Basically information for the casual reader or school kids. Essentially this will include everything down and including the “culture section” approximately as is and incorporate the bare bines form the mainland Australian, Tasmania, Torres Strait sections.
We then split off separate articles for the more controversial sections. These are what are making the article so messy and as it is the basic information is being lost to most readers because it is being buried in an online argument.
I’m proposing we replace “Issues facing Indigenous Australians today” with a few paragraphs saying basically “Like many other minority groups Indigenous Australians are overrepresented in terms of the criminal justice system, literacy, health etc.” Everything uncontroversial and well referenced. The rest of the section then gets its own article.
Same for “Environment”. A single paragraph stating that “traditionally Aboriginals had reached an equilibrium with the environment, were believed for a long tome to have had mininmal environmental impact, but that a body of scholars now believe that they may have caused major environmental change”. Then split the rest of the material to its own article.
Similarly most of the stuff in the Tasmania section can be moved right back into the culture wars artiicle where it seems ot have originated.
I think this would be a win for all sides. The basic information is presented here with an acknowledgment that there is controversy and then the facts can be presented in frightening detail with reference and counter-reference in another article fro those interested.
It will require restraint and goodwill from all sides so that just a little additional line isn’t slipped in here to bolster their position, and it will require work for those of us watching this article so they get moved out to the appropriate articles ASAP, otherwise the whoel process will snowball again.
But I think it’s got to be worth it. This subject and the article is too important to be allowed to degenerate into this dog’s breakfast.
Any thoughtsEthel Aardvark (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reassessd the article as a "C" rather than "B". Issues include a large number of unsoruced statements, some inconsistent layouts and some sections in need of major copyediting (notably the Tasmania and the Environment sections). Obviously, having identified these I'll be doing some work to improve them.
If there is disagreement with the reassessment I'm happy to discuss here and see if consensus can be reached. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Article stated that "the only method of determining indigenous population is from self-identification on census forms". This isn't quite true. Besides the Census, the ABS also runs a post-Census survey (PES) aimed at quantifying various errors in the Census; that includes indigenous undercount and non-identification, and population estimates are adjusted accordingly. See e.g. 4713.0 - Population characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Australians, 2001. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently science has confirmed that there were people living in Australia when the first Aboriginal people arrived. Apparently it has been written out of history books. We here at wikipedia are blind to political correctness. We are only concerned with the verifiablity of references.
Who has some regarding prior occupation of these islands? This article gets it wrong from the very first sentence.
134.148.4.14 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you'll have to be much clearer about what you're implying, and give actual sources. Google Books would be a good starting point. Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently Ancient Aborigines were the second people. There was a civilisation here when they arrived. I asked an Aboriginal lecturer in Aboriginal studies from my local university today and he confirmed it. Different authorities give this group of people different names. We might have trouble finding a source for this claim. Apparently these are forgotten people who have been written out of history books.
As soon as I can find their anthropological designation and a verifiable reference I will edit the article accordingly.
134.148.5.104 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note Wikipedia:No_original_research#Related_policies - "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research... If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents..."
- If they truly are "Forgotten people who have been written out of history books", then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to cover them. This is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Were they Homo erectus or Homo floresiensis? Badagnani (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely not Erectus or Florisiensis. The idea of pre-modern humans in Australia was bandied about in the late 80s/early 90s due to some dodgy isotope datings, but has been comprehensively abandoned by academia. I think what our anonymous contributor is thinking of are the putative creators of the Bradshaw art. Some Loon wrote a book a few years ago claiming that they were done by non-Aboriginal peoples. I say Loon because he is a von Daniken style author who also wrote books on the Loch Ness monster, lost descendants of Jesus and so forth. Real da Vinci code type stuff. The book wasn't published by an academic publishing house and as far as I know no scholars take it seriously. Of course if anyone can find a reputable reference for such claims it should be incorporatedEthel Aardvark (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A list of verifiable references for the claim Ancient Aborigines were the second Australians is pending. Apparently these works still exist. Made hard to find. But haven't all been burnt.
If wikipedia still thinks it is a tiny minority view I will create an international news incident that will make these facts well known in a matter of minutes.
What is victory without a struggle?
134.148.4.14 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hoo Boy.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I never thought I'd find myself invoking WP:NCR, but this seems like an appropriate moment. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The first source for the claim that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands that I want to discuss is Cape York - The Savage Frontier by Rodney Liddell ISBN 0 646 28348 0.
According to http://www.copyright.net.au/details.php?id=102 it was researched from original documentation in libraries and archives.
Is this a verifiable reference?
READERS REVIEWS
=> I also would recommend that it be available in all libraries - schools and public. As well as this opportunity, perhaps many Queensland and Federal politicians should have it on their own "must read" list... Especially the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs people.
=> I found this book's contents and claims to be fascinating - it was a "can't put down" type of book. If nothing else, it should warrant the historical academics to actully validate their own publications. A truly good book to read which opens the readers mind that "truth is sometimes more worrying than fiction".
134.148.4.20 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Liddell has a website here. Looks like the book exists and does indeed make claims of those lines - but from the website it's also clear that this is a self-published source. As noted under WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." --122.105.33.63 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) (aka 144.53.251.2)
Mr Liddell's work has around since the 80s. There has been plenty of time to rebutt his claims. But I take it as a no for this book as a whole then?
Are we ready for some forensic analysis of Mr Liddell's sources then?
134.148.5.104 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do as you wish. The book remains self-published and hence unacceptable as a reference.Ethel Aardvark (talk)
I have ordered a copy of this book. I am going to examine his sources. Maybe we can use some of them to support the claim Australian Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands?
It took a long time to get the exogamy rate into this article. I enjoy the struggle.
I'll get jailed on go on a hunger strike if I have to.
134.148.4.14 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, follow the link: WP:NCR
- I think you have jumped ot the wrong conclusion. The "struggle" here is simply to produce a good article. If you can find a reputable source that states that all Aborigines have three heads nobody will object to its inclusion. There's no vast conspiracy going on here. Trust me Ethel Aardvark (talk)
Rodney Liddell is a well known and thought of author. But we won't consider his book as a whole. We'll consider his sources in minute detail.
Some really eminent and well known men have told me privately Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the Australian islands.
It is interesting that people have donated Mr Liddells monumental work to libraries such as the one at Newcastle University and it has gone missing.
If it is true then there is a verifiable reference out there waiting to be cited.
134.148.4.20 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did a quick Google test for Rodney Liddell, as well as a Google Scholar test. Google Scholar returns nothing. A general Google test reveals a post at the website of the Adelaide Institute (an organisation condemned by the Federal Court for Holocaust denial, an angry reaction from an Indigenous rights activist who ran into Liddell at a book launch, and the website of the book's publisher (which seems to be himself, seeing as the website only mentions the one book). Not only does his book claim that Aboriginal nations displaced earlier nations, but he also claims that colonial Australia was racist against whites, and makes several essentialist claims about Aboriginal people. The book appears to be based on one person's interpretation of a few old documents and seems to be cobbled together with complete disregard for historical process. Including anything in here to that effect, even if it were referenced to Liddell's book, would fail WP:FRINGE and would probably be quickly removed. 134.148, I'm also a student at the University of Newcastle, and while I'm not interested in resolving a content dispute with you off-wiki (which is not recommended), I am willing to discuss the issue itself. --Sumthingweird (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is something fishy about it all. I lifted this off a website:
- "When this remarkable book “Cape York - The Savage Frontier” was first published it became “The most controversial and historically accurate book” ever written on Australian history and was such a huge success amongst the public that numerous attempts were made behind the scenes to have it banned.
- Consequently it became extremely difficult to advertise through various elements of the media. They obviously had a lot to hide. Yet when the subject of aboriginal cannibalism was raised in the media, Channel 7 interviewed this author for their evening news and the public finally had the facts correct.
- An attempt was also alleged to have been made by corrupt politicians to have the book totally banned in Australia through the Australian Federal Parliament.
- All these attempts to silence the truth have now failed and the book is more popular than ever."
134.148.4.14 (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I'm much mistaken, that comes off Liddell's own website. I'm sure he believes himself to be important, but neither that nor unsubstantiated claims of suppression make him a reliable or notable source by Wikipedia's standards. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In his Flag Day 2001 speech Professor Geoffrey Blainey speaks of the "arrival" of Aboriginal people: http://www.australianflag.org.au/blainey.php
When I say emminent men have told me Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to the islands I mean people of that stature. Are they all wrong?
We will consider another source tomorrow.
That's if I don't go berserk before then and create an international news incident out of the matter. One way or another the truth will come to light.
Very very soon......
134.148.4.14 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Can't check the Blainey link from where I am, but... if you can name these 'eminent men', and they are indeed of Blainey's stature (in a relevant field; not that I'm particularly fond of Blainey, but he passes a significance test), and you can point to a verifiable source that confirms that they have made these claims, then it might be appropriate to mention it in the article. But 'anonymous, personal communication' is not acceptable sourcing for Wikipedia.
- Threats of tantrums are not going to help your case here, although they might manage to get you blocked for disruptive editing (unfortunately for the other students who share your IP). Repeatedly adding a source that clearly fails WP:RS is also likely to get you blocked. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- >>>Professor Geoffrey Blainey speaks of the "arrival" of Aboriginal people<<
- And what exactly is your point? There's nothing controversial about the idea that Aboriginal people arrived in Australia. Did you think they grew up with the gum trees or something? Blainey doesn't state that they arrived after some other people, which is your claim. He just notes that they arrived.Ethel Aardvark (talk)
Mr Liddell may or may not dribble a degree of shit in his controversial, hard to find, censored book. The only claim we need consider is the one that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave of immigration to these islands.
He has been notified his book was not accepted as a reference by wikipedia and asked to provide other sources for his claim. Sources that can be used to amend this article. Sources that would hold up under the scrutiny of binding arbitration and which would allow the claim to stay in article in a way that cannot be legally challenged. And given that Ancient Aborigines were part of the second wave these citations should theoretically be forthcoming. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher step by step wikipedia is winding back the chains of political correctness!
Watch this space.
134.148.4.20 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not about political correctness. This is about verifiability, and moreover, not giving undue weight to fringe theories. If you want the world to know this fantastic truth that you have uncovered, write an an article for a peer-review journal. Once this "second wave of immigration" theory becomes a notable area of historical research, then it will surely be listed in Wikipedia as a theory even without the need for your crusade in Wikipedia or the need for you to create an international incident. You will see how the system works. As far as a legal challenge goes, I'd be highly surprised if a court forced Wikipedia to publish anything at all. It would be a better use of your time to co-operate with ordinary Wikipedia processes - believe me, they work really well! If it helps, Maggie probably would. --Sumthingweird (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I favour getting jailed and a hunger strike.
134.148.5.104 (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Note that the founder of the Adelaide Institute (one of the few sources for Liddell's work), has just been arrested in London for Holocaust denial. Please do not go on hunger strike over this (even though I support, and more broadly participate in, civil disobedience). We are not saying that your views are wrong. We are just saying that they need to be supported by a notable third-party source to be published in Wikipedia. --Sumthingweird (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to repeat this:We are not saying that your views are wrong. We are just saying that they need to be supported by a notable third-party source to be published in Wikipedia. I personally would love to see some evidence that Aboriginines were not the first wave of human colonisation in Australia, an dif such evidence it exists it certainly belongs in this article as well a its own article. Heck, if you find the evidence I will write the article myself.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- If humans existed before, then why did the Australian Megafauna suddenly go extinct 46,000 years ago.New Ages for the Last Australian Megafauna: Continent-Wide Extinction About 46,000 Years Ago Mpondopondo (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a major tangent, but something similar happened in the Americas. It now seems clear that pre-Clovis peoples existed in the Americas long before the current wave, but there is very good evidence that the latest immigrants brought new tools, technques and technology that led to mass extinctions. The same could have happened in Australia, but there's no evidence that it did.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr Liddell has been advised of the situation. He knows to provide verifiable references for use by wikipedia. His book might not be one in and of itself but I'm sure it was written upon a foundation of such sources.
I can see that this will be a long and technical mediation process.
121.216.35.172 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for approaching this issue in good faith. When you have found verifiable and notable sources upon which Liddell based his work we will be able to include them here, as long as they add to the quality of the article and conform to Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, your changing IP address makes it difficult to follow the conversation, sometimes. While you have every right to edit as an IP address (and there are quite a few very notable editors who edit from a static IP), you might prefer signing up for a user account (it's free). --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. My writing is distinctive in style.
121.216.35.172 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
THE SAVAGE FRONTIER - BY RODNEY LIDDELL
It is with great interest I have been following this debate. I too have a copy of Mr Liddells work.
Chapter 1 - "The Aboriginal Invasion of Australia"
"Whilst researching the history of Cape York, I found it necessary to re-trace the 'ORIGINS OF MAN' on the Australian Continent.
It soon became apparent that the ORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS were definitely NOT the people we now refer to as aboriginals.
For over 200 years, Australians have been constantly indoctrinated into accepting the dark skinned natives that Captain Cook saw in 1770, as being the original Australians.
Yet, truth is stranger than fiction. For all the latest anthropological evidence shows very clearly that the original Australians were PAUPANS, who came down from New_Guinea when both countries were connected by a natural land bridge estimated to have been 100 miles wide [160km], consisting of vast lowlands and undulating hills."
Lets start with that. True?
The book came out in 1996. Has there been an attempt at a rebuttal like happened to Keith Windshuttle's "Fabrication of Aboriginal History"?
12 years is a long time.
134.148.4.20 (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1) We don't know if that's true. Thats; the problem. We have no reason beyond Liddell's claim to think thatit is true, and as has been pointed out, Liddell's book is not a reputable source.
- 2) Whether the first Aboriginals came to Australia via Papua or via the Timor Sea is still a matter of debate, and most anthropolgists seem consider either equally likely. But the fact that they came via Papua doesn't make them any less the first people in Australia. Liddell's reaosning seems to be that since the ancetsors of today's Aborigines were technically Papuans when the arrived, then they weren't Aboriginals, ergo there were people heer before the Aboriginals. That is soooooo deeply flawed I don't even know where to start. Suffice it to say that by this logic no human are ever the first inhabitants of anywhere, incuding Afrcia. He isn't actually saying that there were people in Australia before the Aborigines arrived, rather that they only became Aborigines by being in Australia and therfore they were different people to their own parents. Truly bizarre stuff IMO.Ethel Aardvark (talk)
Controversial Australian historian Keith Windschuttle insisted that the first occupants of Australia were not the Aboriginal people but Negritos. "The Extinction of the Australian Pygmies" (June 2002) http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm Asidemes (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK. That reference will do me. Put it in. Or I will do it for you if you prefer.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
|
