Talk:Indigenous Australians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Flag
Portal
 Indigenous Australians is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Poll re naming Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Indigenous

Contribute to a poll here.

[edit] Cannibalism

I will go deleting this material for as long as is necessary to deter this person. This has nothing to do with the issue of cannibalism, it has to do with the behaviour of this person in continually spamming this page while making no effort to edit the article or do anything contructive. 11:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Adam, we're working at cross-purposes for a moment. I've reposted Premier's section and my response for now. If this gets us nowhere, he's all yours. Hesperian 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to the article:

"A number of sources claim that cannibalism was practiced in Indigenous coummunities, including Walter Roth in his monumental study The Queensland Aborigines. [1] If cannibalism did occur, the lack of eyewitness accounts suggests it was a taboo and ritualised practice, used for ceremonial (perhaps initiation) purposes. Evidence does not point to it being a regular practice; only certain people would probably have engaged in it and then rarely."

I think somebody would be hard pressed to argue that the great Walter Roth who has a museum of anthropology named after him is a source not worth quoting.

Premier 16:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually its proving rather easier than you claim to demostrate that Walter Roth is not source worthy of being quoted(wonder if they'll rename that museum}. There are a lot more reliable sources than you'd belive that are showing Roths claims a falsehood from which he benefited and one that resulted in 80 years of oppression to Aboriginal people. That his claims had been discredited to such an extent that 1984 reprint you quote only used to sensationalise headllines in Queensland during the early stages of Mabo case, then later revive by pauline hanson and friends to grab the media spotlight. Looks like Roths article will become a very interesting read with many interesting discussions on content. Gnangarra 15:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd done that in the first place instead of endlessly spamming this page you would have had no objections. Adam 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I still object. This issue has been hotly debated, more so ten years ago than now. You might say it was a front in the history wars. We should be characterising the debate itself, not plucking out a single quote in support of a single point of view. Hesperian 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but at least he has now made an edit which can be debated, rather than making his own behaviour the issue. Adam 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
so it goes in an article about the 'history wars'. "characterising the debate itself" does not go in this article, it goes in an article about white attitudes, or on historiography. as it happens there isn't debate on these issues among the relevant qualified academics, those 'debates' are wishfull thinking on the part of journos & and other ill-informed (at best) polemicists. regardless of which, offensive rubbish like this shldn't go on the main page unless it's properly sourced. again, pls read the preceeding debate. regardless of your seeming agreement with this individual, (& quite apart from his repeated posting of material from a racist site) he is impervious to reason. check this, it's no exaggeration.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you spoke to him in the aggressive and bombastic tone in which you've been speaking to me, then I'm not surprised he was "impervious to reason". Hesperian 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
again read the archive, (esp. before you start randomly accusing people of starting arguments) this is the tail end a lengthy dispute with which you have failed to familiarise yourself. now you've encouraged him to insert out of date research into the article as if it were currently accepted fact. apart from being misleading that material is gratuitously offensive. you could at least take that into consideration before you engage in purely personal polemic.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I read the archive before I entered this discussion. I don't know where you got the idea that I hadn't. And even if I hadn't, there still would be no point telling me to do so three times. I wasn't "randomly accusing people"; I was talking to you specifically, as you're the only person on this talk page who is attacking me for the position I've taken. Bless my soul, all I did was try to engage Premier in discussion at a time when you and Adam had already descended to his level of mindless reversion. But I got reverted too. Now my position is that this ridiculously dated cannibalism claim should be removed altogether until/unless someone is prepared to provide a balanced characterisation of the debate. I would have thought we agreed on that point, but you're too busy looking for a fight to notice. Hesperian 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record I think you've handled this situation quite fairly. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, excuse me. I didn't paste anything to wikipedia from a racist website. What I did do is pasted some extracts from the following books: Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Adam in Ochre, The Australian Aborigines, Savage Life in Central Australia, Whispering Wind, Origins of Sacrifice. And even if these quotes also appear on a racist website in addition to these books - what about the fact that sources that claim massacres of blacks occured appear on websites of communist sympathisers?
The article says a number of sources have said black people practiced cannibalism. Well that's hardly a revelation. One of the most credible sources is the great Walter Roth who is appropriately referenced.
One issue might be do we know more now then blokes like Roth did back then? Well, I'm not opposed to adding in a sentence about that.
What are we going to do - not mention cannibalism or something? What are you going to do when the competitor to wikipedia starts up and I convince their team of professional editors to cover the issue?
Eh?
Premier 13:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The quotations may be accurate. But they may not be. The fact that you have copied them verbatim from this page on this infamous neo-Nazi website means that we can't know whether they are accurate or not. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - even if they were verbatim, they may not be at all representative of the work - eg qualifications may well be missing, or limitations (such as that of Roth's quote below) which take it well below a standard of proof. In fact, a librarian familiar with Roth's work has informed me it paints an overall sympathetic, although hands-off, view of Aboriginals at that time, and the section we're talking about is a tiny, tiny fraction of the work. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Inevitably, we are going to find that the quotations are indeed accurate. And no, I didn't do any such thing. I have all those books at home. I typed all that information into the discussion page in the same order and with the same referencing style used on that racist website.
The probablity of that happening is about the same as for life evolving from non-living matter here on earth but nobody argues that is anything other than an established scientific fact do they?
All I can suggest is that if it really upsets you that much then obtain copies of those books and check them for yourselves. If you live in a capital city it ought not be too hard.
For a bloke like me who crosses all his t's and dots all of his i's and triple checks all his work this is an extraordinary level of scrunity I must say.
Premier 03:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


The quotations may be accurate. But they may not be. The fact that you have copied them verbatim from this page on this infamous neo-Nazi website means that we can't know whether they are accurate or not. --bainer (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If anyone of those extracts is not to be found in the source document then somebody make it known and we won't consider that source any further.
Surely that's a practical suggestion if ever there was one?
Premier 05:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
as quoted above If cannibalism did occur, the lack of eyewitness accounts suggests it was a taboo and ritualised practice, used for ceremonial (perhaps initiation) purposes. Evidence does not point to it being a regular practice; only certain people would probably have engaged in it and then rarely. this is pure speculation by Walter Roth his wording even highlights that he doesnt have any conclusive evidence. Given his positon and instructions, the amount of information collected surely it would be more definitive than 1 paragraph of speculation. Gnangarra 03:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a look at what the great Walter Roth did actually say in his monumental study "The Queensland Aborigines", 1984 fascimile edition, originally published as "Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines", Qld Gov't Printer, 1897.

"Though the prima facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre, and any information concerning particulars is but charily given by the aboriginals, there is ***no doubt*** that this custom, though gradually becoming more and more obsolete, certainly does take place within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland." (paragraph 293, "Cannibalism", p. 166, vol. 1, 1984 ed). [Emphasis added]

It mightn't be fashionable but he said there was "no doubt" about it.

Premier 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That he had no doubt or no reason to doubt it is one thing. Verifiability of it actually occurring is another. This is the fundamental problem we run into all the time. For instance, it would be improper for the Vicks page to suggest VapoRub is proven to help asthma (I actually use it, it's more effective than Ventolin in my opinion with less side effects, and several doctors agree with me) - it says for the record that it "was created (by a pharmacist)... as a salve for treating colds and pneumonia". I could probably put such a claim on that page, and say there is no doubt in the eyes of many medical practitioners that ... (my claim). I may even be right. However it is original research and WP:POV to suggest so, as any fan or regular user of Ventolin would probably not hesitate to tell me. This is where we come unstuck - the experiential or observational vs the factual, which has historically always been a problem for the social sciences. One problem with observational, esp if one doesn't observe it oneself (as Gnangarra has highlighted), is that one can "hear what one wants to hear and disregard the rest" as Simon & Garfunkel once put it. As another once put it to me when I was conducting some social research from an admittedly urban, young, lower-middle-class viewpoint, if you ask silly questions, you get silly answers. I've been as guilty of that as anyone in my fields of interest at times. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 15:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
He opens by saying the "prima facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre and any information concerning the particulars is but charily given." or "on the face of it very little information is being given and that which is not being given freely". not exactly a strong statement of fact. Since you claim a number of sources there must be others with better information than that of Roth, these should also made available before such claims, these sources should cover a broader population and more than one unspecific nation/tribe/family before inclusion in an article on all Indegenous Australians. Gnangarra 06:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The great man also says there was *no doubt* about it. The article does talk about eyewitness reports or lack of them. I've got no problem with that. Roth says: "certainly does take place within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland." The article also discusses what some of those certain, qualified circumstances might have been.

I would advance the argument that Walter Roth is generally speaking a credible, NPOV source. There are many other sources that discuss this issue besides him but whenever I paste them in here they are deleted! It appears we won't be able to examine them as I would have hoped. And do we really want to get into a debate about the writings of Daisy Bates? I will, but I don't want to.

I reckon it is a top paragraph. Very balanced. In fact, I think the YES case has been quite agreeable really confining themselves to one short, sweet sentence.

What would you change about the paragraph and why?

p.s. In fact, here's another concession. We could further qualify cannibalism by saying we are only talking about North-West-Central Queensland.

Premier 07:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

edit conficlts had change para, is that fair representation based on what your are providing Gnangarra 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be futile knowing I'd only put it back up?

In 1983 Barrie Reynolds of James Cook University wrote the foreward to the edition I was quoting from.

"Roth's papers on north Queensland are recognized as outstanding and in some cases unique ethnographic records of Aboriginal language, life and culture at the turn of the century. They cover a wide range of subjects and provide information on many Aboriginal groups throughout the region. Their importance is such that no anthropologist, archaeologist, historian or linguist concerned with Aboriginal north Queensland can afford to ignore them..."

"Roth proved a vigorous Protector ... earn[ing] for himself the hostility of the local European residents of north Queensland that was to erupt in 1905 in a public petition for his dismissal..."

Premier 15:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to go and put the information in as I don't have the time right now, but if someone wants references to Aboriginal Canibalism I suggest Chapter 4 of "Aboriginal Victorians" by Richard Broome, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2005. Whilst this is still inconclusive it does provide a great deal of primary evidence and a balanced view point. Just because something is not provable does not mean it should not be in History. The debate was an important one 150 years ago and is still relevant today and thus deserves a place on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.172.4.45 (talk • contribs) 08:01, March 14, 2007.

[edit] Walter Roth quote

The article wrongly attributes the following quote to Walter Roth

"If cannibalism did occur, the lack of eyewitness accounts suggests it was a taboo and ritualised practice, used for ceremonial (perhaps initiation) purposes. Evidence does not point to it being a regular practice; only certain people would probably have engaged in it and then rarely."

He never said that in The Queensland Aborignies.

Premier 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

From reading the article, I didn't interpret the above as intended to be a quote or even summary of Roth's views (it existed well before the Roth reference was inserted) but more a summary of the status quo by whoever wrote the section. To be frankly honest it needs references though. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 15:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Queensland Aboriginies

This is everything that Walter Roth had to say on the subject of cannibalism in his monumental study "The Queensland Aborigines", 1984 fascimile edition, originally published (in part?) as "Ethnological Studies among the North-West-Central Queensland Aborigines", Qld Gov't Printer, 1897.

from paragraph 293 "Cannibalism", (p. 166, vol. 1, 1984 edn.):

"Though the prima facie evidence of the practice of cannibalism is very meagre, and any information concerning particulars is but charily given by the aboriginals, there is no doubt but that this custom, though gradually becoming more and more obsolete, certainly does take place within certain limitations throughout North-West-Central Queensland. Thus in the Boulia district [Roth was serving there as hospital Surgeon at the time of writing], especially with children who die suddenly from no lingering illness, portions of the corpse may be eaten by the parents and by their blood brothers and sisters only: the reason assigned is that "putting them along hole" would make them think too much about their beloved little ones, though, unfortunately this is apparently contradicted by the fact that if the child has been ailing a long time previously and become emaciated, &c., it will be buried.

Proofs also are at hand that within the last ten years, since 1885, true-blooded aboriginal children have been killed, with the object of being eaten, at Noranside, Roxburgh, and Carandotta. In the more northern areas half-caste infants are not uncommonly murdered at the present time, either at the instigation of their white fathers or their assumed black-blooded ones : but to what extent, in the latter case, for the main purpose of providing food, it is impossible to speak with certainty. My friend, Mr. Edwards, late of Roxburgh, is the only European who to my knowledge has been an eye-witness of such an orgie: this was in 1888, between Roxburgh and Carandotta, when he saw an infant being roasted in one of the native ovens, and subsequently watched the blacks opening the body and making for the fat, but he became too sick and faint to observe anything further. With regard to people of mature years, those who have died suddenly and who are in good condition at the time of death - not the old and emaciated - may similarly be eaten: this rarely takes place in the Boulia or Cloncurry Districts nowadays, though many of the older men of these parts will relate numerous instances of its occurrence in the "early" times. In the Leichhardt-Selwyn District, the Kalkadoon at the present time (1896) will eat any corpse, friend or foe, old or young, even in cases where the flesh is visibly rotten with venereal. there is no doubt of this. Elsewhere individuals who have been killed in intertribal warfare are left exposed where they fall. At Glenormiston, in 1892, on the occasion of a black having been killed by the tribe collectively for murder, a great debate was held as to whether the body should be eaten or not: it was only due to the presence upon the scene of the station-manager (Mr. J. Coghlan, from whom I received the report) that decided the question in the negative. On the other hand, it is only fair to state that, so far as I have been able to gather information, I know of no case in North-West-Central Queensland where any adult male or female has been killed for the sole purpose of providing a repast."

W.E. Roth, 1896.

Premier 08:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] roth and others

As roth is the only cited source, it cannot be claimed that their are others who also make the same claim Gnangarra 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In discussion with yourself and others I've come to the same conclusion. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you've come to the wrong conclusion. The authors of the following books were also sure cannibalism was happening in Australia: Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Adam in Ochre, The Australian Aborigines, Savage Life in Central Australia, Whispering Wind, Origins of Sacrifice. That is just to name a few.

What about Daisy Bates?

Premier 09:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Daisy Bates has already been discussed, I've talked to the State Library after a lead from here and it's been plainly suggested to me that as she was not an expert in her field and was quite an adept marketing person and journalist. This was something I was unaware of when I myself made the same suggestion. She is quotable when used by WA state government - eg she contributed the names of several suburbs (eg Innaloo) and Perth towns from lists that she made of names in use in various parts of the state. Evidence as to the notability of the above sources or authors has not been submitted - several of them aren't even mentioned on the web (other than in that site and its quotes) or in the Macquarie University catalogue.
Quote from WP:V "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 11:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I think Daisy Bates is a reliable observer but I don't have the inclination to get into an argument about it.

Some of those books mentioned above were written by anthropologists if that's good enough for you. Because somebody keeps on taking the relevant material from those books off this page what I will do is set up a page on the internet with the extracts and sources and provide a link.

Do you need to be a Nobel prize winner to be considered a "strong source"?

Premier 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

Over the last 24 hours I've edited this article with information about claims of cannibalism, the last couple of edits have been basically reverts of User:Premiers edits in attributing multiple persons to Roths statements. Under WP:3RR we are both (including his sockpuppets) about to exceed this policy. We can considered ourselves warned of the situation and if either of us make any further alterations today to this we should enjoy the required 24hr block. Gnangarra 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not in violation of 3R if you are reverting trolling by sockpuppets. I have been keeping an eye on what is the article and will revert any further attempts to inflate what is there now. Anonymous postings to this page should be deleted. Adam 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that reverting my edit would count as part of any 3RR, as that was quite a separate issue (more one of wording). I think Adam's compromise wording is probably the best. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 00:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genetic links to India and africa

As a qualified geneticist and medical scientist I can assure you, Sofeil, that genetic links to Dravidian and African peoples exist. When I added the edit it was from my general knowledge so I did not instantly append the reference (there are several, however - you can start by looking up Spencer-Welles and colleagues). El Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk • contribs) .

Please review WP:OR and WP:CITE. Saying "you can start by looking up Spencer-Welles and colleagues" is not enough. We need an exact citation (with title, year, publisher, page numbers, etc.). If you don't want to do it all yourself, you can give me the exact information and I'll do it for you. Now, to get us started, were you referring to Spencer Wells when you said "Spencer-Welles"? Which book of his are you referring to and what page? Sofeil 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
try The journey of man, Deep ancestry and Mapping human history for starters. El Bab —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.122.132 (talk • contribs) .
Well thanks for the titles, but where exactly does he discuss the link to Africans and Dravidians? Sofeil 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sofeil, today I have done (so far) five surgical operations; as you can see I have little time to be searching Spencer Wells's books for obscure refs about Australian aboriginals! I will try later perhaps. I think (from memory) he refers in the Mapping book to 'gene-lines' and mentions persistence of an African gene all the way from Africa's Malindi coast (kiSwahili currently) in an arc up and round and south via India and to Australia. I think there was also a TV program. As you probably know there are relic negroid groups throughout that same arc: Montagnards in Vietnam; Negritos in the Philippines; Folo in Indonesia; The Andaman islanders. One could surmise that this was the original route taken by H.Sapiens and the continuous line of people of this gene-line were then fragmented or eliminated by successive waves of Asiatics, etc. (try the GenoGraphic project)


There are in fact three haplogroup (gene clusters) found in this arc: Groups M, B and M130. All of these are mitochondrial and originated between 50 and 60 thousand years ago.

My personal interest is in the spread of Jewish genes down the African East coast to Sena-ba-we from the original Yemen/Sena via the goldsmithing trade/slavery, with those genes ending up among certain african groups in the N/East of South Africa.

We all have our lives to worry about, but Wikipedia has a strict policy of avoiding original research and citing sources properly. You can go ahead and add those two sentences back into the article, but I'm sure someone else would remove them because they're not sourced properly. Sofeil 04:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to expand your knowledge by checking the Genographic project yourself. Then you might be bound to put such sentences in there yourself. As one whose first language is not English and furthermore one who does not claim to be an expert in Aboriginals of the Australian continent I wouldn't dare. El Bab

[edit] Categories...

I'm not particularly familiar with the Indigenous people of Australia, but if I'm reading this right, Indigenous Australians includes both "aborigines" and "torres strait islanders" and yet Category:Aborigines has almost no entries. If this category is meant for Australian aborigines, a lot of articles in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia should be moved there. If it's meant to include all Aborigines, I'm not sure how it serves any purpose outside Indigenous peoples. I'll leave it to you experts. --- TheMightyQuill 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Category:Aborigines was created by one person, then gradually slotted into the hierarchy by others. I'm not quite sure whether to propose it for deletion, or renaming to Category:Australian Aborigines. I suspect what is really needed is continuing the overhaul of the category tree below Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated Cat:Aborigines for deletion, unqualified the term is quite ambiguous and per above we've already a suitable category scheme to further work with and develop for what seems to be the intention of this recent, but redundant, creation.--cjllw | TALK 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit comment

I have been strongly advised on several pages that if a link appears in the text of an article, it should not appear in the See Also section. Looking at that section it has several links which should be removed:

  • Aboriginal deaths in custody
  • Bush tucker
  • Australian Aboriginal art (redirects anyway to Indigenous Australian art)

there are more. I will have a second look and tidy the list up but I thought I should leave some time for comment before editing? Garrie 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree with that advice you've received, at least in all cases. Maybe there's some guideline somewhere which stipulates this, but I would think that particularly for lengthy articles such as this which would have many other related topics of interest to a reader, it would be better to corral those which are most relevant into a see also section for convenience, rather than make the reader wade through all the text in search of somewhere the sub or related topic is linked to. Also, it can be quite common to blend a wikilink in with the surrounding narrative by piping an alternative phrasing for it, so it might not be immediately obvious what the targeted article is actually called.--cjllw | TALK 03:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Garrie, please provide a link to the guideline - I want to refer to it in other places :-) I find "See also" lists are almost universally useless. They are one step above a todo list saying "these topics should be discussed in the article". Most of the time, the reader has no idea why the author thought the reader should also read these other articles until they have opened them. The reader should know why they want to click on a link for further info on a topic, which is better placed in the text where they were reading about the topic. My first-pass filter for valuable "see also" topics would be the ones called "List of..." (like a category, but with red links and short descriptions possible) and ones with some text to describe why I should also see it. For example, I challenge any reader to guess why they should "See also: soak" before clicking on the link (I expected something to do with stain removal). That would be much better as a link (which it isn't at this moment) from the use of the word in the text. --Scott Davis Talk 04:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Scott for the most part, but (IMO of course) if a link is related to the overall article, there's no harm in it being in a See Also section (I see it as the illegitimate child of the External Links section in a way) - another situation is if the link is effectively buried in the article and abstraction is useful. Orderinchaos78 14:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought see also was to direct reader to similar topics, aka native americans, maori and not necessarily a subject that should be included in the article text aka soak. More clearly an article on holden commodores the see also would be ford falcon, toyota camry, mitsu magna while holden kingswood should be contained with the article text as it predessor as would general motors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs).

I'd see your Commodore examples as being better contained in a section titled "Competitors". It's up to the reader whether they are interested in following links such as those, or links such as to Vauxhall Carlton and Opel Omega, depending on why they are reading. This is easier to determine in text than a list of links. Links to all the other native peoples in the world would be better handled by a standard navbox template on all the relevant pages. --Scott Davis Talk 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I just done an extensive copy edit of the History section, IMHO this section could be summarise even more with a lot of the information going to History of Indigenous Australians article. Mostly I split paragraphs where the discussion alters, I have also added {{fact}} where referencing should be included. Some editing has been due to chronological ordering as time periods were irrelevant to that section or out of sequence. Gnangarra 13:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

It is a perfectly good point and it is staying.

Ain't ti good how you can just cut and paste with a few mouse clicks?

It makes to task of putting the info. back into the article indefinately very easy and quick!

124.187.150.76 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed those additions as they are racially/politically propoganda wikipedia isnt the place to propogate your polictical and racial opinions. I would now point you to WP:3RR and that if you reinsert this material you'll be blocked. Gnangarra 04:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Agriculture

Why does someone keep altering my edits to say that Indigenous Australians did not practice agriculture. This seems particularly odd since the paragraphs above and below, which go into details about Indigenous agriculture and domesticates, remain unchanged. Is someone seriously disputing that TSIs practised agriculture? Is so then please just request a reference for this perfectly uncontroversial fact. Should take all of 3 seconds to obtain via Google. But please stop altering the paragraph state that indigenous Australians did not practice agriculture. That is simply not true in any way whatsoever. TSIs were skilled agriculturists.211.29.68.220 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from clumsy language and partial repetition of the preceding paragraph, I see nothing wrong with this edit (although since you mention it, a reference would be nice). I'm not sure what you mean about "keep altering my edits" - That was the first edit for your IP. --Scott Davis Talk 14:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words?

Why is this flag on this article? I mean, what are the specific objections to this article that have earned it this label? I can't help but think the tag itself in this case may be an attempt to denigrate the article in some weird point-scoring fashion. 203.222.66.222 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Some writers have described..." for a classic example? Someone has marked a few places like this where citation is needed. M Holland 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Australians?

This article opens with a rather contentious assertion. While the Maori can easily claim to be the first humans in NZ, there have been many waves of immigration over aeons to Australia. Wouldn't it be correct to refer to Aboriginals as the last inhabitants before European settlement?
Even that isn't right, as today, the word more commonly refers to contemporary people of mixed race and culture, who "identify" as aboriginal. Perhaps these two distinct usages merit separate articles? I'm not brave enough to try editing, but the opening is just plain wrong as it stands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M Holland (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


The academic consensus is that Indigenous Australians are descended from the first immigrants to reach Australia. I don't really understand your second point - people who identify as members of Australia's indigenous, pre-Eureopean culture surely should be described as people who identify as such? Slac speak up! 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Holland's point is, various historians and archaologists have documented successive waves of migration to Australia. And different people mean different things when they say "Australian Aborigine", "Indigenous Australian", etc. Who is more related out of the following groups:

  • Tasmanian aborigines
  • Wiradjuri Tribe
  • Eol poeple
  • Maoris
  • Mereeba tribe....

it actually takes a bit to work out, due to the succession of waves of migration.

As to the last point, a case study / example: If my brother in law, who is of fully European descent, talks about himself as an aboriginal does that make him one? He currently is in a de facto relationship with an aboriginal. Does that change the issue? What if he and his de facto have a child? Personally, I don't care how we label people. But some do, especially when they start writing encyclopedia articles with categories on the bottom of them.Garrie 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indigenous Australians

There used to be an article, Australian Aborigines or similar. Then it got moved to here - but this article incorporates Torres Strait Islanders, who have their own article.

Is there an article which discusses Australian Aboriges - that is Indigenous Australians who are not Torres Strait Islanders - other than the miriad of stubs such as Durag people? Sometimes it would be good to be specifying "mainland Indigenous Australians" without having to put it in those terms.Garrie 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't, there almost certainly should be. If there is a meaningful ethnic or racial group which includes all mainland aborigines but not TS Islanders, then there should be an article for it. Stevage 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race?

What a quaint notion! ... Anyway, something is up with the title in the infobox: {{{group}}} - Fred 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) As was Category:Nomads. Removed. Fred 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

fixed info box - occured back on 11 Jan anti vandal bot was reverting edits by a vandal. Gnangarra 13:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New banner

Afro diaspora has been removed. I asked the editor. He referred me to the project. This page would not appear to be within the scope of that project, unless they include the entire species. Fred 08:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that banner was doing there, you were right to remove it. Recent dna evidence suggests that indigenous aussies are as far removed from sub-sharan africans, genetically, as white europeans. Rather ignorant for one to assume they are 'african diaspora', despite having inhabited oz for 15,000+ years, simply because they have dark skin.

Kamilaroi 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion/Belief Systems

On 4 March I did some tidying up of the section on Culture, because much of this had been copied straight from the main Indigenous Australian culture article, which has since been much revised and improved. Or maybe the copying was the other way round. Anyway, I don't think we need to have the same material in two places, and so I left a shorter summary in Indigenous Australians and a link to the more detailed article in Indigenous Australian culture. There were also some problems with the statistics on Christianity quoted there, which have been explained in Indigenous Australian culture. I also changed the section heading from "Religion" to "Beleief Systems" because traditional Aboriginal beliefs (Dreaming, etc) are not normally called a religion.

On 5 March someone who signs himself "172.130.77.138" reverted some of my changes, and gave no explanation of why. No doubt "172.130.77.138" did so in good faith, but you really shouldn't revert someone's changes without any comment being given in the "edit summary". So, I have reverted them back, and am explaining my actions here. I am happy to discuss here the pros and cons of whether the section should be headed "belief systems" or "religion", but let's not have a revert war!

So, "172.130.77.138", and anybody else who cares to join in, I look forward to discussing these issues with you here. RayNorris 10:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert, Ray Norris, I was wrongly assuming that Belief Systems meant only the traditional Aboriginal Religion. I also added a bit of information on Christianity among Aborigines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.133.237.33 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
OK good - no worries. RayNorris 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aboriginal assimilation debate

The article makes no mention of the debate over aboriginal assimilation. Folks have been predicting it since the days of the colonies and many decision makers in Australia beleive it is the final solution. I understand a majority of blacks are only part bloods and 69% of marriages involving and aboriginal involve a non aboriginal.

124.183.177.70 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right - we should have a section about assimilation. But I don't believe there is any debate nowadays. The concept was indeed very popular until about 10-20 years ago, but has now completely given way to the idea that Indigenous Australians have a culture which is just as important as any other, and steps are being taken at many levels to help Indigenous Australians grow and repair that culture, which was indeed badly damaged by assimilation policies. I don't think any poltical leader who wanted to keep his/her job would nowadays pubicly support assimilation, although I suspect many of them still secretly support it!

I'm happy to do a bit of research and start off a section on that - I'll put it on my to-do list unless somebody gets there before me. RayNorris 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to drive thirty minutes in any direction outside of Sydney, and you'll find the idea is very much alive still. And, anecdotal I know, but the assimilated, integrated Aboriginal people I know seem to be doing a lot better than the ones still clinging onto the old ways. Lankiveil 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Victoria section

Someone knowledgeable in this subject should review the Victoria section in this article to see if it is reliable. The author of this section has over the last few days added several articles and sections concerning research by some Colin Leslie Dean person, linking to articles written by him and published in what seems like his vanity press. It would seem like original research, non-reliable and non-notable as well as conflict of interest. However, I am not familiar enough with the subject of Indigenous Australians in order to determine if this is also the case here. darkskyz 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndigenous_Australians_e70a.html"