Talk:Stolen Generations/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Page protection need?
This page is being regularly vandalised by unregistered IP addresses. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected to prevent edits by new and unregistered users. Does anyone see a problem with that?--AussieLegend 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're on top of it for the moment. If it gets any worse, then maybe.--cj | talk 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
More vandalism, I second page semi-protection. Atreyu81 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Since temporary page protection expired on 23 April (13 days) vandalism has occurred on 5 occasions. I really think this page needs permanent protection from unregistered IP addresses.--AussieLegend 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Five occurences of vandalism in over two weeks really isn't that bad. JPD (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
It's actually under two weeks and it's now 6. Seven if you include P0rk0-2diie4's edit which he/she reverted him/herself.
Even if you are of the opinion that it's not too bad, I really don't see any downside in applying permanent semi-protection to the page, except for the kiddies who keep vandalising the page.--AussieLegend 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The downside is it's agaist policy. And it's against policy for several, reasons, I suggest you check out the protection policy Nil Einne 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely correct. And as has been said - 6 vandalisms in roughly a fortnight is negligible compared to other pages I have watched.Mmm commentaries (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's annoying when people go in and edit quotes, especially cquotes and take out the citation. Don't they know that a quote is a quote. You can not change what someone has said or wrote. That is the nature of a quote. I bung in CQUOTES because they fit the context, not because I agree with them, and one can't change a quote into something that was never said, otherwise it's no longer a quote!Petedavo talk contributions 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
References needed
The section headed "Social impact on members of the Stolen Generation" is not referenced. It makes claims that are either false, meaningless or highly questionable and does little justice to the subject (and the people involved). If it is a legitimate study it should be referenced. It has been at least 4 months. The "results" need to be referenced or removed.--Grinning Idiot 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are you referring to the entire section (which includes three references) or just the first paragraph (which is not referenced)? If you are referring to the first paragraph, then I agree with you that it should be referenced. The rest of the section, which is referenced, should remain.Edelmand 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I referenced the first paragraph for you. I wasn't very hard to find on Google Australia. ::So all paragarphs in the section now have citations. petedavo 08:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a good academic source from which this article would benefit:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/106.3/ah000866.html Patrick Wolfe: "Land, Labour, and Difference: Elementary Structures of Race" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.73.22.130 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
what is everyone on about/??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobbybob (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Stolen Generation "denial"
I feel that this article is not as NPOV as it can be. Like it or not, there is a significant perception in the community that the incidents in question either never happened, or did not occur on the scale that is stated on the page here. This does not appear to be a fringe view either - just read the "letters" page in The Australian or similar papers anytime the issue is brought up. I feel that this point of view, and the arguments of those that hold it, should be factored into this article in some way.
For the record, I believe that there almost certainly were forced removals of Aboriginal children from their homes during the 19th century and early 20th century, although I regard the estimates of some academics on the number of children affected to be a little on the high side. Lankiveil 13:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
- I think I fixed that. Fred ☻ 14:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is quite debatable whether Bolt's opinion pieces are notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia, but including letters to the editor is just ridiculous. Letters to the editor have absolutely no place in an encyclopaedia unless a particular letter is from a person or persons who are highly relevant to the subject matter and are the only available source for the particular piece of information. It doesn't matter if a fringe group or a great majority of the Australian public believe something, perception of an issue is hardly the litmus test to use, we should be using verifiable information and that is all, if your opinion differs to referenced information than go out and find contradictory information (from a credible source) and add it to the article, but leave letters to the editor and your beliefs at the door. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 15:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Fred ☻ 15:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't advise using Bolt as anything other than cheap entertainment, I imagine that he foams at the mouth when writing his articles, and he might bite if you get too close. I'm talking about the views of less insane persons like John McDonnell, Keith Windschuttle, etc etc. I'm also not advocating saying "it didn't happen" in the article (because it did), only saying that there should be some balance in pointing out that it's not universally accepted as truth, and there is a very vocal segment of society that disagrees, loudly, with what is painted in the article. Lankiveil 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
- I fully agree, we just need a better source. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is excluding Andrew Bolt's views really NPOV? Shall we just include the more politically correct views only? --Commking 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This will answer that question..as to why Robert Manne was forced to resign from Quadrant (magazine) because of this very issue..
| “ | Michael Duffy (Australian journalist): Martin, can I ask you the same question? Before 1989 Quadrant had a neat role, if you like, a very specific role. What is or ought its role to be? Or does it still have a role?
Martin Krygier: Here I'd part company with my colleagues on the panel. I think it has a very clear and enormously important role until 1989. The end of communism meant the end of an overarching enemy which was relevant at every political level. That meant that you could die and it wasn't an ignoble thing to do, and that's what happened with Encounter, or you could do something interestingly and individually different in a more complicated situation, and I believe that under Robert Manne that was being done. I think that more recently, in a way which is not completely as a result of recent trends, but I think that as a result of the culture...we're a political culture that hunts in packs and there was a tendency once you're sort of pushed to one side in popular polemics for Quadrant people to actually quite like the role of pariah and being the anti-pack pack. I think that that has continued with a vengeance over the Aboriginal issue and many other things in recent years and it has dismayed me and it's why I'm not associated with Quadrant now. And I think that it's...where things are complicated, where it could be that the opposite of a proper position is a foolish one, but that there are many possibilities, many complexities which one could explore, Quadrant seems to me to be a sort of radical simplifier which always finds somebody on the other side, whether they be politically correct (to use the phrase), to be contrarian with. And then people find themselves (or at least I find myself) forced between a pack and the anti-pack and not feeling particularly attracted to either. I think this spirit of dichotomies (I think often false dichotomies) has become dominant and I regret it. (Martin Krygier is director of the European Law Centre at the University of NSW and he's also the son of Richard Krygier who founded Quadrant) |
” |
[1]petedavo 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently, Bolt's POV is given significant weight in this article. I'm slightly uneasy about that. We should represent all sides of the debate (absurd as it may be for anyone to deny the historical accuracy of the Stolen Generations), but Bolt is... well, nobody. He's a columnist. Windschuttle may be... uhm, "excentric", but he's at least a published academic, which would justify including his views in a Wikipedia article. Then there's the fact that Bolt's denialism is an extreme fringe view. There is widespread political consensus over the historical facts (including within the Liberal Party), and within the academic world. The fact that uneducated members of the community write to Bolt to support him does not in any way provide a noteworthy counterweight to the consensus which exists among the educated. It's a fair assumption that few (if any) of Bolt's random supporters within "public opinion" have actually read Bringing Them Home, or indeed any of the legislation which formed the basis of the policies behind the Stolen Generations. The political and academic Right does not deny the reality of the Stolen Generations any more than the Left does. Heck, not even Howard denied that it had happened. Howard has expressed his "deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices." Aridd (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
In a sense, it is unfortunate that Andrew Bolt gets quoted so much but it seems that it is largely because he says publicly what a lot of others will only say privately (and so links can be made to his articles, etc). The ferocity with which the black armband brigade vilify, demonise and attack any opposition to their point of view (remember how they boasted of having destroyed the career of Geoffrey Blainey because he dared to raise the potential downside of multi-culturalism) means that many public figures and academics have decided it is simply not worth it to publicly contradict them. Webley442 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Windschuttle
This article Keith Windschuttle, Don't let facts spoil the day, The Australian, 09 February 2008 says it was all done for their own good and Peter Read misrepresented the evidence - contrast to this Crikey article Dr Naomi Parry, Debunking Windschuttle's benign interpretation of history, 12 February 2008 Paul foord (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Compensation, Labor promise to apologise, SBS transcript
I haven't got time to attend to any of this right now, but here is a useful transcript of a broadcast on SBS yesterday which examines the compensation being paid in Tas, and the RUdd promise to apologise if elected. SBS transcript 22 Nov 07 I'll try and update over the weekend if no-one does it before me. Manning (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic content moved from article "Bolt said-wrote-claimed/Manne said-wrote-claimed"
The following is unencylopaedic - the material needs to be distilled/summarised "Bolt said-wrote-claimed/Manne said-wrote-claimed" claim and counter claim. Whether Bolt or Manne provide better evidence for their claims is also relevant.
- Bolt has publicly challenged Robert Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justifies the claim that they were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for legitimate reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argues that Robert Manne's inability to produce as few as ten credible cases is a good indicator of how unreliable the claims that there was policy of systematic removal are.[2] In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names[3][4] Bolt indicates that prior to a debate with Manne, Manne provided him with a list of 12 names that Bolt states he was able to show during the debate was “a list of people abandoned, saved from abuse or voluntarily given up by their parents”. During the actual debate, Manne produced a list of 250 names without any details or documentation as to their circumstances. Bolt has subsequently been able to identify and ascertain the history of some of those on the list and has yet to find a case where there is evidence to justify the term ‘stolen’. One of the names on the list of allegedly stolen children was 13 year old Dolly, taken into the care of the State after being found "seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station". [5]
- ^ [Counterpoint ABC Radio Interview prior to Manne's resignation in 1997 in the face of increasing tension over his editorial direction]
- ^ Bolt, Andrew (2006-28-06). "Be a Manne and name just 10". Herald Sun. Retrieved 2007-11-20.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Manne, Robert (2005-9-9). "The cruelty of denial". The Age. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Manne, Robert (2005-9-3). "The Stolen Generations - a documentary collection" (PDF). The Monthly. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/henderson_sees_no_scars_on_manne/
-- Paul foord (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Taken for their own good?
With the debate over an apology, some politicians have asserted that the children were taken for their own good owing to mistreatment, similar to the recent rape of that 10 year old girl from Arakun. Is there anything on which to substantiate these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.135.152 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't recall hearing any politicians say that. Or any historians, for that matter, regardless of their position within the History Wars. There's some dispute over the history of violence against Aboriginals, but no credible scholar or politician denies that children were taken on racial grounds, regardless of their family situation. Where did you hear/read that? Aridd (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
"Some children were taken from their families with good intentions and some who were taken have stared deep into the lives they left behind and concluded they were saved." from [1]. I have also heards this on the news, I can't find any articles with politicians mentioning it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgarde (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that they were taken because they were light-skinned Aboriginals. Some of those children did indeed happen to come from abusive homes. Most of them did not, and were snatched away by force from caring and loving parents... often to be placed in the "care" of white people who sexually abused them! There were a wide variety of cases, but to my knowledge no notable politician or historian has ever claimed that "the children [i.e., in general] were taken for their own good owing to mistreatment". Aridd (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There have been some recent articles in the Courier Mail amongst other papers, (can't find a link yet, will attach when I do, if anyone else finds a link please attach it) but these particular articles focussed on interviews with former public servants whose job it was to act as the official Protectors of Aboriginal children. It's clear that they regarded their job to be to remove children who were at risk in some form. It wasn't just a coincidence that they took children from abusive homes. One described coming to check on a child to find him sitting in a frying pan, presumably for the lack of anything else to sit on, covered with flies and sores, a clear victim of parental neglect. The claim that children were only taken because they were "light-skinned Aboriginals" doesn't stand up to scrutiny when you are aware of the facts of many of the cases; a child "removed" because both parents were alcoholics and left the baby lying in his own bodily wastes for days while they went on drinking binges; 10 and 11 year girls "removed" because they had been promised in marriage to middle-aged men. It's true that there were cases of outrageous unjust removals which mostly appear to have been the actions of individual bigoted public servants rather than as a result of policy but there were also cases where children had to be removed from a loving mother, not because of anything that she did but because the children were at risk from other members of the community, the most recent tragic example being that poor child in Aurukun. Unfortunately there is a tendency in some parts of the community to regard Aborigines as a group who can do no wrong and all Government intervention as racist. Ideological blindness can be very destructive. Webley442 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- We actually seem to agree then, more or less. Of course in some cases children who were removed had been suffering neglect, or were living in very poor and unsanitary conditions despite all the love and care of their parents. This is true, and should be recognised, if only for the sake of truth. Few people, if any, deny it. However, it is also true that many children who were removed had not been suffering neglect or abuse of any kind within their family and community, and were taken due to their skin colour. Trevorrow, for example, whose siblings were not taken and went on to live healthy, productive, happy and successful lives (whereas he, who was taken, did not). Some Aboriginal children were taken from caring families and placed in institutions where they suffered sexual abuse from whites. I'm sure that some of the public servants who took the children honestly believed they were doing it for their own good, yes. We know that others were wracked by guilt and openly protested that what they were being asked to do, targeting "half-caste" children, was wrong. To say that all the stolen children were taken for welfare reasons, and never solely because of the colour of their skin, is blatantly incorrect... just as it would be incorrect to say that none of those children had been suffering neglect or abuse within their own community. Aridd (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- We don't agree Aridd. Your position seems to be that most of the children were taken on racial grounds and a few on welfare grounds - my understanding is the reverse. Yes, there were probably a few cases where children were removed from their homes without just cause (ie. sufficient welfare grounds) - one cannot draw the conclusion however that racism was therefore the reason. The Bringing Them Home report is not a good source to say otherwise since it is composed mostly of statements by people who were young children at the time of the events and who made their statements many decades later and also since it was commissioned by a left-winged government attempting to score political points. Governments can commission reports to make just about any conclusion they want. OzWoden (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- What this means is that, since you discredit the entire basis of the Bringing Them Home report, which is your right, you have a strongly non-neutral point of view about the whole issue. That's ok, too; anyone who is indifferent to it would be heartless. But be sure to keep your personal views to one side when editing the article; all our articles are written on an NPOV basis. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, by discrediting a source I am making the point that it is not a reliable source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources). By the way I have yet to edit the article apart from adding {{Fact}} tags to uncited paragraphs. Also, isn't having a neutral point of view the same as being indifferent (as opposed to for or against the issue)? OzWoden (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to edit in a POV fashion even by only adding {{fact}} tags, if this is done one sidely for example. However if you have edited the article in a thoroughly NPOV fashion then you should be commended. But this doesn't change the fact that you have a very strong and minority POV and while you are welcome to your POV, you have to take great care not to let your POV creep into the article or into discussions about how to improve the article. In particular, your claim that Bringing Them Home is not a reliable source is absurd and if you can't understand why this is the case, well you perhaps need to get more familiar with wikipedia policies and the content of this article Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry you are unhappy I have put {{fact}} tags next to paragraphs and sentences which you would believe outright without evidence. However my mind isn't so closed, nor am I so naive; and as per wikipedia guidelines and policies, the statements I have tagged ought to be verified. PS. You must also take care not to let YOUR POV creep into the article either. :-) OzWoden (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Misleading comment in the opening paragraph
The article states:
- Questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.
This is absurd. Nobody denies that the Stolen Generations happened. Not even Howard, Windschuttle or Blainey. Not one historian or notable politician denies it. The only denialism I've come across comes from Andrew Bolt, who's... nobody. He's a newspaper columnist. He hasn't got a degree in anything; he's not a recognised, professional historian, anthrologist, sociologist or anything. He's a guy who gets paid by a conservative newspaper to echo the views of random uneducted members of the public. There is absolute political consensus among historians (of both Left and Right) and among major politicians (of both Left and Right): the Stolen Generations did, of course, happen. And they were applied on the basis of race. Even Howard has admitted it's been one of the darkest chapters in Australia's history. The only "debate" is over the scale, with Howard having accused the Bringing Them Home report of having "darkened" the facts to some extent. But even on that issue, most prominent members of the Liberal Party (including Costello and Fraser) disagree with Howard, and have unreservedly supported Rudd's apology to the victims of the Stolen Generations. Anyway... Should Wikipedia really, in the opening paragraph of this article, be giving equal credit to the rantings of an unqualified columnist on the one hand, and to the weight of scholarly consensus on the other? Aridd (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If nobody has any comment on this, I'll change "Questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[3][4]" to "Questions regarding the number of children taken remain a controversial topic within Australian political discourse.[3][4]" I'm open to suggestions on how it should best be phrased. Nobody denies that children were taken -heck, it was still happening less than forty years ago, and there are masses of documentary evidence- so the current phrasing is definitely misleading, especially since it's in the opening paragraph. Aridd (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There's still plenty of mainstream controversy about these issues. The fact that politicians are trying to make themselves "small targets" over the issue, as they do with so many controversial issues, means nothing. And we all know that the loudest voices in the academic world are the black armband brigade, academics who disagree with them get vilified, demonized or shouted down. There is plenty of doubt still raised over the central claim of the Stolen Generations, ie that children were removed solely because of their Aboriginality in an attempt at genocide. The statement that not even Windschuttle denies it is untrue. It will be interesting to read his next book which apparently directly addresses this issue. I've restored the original wording with some additions of my own. The tactic of simply denying that anyone who is of any importance disagrees with you is getting old and tired. Webley442 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're both missing the point I made. I'm not saying there's no controversy over the extent of the Stolen Generations. What I'm saying is that the sentence "Questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred [...] remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse" is absurd. The fact that thousands of Aboriginal children were taken from their parents is not disputed by anyone. Aridd (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed "Questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred, whether policies of removing children based solely on their Aboriginality were adopted or widely adopted, and on what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse" to "Questions regarding whether policies of removing children based solely on their Aboriginality were adopted or widely adopted, and on what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse". It is true to say that some people still deny that the policy was based solely on race. Therefore that can remain, although the phrasing of the sentence misleadingly implies that there isn't a widespread consensus regarding the fact that the children were indeed targeted primarily and often solely on the basis of race. It is, however, incorrect to say that there is "controversy" over whether or not thousands of Aboriginal children were snatched from their (most often loving and caring) parents. Nobody denies that it happened. Aridd (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I deny it happened. The fact is you can't name an individual who can show they were taken not because of abuse but because they were mixed-race. The Victorian, New South Wales, and Northern Territory commissions all reported that not only could they not find any cases, they couldn't find that it was government policy either. It's already been shown that most people don't bother arguing with people like you because you've found your gospel truth and the fact that it's not reality doesn't faze you - so what if you can't find anyone who was actually taken from some ideal bush camp (rather than the reality, a squallid home of disease) and loving parents. Your resorting to attacking the other side as bigots and ignorant demonstrates why Brendan Nelson today didn't denounce Kevin Rudd as a lying demagogue but instead meekly followed suit. Why risk censure when you can just go along with it and say a trite meaningless apology for something that never happened? Maybe if you stopped shouting you'd hear the multitude of other voices questioning the reality of the 'stolen generation'. Again, name one. 59.167.133.254 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome to your POV. What is clear is that your POV is an extreme minority one and as such wikipedia has little, if any room for it on the article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm the extreme minority... you're basing that on what, precisely? A poll? Or your own prejudice? Can you cite a source that breaks down precisely the stance of all Australians' views on the matter? The fact remains that you're basing your entire point of view on the highly misleading and terribly composed 'Bringing Them Home' report, despite the fact you can't name anyone who was forcibly taken, and all the flagship cases turn out to be a load of bunk. Even if you found one, that does not constitute a policy. I've yet to read any unequivocal statements from any legislative body in Australia approving the removal of half-caste children with the express purpose of breeding them out. I've read racist-paternalist comments from Neville, sure, but that does not constitute a policy of genocide, nor does it mean children were torn away from idyllic settings and sent to the grueling slave plantations the way Aridd portrays it. 59.167.133.254 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And our anonymous friend's challenge has been adequately answer by Robert Manne.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Ballard (talk • contribs) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW that's 30% who don't want to apologise, not 30% who deny it happened. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss your point, Aridd; I simply think you are flat out wrong. It is true that no-one seriously disputes that thousands of Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal children were separated from their parents (where they had living parents present) and from Aboriginal communities. The reasons for the majority of separations or removals are, however, still very much in dispute. The very existence of something that can fairly be called a "Generation" a majority of whom can also fairly be called "Stolen" is still very much a matter in dispute despite the fact that a large number of people fervently believe in it and the fact that politicians want to score points or avoid controversy by apologising for it.
The key issues or features of the Stolen Generations debate are that it is alleged that there was a policy or policies to remove; based on race, Aboriginal or part-Aboriginal children and that this amounted to attempted genocide. There is a great deal of scepticism in the general community about that, even if most politicians and academics have learned not to raise their heads above the barricades to say so. The scepticism and a certain amount of resentment over the use of the word "stolen" is particularly tied to the fact that people identified or held out as being "stolen" keep turning out, on closer examination, to have been removed for the usual reasons: neglect, inability to provide the necessities of life (a.k.a. extreme poverty), abuse or to not have been removed at all but were abandoned or given up by a parent or parents because of the stigma attached to illegitimacy in bygone days, because they couldn't cope with being a parent, just didn't want kids, or to give the child a chance at a better life, at an education that simply wasn't available way out West.
There's no doubt that there have been cases where children were improperly removed by careless, overzealous or bigoted individual administrators and there were, no doubt, cases where mistakes were made, e.g. children were assumed to be neglected or at risk when in fact they weren't. In the past, there were fewer scruples about taking kids away from their parents on fairly slender evidence; `better safe than sorry' was the guiding principle and there was very little sympathy and no support for people labelled `unfit' parents. The attitudes of the times were also much more insensitive to the emotional needs of children than those of today. It wasn't thought to be wrong to split up children from one family when they were taken into the care of the State. Siblings would be split up and sent off to different institutions or foster families with no attempt made to help them retain contact with each other or their parents. It simply wasn't thought important to do so, children were expected to just get over it. This was done to children of any race, not just Aborigines. It was also common for unmarried mothers of any race to be subjected to unconscionable pressure to give up their babies and mothers who'd given up a child for adoption were told to forget about it. It was heartless and cruel but none of that amounts to a policy of removing children for racial reasons.
This isn't to say that there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for people who were separated from their families and especially for those who suffered abuse in the institutions or foster homes they were sent to; there is. It's just that the general public is smart enough to know that before you start handing out large sums of taxpayer's funds, you need to check the story being told.
It seems that Keith Windschuttle is about to lob a hand grenade into the debate as he has apparently decided that the second volume of his series is to be The Fabrication of Australian History, Volume 2: The "Stolen Generations". From what I'm hearing, among other things, he has been reviewing the work of Professor Peter Read who wrote the articles and a book back in the 1980's that originated the term "the Stolen Generation" and ultimately ignited this issue. As with a lot of the works on Aboriginal history from the early 80's on, it seems that the original source documentation cited in the footnotes don't actually support the ‘story’ as told in the book.
On top of the issue of historians fabricating history, we had the shoddy work of the Commission that produced the Bringing Them Home report. Apparently they simply accepted at face value the work of Professor Read along with every allegation made to them and didn't verify that what they were being told was accurate. I've heard that the Commissioners' excuse for this is that they didn't have the funding to do the proper checks. If so, the first line of the report should have stated that fact in CAPITAL LETTERS so that readers would know to take everything thereafter with a grain of salt. Even so they didn't ask and didn't allow the obvious questions that could have and should have been asked. If someone was claiming to have been wrongfully removed from their mother at the age of one or two, the obvious questions to ask would have been: "If you were only one or two, how do you know that the removal was wrongful? Isn't it possible that you were removed for legitimate reasons and you were simply too young to be aware of what they were?"
Of course, if you had been removed from your parent's custody at an early age, wouldn’t you prefer to believe that you had been wrongfully snatched from your parents’ loving arms rather than that your parents hadn't been up to scratch?
Similarly, how many parents who had a child removed because of abuse or neglect are likely to admit to it if asked years later? Isn’t it more likely to be: "they stole my child from me", not "I was an alcoholic who neglected my child and they had to take him/her off me to save his/her life". It wouldn't have required any extra funding to ask a few questions but the Commission, however, decided that the Stolen Generation witnesses were too "fragile" to be cross-examined on their evidence. This is why the report is worthless. Webley442 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Webley442, you said that far better than I ever could.
- There are other things worth saying, though. 36% constitutes an 'extreme minority'? True, not all of those 36% may disbelieve the Stolen Generations, but neither do the 55% who support it all believe it either - I heard the sentiment expressed that while the Stolen Generations is bunk, perhaps it will get the activists to quiet down. Also note the pattern in the responses: the younger you are, the more likely you are to support it. Could this perhaps be due to the fact that the education system irresponsibly bombards students with Left Wing rhetoric often without understanding the issues themselves, and without representing both sides, thereby stamping out from our educational facilities students who have no idea that there is even a debate about the Stolen Generations. During my VCE I had a 20th Century History teacher who misunderstood the basics of the Vietnam War: I sat through several mortifying weeks of the teacher regurgitating his misconceptions to the class. Being as that standard english classes now constitute a lot of writing about current political issues students are inundated with the teacher's personal convictions, most of which are right out of The Age.
- Moreover, we can see how even non-students are saturated with propaganda - "36% of Australians still do not support the apology – prompting GetUp to embark on an ambitious community education campaign to address any misconceptions or concerns those Australians may have towards an apology." Now we have LeftUp! chasing after anyone who has their doubts to chastisise them into the same opinion.
- Further, in reply to the link about Robert Manne - if the Age told me to jump, I would duck. The Age cannot be trusted to get simple facts right, and only to grossly misrepresent an issue. Case in point I recall their suggestion Australia buy Su-33s instead of F-35s. It was humorous, suggesting we replace the F/A-18 with a design that is older and was less capable in its heyday, now warmed over with some still second-grade avionics. I notice the comic at the top of their page, accusing Bolt of defending special interest groups when he's widely popular with the average Australian - why else would he have a column on the highest circulation newspaper in Australia? It's quite something to have the rag of the minority far-left accusing the popular paper of being special interest. But I digress; I'm sure you know that to cite The Onion would have been more reliable. Instead I'll respond to the article: there are no citations. Oh we hear the Age blow hard about mountains of evidence, but the only evidence they give is a memo - if it was policy why can't they cite legislation? I read several pages the Bringing Them Home Report and found no unequivocal cited legislation that stated "We're taking them because they're half-castes". I saw a lot of uncited claims, but no legislation. And now Webley442 points out the veracity of the document that the report is wholly based on is in question. This is the mountian of evidence?
- I can see that the Secretary of the Interior thought it policy to bring in all half-castes, but that doesn't make it policy. For all that out of context snippet tells us, the SoI was a paternalist/racist who thought that all half-castes were better off in care than not. Again show the legislation. We also have two letters, in which Neville doesn't respond "it doesn't matter that they're not being neglected" he responds that "if there's something wrong with the policy why are you the only one complaining?". This is the best that the cynosure of the Stolen Generations Activists can do? He can't cite an actual child that was taken purely because they were a half caste, let alone demostrate that was widespread, let alone demostrate that it was policy. And that was supposed to convince me? It may very well have silenced me, because I was very nearly struck dumb by the pithiness of it. 59.167.133.254 (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this discussion would be enriched by the use of citations and references. There is a relevant historical record, and it should be cited here. This is a long entry, because I think it needs to be. The relevant historical record needs to be brought into this talk page.
- The relevant legislation, to respond to the claim that no specific piece of legislation was cited, is the 1936 Native Administration Act. Also, earlier than that, the 1905 Aborigines Act in WA, and the 1897 Aboriginals Act in Queensland.
- Other official government policy regarding half-castes is a resolution adopted in a 1937 Canberra conference of delegates from both State and Commonwealth Aboriginal administrations: "The destiny of the natives of Aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it [the conference] therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to this end." (page 1, Initial Conference, doc'd in Annual Reports, Department of Native Affairs/Native Welfare, 1930-1970)
- JB Cleland, Chairman of the SA Advisory Council on Aborigines, said in the 1937 conference that "a very unfortunate situation would arise if a large half-caste population breeding within themselves eventually rose in any of the Australian states." (page 17, Initial Conference, doc'd in Annual Reports, Department of Native Affairs/Native Welfare, 1930-1970)
- Regarding half-castes, AO Neville, Chief Protector of Aborigines in WA in the 30's, wrote in an article for the West Australian in 1930: "Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white." West Australian, 18 April 1930.
- In 1933, Neville set up a government funded home especially for half-caste and quadroon (quarter-caste) children removed from Aboriginal homes, Sister Kate's Orphanage for Half-Caste Children. (Jacobs, P. (1990). Mr Neville: A Biography. Fremantle: Fremantle Centre Press.) The express purpose of this home was to have the children "treated like white girls and boys" and to prevent intermarriage among those of mixed blood . (WA State Archives, 993/77/49 "Sister Kate's Children's Home", 993/804/40, 993/904/42 "Homes for Half-Caste Children.")
- Explicit government policy in WA and Queensland was to absorb half-castes into the white population. (WA State Archives 993/423/38 "Absorption of Half-Castes into the White Population", R. Evans (2007). A History of Queensland, Cambridge University Press.
- In response to the claim that no example can be given of a single child who was removed for being half-caste, here are a couple:
- - In Roebourne, in NW Australia, the Child Welfare Department regularly sent children to Sister Kate's Orphanage for Half-Caste Children. (Annual Reports, Department of Native Affairs/Native Welfare, 1930-1970.) The institution existed because of government practices regarding half-caste children.
- - In 1946, a Department of Native Affairs Inspector recorded: "Proceeded to Mt Wellard and picked up a quadroon girl Amy, daughter of half-caste and unknown white man, and her brother Fred. Amy is aged about 15 or 16 years and Fred about 11 years. Great difficulty was experienced in removing these children and it was only through the firmness of Sgt. McGeay that it was possible..." (State Archives 993/1306/46 "Dept of Native Affairs, Inspector's Journal 1946).
- The diary entry above and the records of missions show that many children who were older than 1 or 2 years old were taken, including some teenagers. (WA State Archives, 993/904/42 "Homes for Half Caste Children", 1733/1493/45 "Roelands Native Mission", 1733/200/64 "Forrest River Mission".) These children would be old enough to remember the circumstances under which they were taken, contrary to claims made above that children taken would be too young to do so, and thus would not remember that they were really abused and this is why they were taken. (I will save for another entry the evidence of abuse in missions and homes for Aboriginal children.)
Based on these documented, historical facts, I do not believe that it is in doubt that removing Aboriginal children from families because of mixed blood was standard government policy. To some in the 1930's, this might have seemed a benefit to the children so that they would not be raised by what was then seen as a "backwards" culture, but regardless of the motives, there is no doubt it was official government policy, or that it involved many half-caste children.
Wikipedia articles must reflect available, documented historical facts. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." I therefore am changing the claim about controversy to read:
"The use of the term "Stolen Generation" is still controversial to some, who debate whether children were removed based solely on their Aboriginality, and on what scale such removals occurred [3][4][5]."
The previous sentences were: "The accuracy and fairness of the term “Stolen Generation” is still a controversial issue in Australia as the reasons for the removal of the majority of children are still a matter of debate and investigation.[3] Questions regarding whether policies of removing children based solely on their Aboriginality were adopted or widely adopted, and on what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[4][5]"
They do not remain controversial within historical discourse.
The citations provided to back up the claims [3][4][5] that the Stolen Generation is controversial are not to historical records or documents:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182149-28737,00.html
Ryan, Peter. A better place, Quadrant, January 2003, Volume XLVII Number 1-2
Barrett, Rebecca. Stolen generation debate re-ignited, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, February 23, 2001.
Attempts to change these sentences back to make it appear as if there is a major scholarly controversy will be referred to Wiki, and I hope, treated as vandalism. I believe such claims do not meet the criteria for Wiki content.71.211.131.119 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I was logged out and didn't realize it when I put my signature. All these historical citations and documents above were provided by Drvestone (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yet again I'm struck but the farcical nature of this debate. I cannot find the entire text of all three acts you cite, nor the entire texts of the other sources. I did, however, find the entire text of the 1897 Act. To quote from the national archives page I sourced it from "It was intended to limit the reproduction of part-Aboriginal offspring – the so-called 'half-caste menace' – seen at the time as a threat to an ideal 'White Australia'." And yet... reading the text I do not find anywhere a statement of intention, let alone one declaring the legislation is intended to breed out Aboriginals. Oh I can see that it's curtailing civil rights, and it's extremely paternalistic and oppressive, but then it's no secret the mindset at the time was that Aboriginals were inferior and it was White Man's Burden to direct them for their own good. But the act never says it wants to get rid of the "half-caste menace". This is so typical of the Stolen Generations myth - damning interpretations of the legislation by modern commentators, but the actual text is benign.
- Perhaps we should be citing some sources though? Look here http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23207713-601,00.html six politicians who had it in them to weather the vitriolic attacks they're in for. 7.5% of the Reps outright rejecting it isn't staggering, I know, but given that Labor is engaged in group think and Brendan Nelson's adopted the tried-and-true State Liberal method of meekly supporting almost every Labor government policy, not to again mention the harsh criticism any dissenter is in for it's remarkable there was any dissent at all.
- I just searched extensively for the Stolen Generations Task Force report of April 2003. According to the much maligned Andrew Bolt it concluded Victoria had no formal policy of removing children. I would like to verify this claim myself, but I cannot find any reference to it in the Victorian government archives. Why? I eventually stumbled across "Apologies for the lack of link to the Stolen Generations Taskforce report. The State Government has deleted it." again from Bolt. Why I ask, did they delete this report? Surely if it backed the Bringing Them Home Report it would have been kept as a treasured item?
- Indeed, the Bringing Them Home Report is grounds enough to make anyone doubt. A section of legislation allowing the directions of a mission to require males under 14 and unmarried females under 18 sleep and eat where directed is "an attempt to prevent contact with parents". See the hitch? Any time they're not eating and sleeping they're free to do as they please. Naturally this legislation is all intended to prevent parents contacting children, though it doesn't explicitly allow that. It is not, of course, intended to provide the means for a mission to keep a watch on those most at risk of being abused, now, is it? 59.167.133.254 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further to my earlier reply, there's this:
"There was nothing in any of the writings that would justify a finding that all part Aboriginal children had to be removed or that all illegitimate part Aboriginal children had to be removed or that all illegitimate part Aboriginal children living in native camps had to be removed. Then, if one moves from "policy" to "implementation of policy", the evidence failed to establish that there even was, at any time, activity on such a scale that it could be said that a general policy of removal was then being enforced. The writings of the patrol officers to which reference has been made have indicated that there was a matter of selectivity based on the personal circumstances of the individual children."
- It would appear that Andrew Bolt did not lie about the outcome of the Federal Court trial with regard to Cubillo and Gunner. The Federal Court found, when presented with massive volumes of evidence, that there was no variation of the archetypal "steal the kids" policy. The source is http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1084.html it's point 1160. Just so you can see it is not out of context. Check section 174 too, if you want to check this "A report in 1922 [...] suggests that at that time, no official policy had been formulated." Odd. This article says between 1869 and 1969, but the Federal government had no policy in 1922. Moreover it seems apparent that when Gunner was taken in 1956 there was still no official policy at the Federal level! A Federal Court trial could not locate any relevant legislation which would have sealed the matter, nor any official policies without attendant legislation, and indeed concluded that removal was based on the personal circumstances of the individual. Unless someone can unearth Federal government legislation or official policy from 1956-69 period then can we not conclude that any removal of children solely on the basis of race was conducted by state governments or at worst public servants operating outside their jurisdiction? And should we not edit the article, introduction in particular, to reflect that? Also, please note that Robert Manne told The Age "Nowhere was child removal conducted more systematically and tenaciously than in the Northern Territory". Can we call his credibility low yet?
- Bolt also alleged that in Victoria the Stolen Generations Task Force report of April 2003 concluded there was no policy there either. I am making inquiries to obtain a copy of that document, however, I am unlikely to receive one before Monday, if ever.
- I could, however, confirm the third claim:
"DEBRA HOCKING, STOLEN GENERATION MEMBER: In Tasmania there were no removal policies as such as there were in other areas around Australia,"
- http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/the_stolen_generation_136127 of course I am not here to vindicate Bolt, I am here to have the truth heard. So far Bolt has provided good leads to solid evidence hence my reference to him on these three claims. Am I making headway here?
- http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=1395 just for more interesting reading. 59.167.133.254 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure enough I cannot for the life of me find a copy of the "Stolen Generations Taskforce" report which ought to be on the Department of Victorian Communities website and it is not. I also looked on the Stolen Generations Victoria website (the organisation set up at a cost of $21m as a result of the report) and in their resources section there are zero documents least of all the report. If anyone finds it I'd love the link for extra reading to help improve this article. OzWoden (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Drvestone, Firstly, it is misleading for you to imply that I claimed that all the children were taken at the age of one or two. What I clearly said was that where they were one or two when removed, they should have been asked where they got the ‘information’ that they were ‘stolen’. In fact, regardless of what age they were, they should still have been questioned over the basis of the claim that they had been stolen. Just because a child may have been 12 or 13 doesn’t mean that they were aware or had been fully informed as to the reason for their removal. Given the attitudes towards children that once existed I can think of a number of situations where the parents and the authorities would have gone out of the way to avoid telling the child the truth. A friend of mine, not an Aborigine and now in her 50’s, was 14 when removed from her home along with her 16 year old sister and a younger brother. She didn’t find out the real reason for it till she was in her late 40’s and her older sister finally told her that their father had been sexually abusing her. He was never prosecuted for it because the older sister was too shattered to testify against him but she did tell a teacher who did the right thing and reported it, thankfully, before he’d got around to abusing the younger of his daughters. My point being, it was thought inappropriate back then to talk about the sexual abuse with the other children, and she was never told the true reason for their removal by the authorities.
You’ve made statements to the effect that “The accuracy and fairness of the term “Stolen Generation”” does not remain controversial within historical discourse. And yet the link connected to a newspaper article written by a pretty well-known historian in which he states that his next book is to be an examination of the Stolen Generation issue and previews some of its content. It indicates that he’s reviewed the work of the ‘leading’ historian of the Stolen Generation, Prof Peter Read, plus that of the commission that prepared the Bringing Them Home report and that he’s found some pretty serious problems with it, especially with the characterisation of many of the removed children as having been “stolen”. Whether you chose to believe it or not, it certainly sounds to me like it is still a matter of controversy “within historical discourse”, i.e. historians are still arguing over exactly what happened, when and why. As fervently as some people wish, it is not a settled issue yet, except to those with closed minds.
You also state that “The citations provided to back up the claims [3][4][5] that the Stolen Generation is controversial are not to historical records or documents:”. That would only be of any importance if things like newspaper reports, published social and political commentary and so forth weren’t regarded as important source documents and as the recording of history ‘as it happens’. I don’t know of any credible historians who subscribe to that view, in fact good historians are always using such source material to provide evidence for their work.
Wikipedia is not a history book, it is an encyclopaedia. It doesn’t just contain “history” but, amongst many other topics, it covers matters of social policy, politics and current affairs. Which is why it is entirely appropriate for references to be made, not only to what historians are saying about an issue, but also to what politicians, journalists, persons directly involved and the general public are saying on a topic.
I’m restoring the previous wording and am happy to have it adjudicated. Webley442 (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
DOCS and stolen "white" children
Should there be some mention how the removal of the children in question was done by government agencies whose powers have now passed to the Department of Community Services (DOCS). Children are taken from their parents or guardians when their parents or guardians are mistreating their children - not feeding them, abusing them, sexually assaulting them, etc. and it is in the best interest of the child that they be removed from the situation.
Also that the removal of children in such circumstances continues today and with the support of the majority of the Australian electorate.
Also there ought to be mention that many children of purely european origins were taken from their families - many from the UK and brought to Australia and many already in Australia - and that more "white" children were removed from their families in the "stolen generation" time period than half-caste Aborigines.OzWoden (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you'd like to write an article about the British children who were taken to Australia, please do. Seriously. It's an important topic. But be sure your article is properly sourced for verifiability. Please note also that that issue was seperate from that of the Stolen Generations, who were taken specifically because they were Aboriginal ("half-castes"). As you well know (or should know), Aboriginal children were kidnapped not for welfare reasons, but purely on the grounds of race, irrespective of whether they came from broken homes or from happy, caring and nurturing homes. The effects of their being taken have also been documented. Those who were lucky enough not to be sexually abused in their white "care centres" or "foster homes" faced lasting trauma nonetheless. Something which a particularly callous and cold-hearted segment of the Australian population seems to want to ignore. Aridd (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it was done under law, as it was, then it was legal and thus not kidnapping (which is a crime - aka illegal). They WERE taken on grounds of being in broken homes, being abused, etc. Please read the legislation.
- On the contrary to your statement, Aborigines were specifically NOT taken on racial grounds. Children in such circumstances who were full Aborigines were left with their families BECAUSE they were fully Aboriginal.
- Sexual abuse? What about the little girl from Aruka (I think that is the spelling) who was raped last year by a gang of Aboriginal men (including her own family!), because DOCS was too scared of taking her away from the situation since she was Aboriginal and they were afraid of being labelled generation thieves.
- I am not saying it didnt happen Aridd, but you seem to think it was the norm. The ones who "speak out", who you read/hear about, are generally the ones who were abused. The media is hardly going to give air-time to someone comming out and saying "I was cared for and loved, etc" - it doesn't sell papers. And, what reason would someone who was loved and nurtured and cared for have to "speak out". By your logic, most people are murdered because thats all you read in the news.OzWoden (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Several points, OzWoden. First: Please do not edit what I write in a talk page! Second: Nobody is saying that the children were removed illegally. I acknowledge that my use of the word "kidnapping" was not in conformity with the fact that these ghastly practices were actually legal. Having said that, however, if you were a caring, loving parent and your child were snatched from your arms by the State because of his or her skin colour, I think you might just call it kidnapping rather than quibble over semantics. Try, just for a moment, to imagine it happening to you. Third: Your comment that "Children in such circumstances who were full Aborigines were left with their families BECAUSE they were fully Aboriginal" is beside the point. Or rather, it actually proves my point. The policies targeted so-called "half-castes" (a "blood quantum" distinction which Aboriginals themselves do not use). "Full-blood" children were not taken, no. They were not taken, because they were deemed unassimilable, and because the prevailing view (at least in the early 20th century) was that "full bloods" would die out. Light-skinned Aboriginal children were taken on racial grounds so that they could be forcibly assimilated into white society. You've proved my point by trying to disprove it. Fourth: Regarding your comment "What about the little girl from Aruka (I think that is the spelling) who was raped last year by a gang of Aboriginal men". That's utterly beside the point. Yes, that was awful, tragic and disgraceful. But it has nothing to do with the fact that a great many Aboriginal children were sexually abused by their white "carers". Fifth: I never said or implied that all children of the Stolen Generations were subsequently sexually abused by whites, or even that a majority were. Please don't pretend I've said things that I haven't said. You've been trying to respond to things I never actually said, implied or thought. Aridd (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your second point: Firstly you implied that the children were removed illegally by your emotive (non NPOV) use of the word “kidnapping”.
- Further, I think I would not call it kidnapping since that would be lying. If I were in such a situation and my children ought not have been taken then I’d argue about justification for their removal (asuming I was a good and caring parent) not that they were “stolen” like an automobile. Asking me to imagine it happening to me is a lame attempt to make me feel emotional and hence trying to get me to stray from facts.
- In response to your third point: My comment is not beside the point – it IS the point. Yes the legislation permitted the removal of “half-castes”. Whether the Aboriginals used this biological distinction themselves or not is beside the point (they didn’t study biology or genetics either). This supposed early 20th Century prevailing view that “full bloods” would die out is just about true given the latest ABS data. Your point was that Aboriginal children were removed on “purely racial grounds”. My response to that point was that fully Aboriginal children were, by the same token, NOT taken because of racial grounds.
- In response to your fourth point: I was mentioning a documented case of sexual abuse of an Aboriginal child by their relatives and neighbours to juxtapose your inability to back up your claims against “white” carers. I also mentioned it to demonstrate the harm being done today because government agencies are afraid to act, because of the accusations about so called stolen children.
- In response to your fifth point: I never said that you said that “all” of these children were abused. You said in your first comment “Those who were lucky enough not to be sexually abused in their white "care centres" or "foster homes" faced lasting trauma nonetheless.” This implies that one had to be “lucky” to not be sexually absused, which suggests that only a small proportion were not sexually abused. OzWoden (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I've already acknowledged your comment on my use of the word "kidnapped". Regarding being emotional... It's a matter of having a basic human response. You are a human being. Responding with human emotion to something like this does not imply straying from the facts. On my third point: You've missed the point again. They were taken on racial grounds as "half-castes". The fact that "full-bloods" were not taken confirms this. My "inability to back up [my] claims against “white” carers"? It's in the Bringing Them Home report. Read it. Are you telling me that someone actually denies that many Aboriginal children were sexually abused by whites in institutions? Regarding "the harm being done today because government agencies are afraid to act, because of the accusations about so called stolen children", I agree with you - except for the "so-called" part. Yes, clearly, there have been tragic cases of Aboriginal children in extremely recent times, and still today, being left within abusive situations because non-indigenous people were afraid of what would be said if those children were removed. Of course I agree with you that children today who are being abused by family or community members should be immediately and urgently protected from abusive relatives. What on earth gave you the impression that I disagree with that? Again, however, it is beside the point. One can and should acknowledge the reality of the Stolen Generations without that meaning that children today are left in abusive families. Recognising the need to protect those children does not and should not entail denying historical reality. Regarding the last point: If I gave that impression, then I apologise. I never meant to imply that a majority of the children were sexually abused. Aridd (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Stolen
Using the word "stolen" in "stolen generations" is inappropriate.
Firstly, the children who were removed were removed legally (whether it is morally right or wrong is of no consequence to the misuse of a clearly defined word).
Secondly, the word stolen implies some kind of ownership which suggests Aborigines, or at the very least that half-caste Aborigines are or were objects of posessions - like slaves.
They are not and were not. Therefore the use of the word "Stolen" is misguided - and I suspect an emotional (and hence non NPOV) ploy.--OzWoden (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- We dont care what you as a Liberal think. We care what they have been labelled, en masse, by the media. They are the stolen generations. Who are you to challenge it? Doing so is in itself POV. Thankyou! :-) Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- We follow this guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).-Wafulz (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This raises another question, though. The text of the apology refers to them as the "Stolen Generations", plural - which makes more sense than "Stolen Generation", since several generations were indeed affected. Should this article be moved to Stolen Generations? Aridd (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So because our (I mean your) modern gods (of truth and all that is right) - "the media" - say so, then it must be true! Of course - silly me!- P.S. I am not a Liberal. I voted for Kevin and his friends. I can see your argument is so sound that you have to resort to name-calling.
- My comment was about the misuse of a clearly defined word. How is that expressing a POV? It is a fact (not opinion) that the word "stolen" is the past participle of "steal" which means "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right" (from www.dictionary.com or just about any other dictionary with some slight variation of wording).
- Who am I to challenge the misuse of a word? Let's see. I am a contributor to this website. Oh, and I also speak english and understand the meaning of the word "stolen".
- And if you are to misuse the term "stolen" then I agree with Aridd on his point about pluralisation.
- Oh and no, thank YOU Timeshift9. OzWoden (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- We follow this guideline: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Thankyou! Timeshift (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is here to present an article on a well-known issue. It is widely known by the public as "the Stolen Generations". Someone looking for information about it would look up "Stolen Generations". That is why we have an article entitled "Stolen Generation"(s). Aridd (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed one would look that up. Why? Because that is what others have dubbed it and so to find articles by those who have dubbed it thus, one has no choice but to search that phrase. However, that does not change the fact that it is a misuse of a plain english word. There ought to be mention in the article that the word is being misused, (and for referencing purposes) as described by Coalition MPs just a week or so ago.OzWoden (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is a POV. However, one could validly add a section to the article, in neutral NPOV form, the debate over the word stolen. For the record I still believe they were stolen as do many others. Children were removed from their parents without their permission, I call that stealing. Timeshift (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Knowing the definition of a word is not a POV, since it is a fact. And, if you would call it stealing then you are the one implying they are objects of ownership. One cannot steal that which has no ownership. And finally since you "still believe..." then you are the one with the POV. OzWoden (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not up to us to claim that the word is "misused". We can include a mention that some politicians have said it is. This would have to be balanced against the fact that the use of the word "stolen" is mainstream and, on the whole, consensual. It was included in the apology motion submitted to Parliament, which was unanimously adopted by all MPs present, including therefore all Liberal MPs (who stood and applauded; I watched them do so live). Aridd (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just to add in support to Aridd's and Timeshift's points, since OzWoden's argument seems to be a linguistic one. "The Stolen Generations" behaves like a proper name, and the semantic contribution of proper names is _simple_, not _composite_, and as such can't be calculated by the composition of "the", "stolen", and "generations". You might argue that the name was not apt when first introduced. But that debate is just the historical one; there's no linguistic debate to be found here about the current use (or abuse) of the name.--Skubicki (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's right. Everyone knows that not every person and every country in the entire world was involved in World War I and World War II. These terms have meanings that are different from the literal sum of their parts. Same with Stolen Generation, and Stolen Generations. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- OzWoden, regardless of your arguements, we have verifiable reliable sources that tell us what to use in the article. The term is in wide usage throughout the media, normally this implies it is in wide use throughout the community. And so, it has a place in Wikipedia. Shot info (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The term is used almost without exception inside Australia by many different sourced; media, academic, government etc. Similarly in virtually every other country in this world. Concentration of media ownership is irrelevant since it isn't just the Australian media we are talking about Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you the us of World is a misuse particularly in the case of WWI. But that is irrelevant. Everyone refers to it as WWI and for wikipedia to pretend otherwise is just plain dumb. Similarly Stolen Generations is the widespread terminology here and this is what wikipedia should refer to it as, whatever the opinions of our contributors. Wikipedia is not ultimately about being correct or about the truth (since it is impossible to decide what is correct and what is the truth), it is about verifiability. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Going back to OzWoden's original point I know that im breaking the golden rule of debating BUT the nazis stole from the jews and other peoples of Europe according to their laws of the time. Does that mean that they werent actually stealing because the law said they werent? Second point OzW said "the word stolen implies some kind of ownership which suggests Aborigines, or at the very least that half-caste Aborigines are or were objects of posessions - like slaves.They are not and were not. Therefore the use of the word "Stolen" is misguided - and I suspect an emotional" OK so what would you do if somebody came into your house and stole...sorry took...your child away? Not bother calling the police because the child isn't a posession and doesn't belong to you?
Soundabuser (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Another meaning of stolen in the dictionary is "to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment". While the meaning you listed is dubious for the reasons you state, this meaning fits perfectly - while acting within the law the government acted without right, and it only yesterday acknowledged its actions. 15:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.132.10 (talk)
- And the key word in the definition you provided is "right". So the meaning you mention doesn't fit at all. If a child is removed from its family legally - ie. under the law - then that is the government's right and hence the word "stolen" is not the most appropriate word. P.S. the government did not acknowledge ITS actions it acknowledged PAST governments' actions. OzWoden (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Stolen is used to refer to the fact that children were forcibly removed from their families, for racist reasons (often ostensibly for the "welfare" of the children). Stolen is by far the most widespread the popular use, media use, Government use, the Aborigine use, academic use, and for those reasons. For all those reasons, we use the word stolen. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want 'Stolen Generations', what is your alternative? Edelmand (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's happened, sorry has been said
Hmm... quite a few turned their backs on Nelson (de ja vu). Timeshift (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- With good reason. I cringed at parts of his speech. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the record I have quite often preferenced Labor ahead of Liberal, including the last Federal election. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how Timeshift was not assuming good faith here. He or she has an extensive and friendly history with Peter and he/she made an assumption based on this history not in anyway intended to denigrate Peter or his opinions. As it turned out, he/she was wrong but I see no evidence Peter found any of this offensive or that there was any problem other then the fact it was OT on this talk page and the fact others have decided to make a big fuss about it Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh... refreshing. Why can't governments do this more often? Brutannica (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Watch 'Question Time' on the ABC and you'll see that the Government putting out streams of mind-melting nonsense isn't uncommon. 59.167.133.254 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Two Standards
There are two standards in Australia. One for Aboriginal children and one for children of any other race. If a child of any other race was not attending school, malnutritioned, enhaling petrol or glue, or being sexually abused in some way, and it came to the attention of the authorities, they would be immediately removed. However, if these same standards were applied to the Aboriginal people in rural communities, an entire new generation would be 'stolen'. We accept this these days, don't ask don't tell has been the prevailing wisdom.
To me, the 'stolen generation' problem came about because the people of the day saw the mixed race childen as 'half white' and therefore applied the same standard...they could not abide any 'white' child growing up in squalor. Their line of thinking came from a sense of racial superiority..nasty stuff, but they were basically trying protecting their own (albeit not very successfully).
The problem is that we have this double standard in the first place, we need to agree as a nation..as to to what the laws governing parenting are; and enforce the same standards on everyone.
- You are entitled to your opinion. However, Wikipedia is not a social discussion forum, so please keep discussion on this talk page relevant to how to improve this article.Manning (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Full text of Rudd's Speech
I am busy transcribing the entire text of Rudd's 28 minute speech from a video. The finished product will be here. Just a head's up in case anyone was doing the same thing. Manning (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the Aboriginal woman that PM Rudd refers to in his speech? I am listening to the video and the best I can come up with is "Nanna Nungalo Fijo", but I have no idea if this is correct. For reference, see this YouTube video at around 5.33. Manning (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Manning, you are entitled to your opinion. However, Wikipedia is not a social discussion forum, so please keep discussion on this talk page relevant to how to improve this article. OzWoden (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I am transcribing a speech that Rudd gave about the Stolen Generations, and I am transcribing it into Wikisource, a WP sister project. As this transcription will eventually become a resource directly relevant to this article, this is in no way OT. Manning (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that and while I don't think it is OT to mention you are transcribing it, asking someone here to help you with the transcription is technically OT since it has nothing to do with directly improving this article. Personally, I don't care about you asking the question but I would have to say it is OT. We don't generally give excessive special preference to sister projects and discussion only relevant to them, should in theory remain on them Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, "we" as a community do whatever we can to ensure the project is the best it can be, and if that involves developing a resource on a sister project so as to enhance an article here, then that is what "we" do. This is why Commons, Source, and Meta were even created. Regardless, I have transcription to do, so if we can cease debating as to the OT nature of my question (which I maintain is NOT "OT") then let us move on. There is an encyclopedia to write. Manning (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No one said there is anything wrong with you working on a transcription on a sister project. You are perfectly entitlted to do so, or to work on something else anywhere else on the internet which may or may not benefit this article. However what is clear is that this talk page isn't the place for you to get help with the transcription. You are welcome to get help with the trasncription of the Wikisource talk page but asking for help here, whether you like it or not, is OT since it is NOT about improving the article but about improving the transcription which is not part of this article. Most editors including me don't really care about you asking the question I suspect. However since OzWooden complained, I accepted that your question was technically OT (since it is, but no one cares). The best thing for you to do in this case IMHO is either accept it is OT and move on, or don't accept it is OT and move on. OzWooden seems to have forgotten about this discussion and I strongly suspect if you had not bothered to respond this whole issue would have died the natural death it should have. But unfortunately for reasons I don't quite understand you are unable to accept that your question was OT (but no one cares) and see it important to explain why your question wasn't OT, even though it clear was (but no one cares). N.B. Commons in an exception and can't be compared to the rest of the sister projects. P.S. I often post OT things myself. Mostly people don't complain since I avoid getting to OT. But when they do, I just accept the complaint and move on. Just because something was wrong doesn't mean your going to be permanently ostracised for it. It doesn't even mean you shouldn't repeat it. Sometimes it can be good, even if it was technically wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Asking for help on a transcription that will be a useful resource for this article is most certainly very on topic for this talk page. Manning is simply trying to improve this article. Please either help or stop arguing about this non-issue. --mav (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
See: TRANSCRIPT at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23207256-5013172,00.html
203.56.94.11 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
POV tag
I see the POV tag on the article. It was added by an anonymous person using IP address 58.173.106.45 on the 3rd of February. The person has not made any (other) contributions to wikipedia on that IP address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/58.173.106.45
No explanation or reason was provided on this talk page for the POV tag. As such, I humbly suggest it be removed. --Bardin (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. A POV tag must be accompanied by discussion on the Talk page. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for pointing this out Bardin. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Senate and Queen agreement
Am I right in saying that the apology, welcome as it is, is still only the House of Reps speaking, and not the entire parliament? I presume it will now go to the Senate for them to also have a chance to agree with the motion, or not, as the case may be. Otherwise it's constitutionally a little one-sided. When will the Senate consider the matter? Also, since the parliament includes the Queen (S.1 of the Constitution), can it be said to be an apology "by the parliament" if the Queen or her vice-regal representative don't have any say about it? I'm assuming they won't get any say because it's not a piece of legislation (which requires Royal Assent) but simply a House motion (which doesn't). -- JackofOz (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey JackofOz! Haven't seen you since the Maxine McKew days. The ABC reported that it was to go to the Senate that same afternoon (Feb 13), but I have yet to see any formal report as to what actually happened (although a rubber stamp debate could be expected). As far as the constitutional side of it, we are back to the clash between the letter of the constitution and practical reality. I'd need to go dig around to see whether or not that combined houses can speak on behalf of the "Parliament" without the GG getting involved. Manning (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here we go - the Senate passed the motion today. news.com.au Manning (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've been a bit busy on other things today and this is the first mention of the Senate I've heard. All the news media I caught was totally pre-occupied with events in the House of Reps, as if that was all that was to it, and as if one house could purport to speak for the entire parliament. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
70% of Australians supporting sorry
I don't particularly care to get engrossed in this article, at least for the time being due to the large amount of traffic thanks to this article being on wikipedia front page news (2007 election de ja vu), but I would like to see others defend against the removal of the mention in the lead that 70% of Australians support the apology per the BBC news article link, and now that he has been shown, he calls it irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Sorry" to 'bother' you Timeshift, but as this (wikipedia and this article in particular - for this purpose) is supposed to be a record of fact with NPOV policies, I would imagine that some journo in London "plucking" a 30% "poll" out of some other journo's vernacular does not warrant insertion into an encyclopedic article. IF you can justify the use of a hard number (70% or 30%) and prove that this poll has been conducted and it has authority (ie: it isn't you just ringing all your mates!) and has been published, then by all means add it back. That is why I haven't deleted the comment (yet) but if you (or anyone else) can't prove the fact, then it is justifiable to remove this. Bcollier (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a statement in the lead that 70% of Australians supported the formal apology bearing a citation needed tag. Every article I see indicates that it would be more accurate to state that 30% were against the apology as I think we can be certain that some of the other 70% were effectively neutral.
I'm bad at formatting or I'd fix it myself. Here's a BBC article that could be used. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, I see I'm not the only one who thought this. Mooney :) 12.146.184.9 (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This article (dated Feb 8, 08) says it is reporting the " first poll on the issue of whether the Federal Government should say sorry to the stolen generations." (I'm far from convinced that statement is true, but whatever). It give the "Yes" vote as 61%. Manning (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, I cowboyed up and changed it. Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have edited this "comment" out. Unless you can reference the actual poll, then it is not NPOV. BBC's article only references one point in the poll, but then doesn't actually reference who the poll was conducted by and where this information came from. Just because the BBC says its so, still doesn't make it so. I am not disagreeing with the actual number but with its relevance here without authoritive evidence. Link to the actual poll and then we won't be in this discussion. I have tried looking for the number but actually can't find this poll. Cheers Bcollier (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the actual poll. We now have a new number - 55%. I think the 61% figure is adjusted for those who did not have an opinion (although 55/(55+36) is only 60.4%, but ah, whatever). Manning (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's wise to present news outlet surveys as representative of actual public opinion: I've seen survey results on this question range wildly from 60% in favour of saying "sorry" to 90% against (Seven News Perth phone poll). I don't think such specific figures add much to the article. - Mark 06:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the SMH had 61% rate it excellent, 16% good, 5% average, 1% poor, and 16% 'don't agree with it', in a self-selecting online poll [5]. I think if we get a nationwide reliable poll of opinions after the apology, we might include that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Taking it out altogether was the best edit of all. Wish I'd thought of that. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Rudd's speech - actual or official?
Here's an interesting one. Hansard have just published Rudd's speech (which made my efforts of transcription a bit wasted, but whatever). For argument's sake let's call this the "official" version. However Hansard's published version does not match what Rudd actually said on two occasions, both in the "opening statement". The differences are in line 3: (Hansard:) "this blemished chapter in our nation's history" vs (spoken:) "this blemished chapter in our national history", and in line 4 where Rudd actually repeated the words "A new page" but this is not reflected in Hansard. Which version should our reprint reflect? Manning (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go with the official version; it is common to tweak what was said in an official transcript given the mistakes we all make while speaking. --mav (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I added links to video of the apology and following speech, and a news article with the text of Rudd's longer speech following the apology. The video link is probably the best way to get the "true" version of what he said. I accordingly changed the sentence "Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's "sorry" was followed [inserted my phrase here] by a "sorry" from Opposition leader Brendan Nelson." to the sentence "Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's "sorry" was followed by a 20-minute speech to Parliament about the need for an apology [43][44] and then by a "sorry" from Opposition leader Brendan Nelson." Drvestone (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Split article?
The section Australian Federal government apology, overlapping parts of National Sorry Day and Kevin Rudd, and other events of 13 February are important enough to justify a separate article, eg Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples (the official title of the motion - see Hansard). There was more than enough media coverage to support notability as a separate event. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The apology is significant enough in itself to justify a separate article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- There have been multiple apologies, I understand a number used Howard's wording of "deep and sincere regret". What undid it with Howard was his denial that this was in fact an apology. So maybe "Apologies to Australia's Indigenous Peoples" and pick up on those at State and Territoty level as well. Paul foord (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rudd's apology has no direct connection to National Sorry Day, and was explicitly to the issue of the Stolen Generations. I think it sits well in this article and a split isn't necessary at this stage. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Policy in practice
The section "Policy in practice" concludes with the following paragraph:
Further, the report found that incidence of sexual abuse were disturbingly high. Overall 17% of females and 8% of males reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse while under institutional or foster care.[18]
I visited the source cited [18] and read the entire document only to find that the words "alleged" and "allege" are littered about the place whenever sexual abuse is mentioned. As such I will remove the paragraph since the cited reference does not mention high incidence of sexual abuse. And also because the report in fact says that 17% of alleged sexual assaults on female Inquiry Witnesses were reported and 7.7% of alleged sexual assaults on male Inquiry Witnesses were reported - as opposed to 17% of all females and 8% of all males reporting sexual assault. Whoever wrote that paragraph in the first place has gravely misunderstood the contents of the report. OzWoden (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The source gives the figures quoted quite clearly states:
Children in every placement were vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The following table indicates the placements in which Inquiry witnesses for whom the information could be extracted report having experienced sexual assaults. It should be noted that witnesses were not asked whether they had had this experience and that there are many reasons, personal and procedural, for deciding against volunteering the information.
- Wm, the source clearly states that the figures relate to responses from Inquiry witnesses (208 male witnesses and 294 female witnesses).
- With such a small sample group you cannot extrapolate the figures to apply to all "stolen" children or assume that the figures amongst all "stolen" children would be higher, as you stated above. And besides this, the source itself does not extrapolate them so you are incorporating original research - which is against wikipedia policy.
- Also, the source clearly states that the witnesses were not asked if they had been sexually assaulted - rather, as indicated by the columns in the table, they were asked had they reported sexual assault. So effectively the source tells us that 17% of a small number of female witnesses and 7.7% of a smaller number of male witnesses, claim that they had sometime in the past made allegations of sexual abuse. (Allegation implies the claims are still unfounded).
- None of what you have written in the article resembles what the source tells us. I will promptly remove the falsely sourced, original research you have written. OzWoden (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou Wm for your inciteful comments on my talk page. I have fixed up your poor edit to the article.
- Firstly your poor grammar - inquiry not enquiry.
- Secondly, witnesses claimed reporting sexual assault - they did not report sexual abuse to the inquiry.
- Thirdly, the statistics relate to placements in an institution, at work, or with a foster or adoptive family - not only an institution or foster care.
- And lastly, I have just generally corrected the information you provided to reflect the content of the source. OzWoden (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Public awareness and recognition
The second and third paragraphs of the section "Public awareness and recognition", specifically the phrases "This inquiry", "the inquiry" and "the National Inquiry" do not make sense since no particular inquiry has been introduced in this section. OzWoden (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Have named the HREOC report Paul foord (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the section says "Historian Professor Peter Read, at the time at the Australian National University, was the first to use the phrase 'stolen generation'." This does not make sense. Should it read "Historian Professor Peter Read, during his time at the Australian National University, was the first to use the phrase 'stolen generation'."? or "Historian Professor Peter Read, during this time, was the first to use the phrase 'stolen generation'."?
- The third sentence of the section says "Widespread awareness of the Stolen Generation, and the practices which created it, only began to enter the public arena in the late 1980s through the efforts of Aboriginal activists, artists and musicians (Midnight Oil's famous track "The Dead Heart" being one example of the latter). "
- As I read it, it seems the word "Aboriginal" belongs to "activists", to "artists" and to "musicians". I do not think any of Midnight Oil's performers are Aboriginal musicians. Am I wrong?
- Alternatively if "Aboriginal" was not meant to belong to the latter two groups, perhaps a rewording to "...the efforts of artists, musicians and Aboriginal activists." would be more appropriate? OzWoden (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Legal status and compensation - original research
The sentence in question is:
Despite its then legality in Australia, the actions may have contravened international law, although international law has no legal force in Australia unless specifically incorporated.
Saying "the actions may have contravened international law" without any reference suggests that whomever wrote this is using his/her own opinion or knowledge and hence may constitute original research. OzWoden (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
non NPOV: linking the article to Nazism?
I am concerned about the sentence:
This is similar in nature to the belief of Aryan supremacy in Nazism, in which persons of mixed blood and of "inferior" races are seen as threats to the racial purity of the Aryan race.
I am not sure that this uncited statement, linking the content of the article to Nazism, is either reasonable or justified and I am thinking it may be seriously non NPOV. Unless it can be cited I plan on deleting the sentence. OzWoden (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I noticed this for the first time about two nights ago. Aryanism implies xenophobia and ethnocentrism when epistemically the mindset was more a benign paternalism. In the interests of NPOV, the sentence should be removed.
In fact I noticed that no where in the article is the concept of paternalism mentioned at all... Proberton (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, at best the sentence was irrelevant and at worst it was a clumsy attempt to equate the removal of children to national socialism. I have removed the sentence from the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
There is a reference to a statement by Patrick Dodson linking Nazi programs here http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2008/02/15/11375_opinion.html --Funkarama (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reference you mention is an opinion article and hardly the standard required for use in an encyclopedia. Next we'll be referencing letters to the editor... p.s. the link in that article is that someone did something in the same year the Nazis started programs against the Jews. Well I guess since my grandmother was born in that year then she must be a Nazi child because its the same year! Oh my, why did I never think of this before!....OzWoden (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It may, however, be appropriate to say that Patrick Dodson made comparisons to Nazism. I would lean to excluding it, but he's a notable person so his opinion is not on the same level as letters to the editor. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Turning back(s)
Here's an indicator as to how many were offended by Nelson's speech... Timeshift (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Nelson's reply - original research
The paragraph in question is:
Many Australians disagreed with the views in his speech and believed that it was inappropriately negative; that it included out of context graphic descriptions of abuse and social ailments in current indigenous communities given the apology was for former Australian governments' wrongdoings; that it avoided the word "stolen", claiming the children were taken "with the best of intentions" and any suffering was unintentioned; that it asserted the children ultimately derived numerous benefits from their removal which would not have otherwise been possible and equipped them for adulthood; that it stressed the acknowledgment of past events should be more important than an apology; that it was used as a forum to acclaim non-indigenous pioneers as the proactive creators of modern Australia while relegating indigenous inputs as beneficial "involuntary sacrifices"; and that it included the one-time use of a highly derogatory and racist word used as an ethnic slur against indigenous Australians.<ref>[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23206488-661,00.html "What Nelson said after the apology"], AAP, ''Herald Sun'', February 13, 2008</ref>.
The referenced source essentially outlines the words of Dr Nelson and contains very little, if any, commentary. Particular statements in the above paragraph that are most certaintly original research, not derived from the source and are probably opinion include:
- The claim that many Australians disagree with the views in his speech etc
- The claim that Dr Nelson used the speech as a forum to acclaim white settlers as creators of modern Australia. This statement is using this article as a forum for opinions.
- The claim that the use of the word "boong" was used as an ethnic slur against Aboriginals. This is wrong since it was used in the form of a quote of what people used to call Aboriginals in decades past, as opposed to Dr Nelson actually calling Aboriginal people 'boongs' himself.
I draw your attention to Wikipedia:NOR "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. "
I will delete the paragraph since it contravenes Wikipedia's no original research policy. OzWoden (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Listen, that speech was written and delivered with plenty of time to review whether what was in it was repulsive or not. they decided it was fit for the ocassion. so take pride in it, if you're a sympathizer of that position. however, don't attempt to hide what was said. it's just as despicable. own it! we all now the context of "boong" was as a quote, but who would even do that given the purpose of the proceeding? and in the parliament of Australia for heaven's sake! i can just imagine an american president, let's say Bush, apologising to African American for slavery while invoking the word "nigger". Talk about rubbing salt in the wound!
- As for "many" Australians disagreeing with his view? You should be grateful it doesn't say "most", just for the sake of nutrality. Did you check out the press straight afterwards, or did you see the backs of all those people across australia? "many" may in fact be an understatement! even people that didnt agree with the government apology said nelson's speech was not the best to argue their position, if anything, it delegitimzed it. Also, most australians, as far as the polls i have seen, were in favour of an apology. those that did not, and who harbour the views expressed by nelsons speech, are in the minority. at least according to polls.
- as for the use of the speech as a forum for the accomplishments of non-indigenous australians, that was the title of most headlines the very next day, and newscasts later that night. nelson praises non-indigenous achievements during sorry day. Al-Andalus (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou Al-Andalus for your very passionate (read: non NPOV) comments.
- When I deleted the material I was neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with it. I was removing original research.
- If you so wish to include the statements in the removed paragraph please clean them up and find appropriate sources. The source used was simply an outline of the words of Nelson's speech and contained none of the commentary and opinion described in the paragraph I removed. OzWoden (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Another instance of original research is:
Just seconds before Nelson began to read the prepared reply, however, many of the criticized points were contested by Rudd in his reasoning to opponents of the apology.[1][2]
The two sources are a transcript and video footage of Rudd's speech. The commentary in the quoted sentence above is a "new synthesis...of published material" and is hence original research and is prohibited by wikipedia's no original research policy Wikipedia:NOR. OzWoden (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many Australians disagreed with Rudd. Many disagreed with Nelson. Wikipedia need not provide commentary, especially commentary so ridiculously biased as that provided by Al-Andalus. (who, for those who know history, what an odd name to have!) Michael talk 05:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will be reporting Al-A for 3RR as soon as I have finished this entry. You are not a party member. So be it. But that does not mean that by default you are immune from (legitimate) suggestions of bias. The problem is that you want to comment on the speeches, yet Wikipedia is not about editorialising, no matter how "neutral" we can claim it be. And in this case, the editoralising is not netural.
You make the assumption that i haven't been looking for any opposition to rudd or agreement with nelson. i cant find it, though i know it's somewhere, cause i know people who disagree with rudd and emphatically agreed with nelson. so, instead of issuing threats, why not help and find those sources and help neurtalise that section? Al-Andalus (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Michael.
And thankyou Al-Andalus for your attempt to source the content contained in the paragraph of original research (see first post above) which I had deleted.
For testing, please use the sandbox instead.
The second source you provided only adds support to the next paragraph which describes people booing and turning their backs on Dr Nelson.
This additional source, written by the esteemed "ninemsn staff" (sarcasm intended), like the first source, also does not lend to the commentary and opinion contained within the previously deleted paragraph.
I will delete the paragraph, (if Michael or someone else hasn't), again with the above mentioned reasons in mind.
PS Al-Andalus, "unintentioned" is not a word. OzWoden (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Al-A, we shouldn't be looking for commentary pieces on historical and political events and then transferring those points of view here. All we should be looking at is stating the facts -- not commentary -- and letting people make up their own minds. I don't care if there is a thousand pieces going "Go Nelson buddy, go!". I still wouldn't include it, even if the views were the other way around. Michael talk 06:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Al Andalus's contribution may have been a little lengthy, and should be cut down to size but (I believe) everything in there could be referenced. Al A made a mistake in putting that long section up without references, and it should stay off while in it's current state. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with this, it is more important to document this than the lengthy detail which is there currently.
- I also think there is place for a brief reference to commentary, given the significance of the response, the significance of the response to the response, and the way in which it will be sensationalised. Understanding of key issues related to this are key to the situation.--Funkarama (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Survey Schmurvey
Earlier on there was considerable debate about "survey figures" and the ultimate decision was to just remove the references. I tend to agree with that decision. However, for interest's sake, the "latest poll" now says that approval is up to 68% and disapproval down to 22%.
I won't say that public opinion COULDN'T shift that much in a week, but I think this says more about surveys than it does about true public opinion. (I am firmly in the approval camp, by the way, so I am not try to argue against the apology here). I would also tend to want to leave this out of the article for the moment as well. Manning (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the kind of poll - nationwide, post facto, done by Galaxy, a respected polling organisation - that I suggested in that debate warrants inclusion. I'd say opinion probably did shift significantly after the event. But as you say, there's no hurry to include the figures, and we should include some reputable figures from before the apology for contrast. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the sudden sweep in support came from watching it and realising what it meant to those it was being given to, and to the more cynical, that an apology in no legal way shape or form gave any increased claiming rights for compensation (try as they might). Timeshift (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- As with so many other recent changes -- including its name! -- to the article, they have been added in haste due to the recent euphoria over Rudd's apology. Of course there's going to be a spike, just like the deserved spike that Rudd's getting for pref-PM. We need to wait a while, let all of the dust settle, and then work towards really gearing up this article. Michael talk 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Response to Nelson's response
Please explain why the section you removed is not important to the documentation of the event. I do not support the Liberals in any way, am interested in a fair, neutral representation of the historical record.--Funkarama (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- You don't get "fair and neutral" (or "fair and balanced", to use the particularly hilarious slogan of a US TV network) from typing out your own little commentary or analysis of the situation. Michael talk 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my own commentary, it was based on extensive observation of media coverage. Understand still not comprehensive enough, but enough of a trend.--Funkarama (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, choosing not be leftish, as I see you have that concern.--Funkarama (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- What an odd reply. It "wasn't [your] own", yet "it was based on extensive [your?] observation of media coverage". Michael talk 01:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
oh i see, well one could argue all research and writing is same--Funkarama (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Concern, that this section if not completed, will just add to the sensationalism--Funkarama (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- So cut away the fat (commentary and opinion) and leave just the beef (factual information) so readers can enjoy a delicious and tasty Wikipedia meal. Michael talk 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Political bias "Conservative party stance to apology"
I am concerned about the inclusion of the section "Conservative party stance to apology" which is largely negative and conveys a negative tone toward the Liberal Party.
There is no section "Socialist/liberal/left-wing party stance to apology" to balance this section. It seems the Liberal party has been singled out, which smells of political bias to me.
OzWoden (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- They (Labor, specifically) *made* the apology, so that's probably why - one's reaction to one's own actions wouldn't make a huge amount of sense. There would as a result only be a conservative response. That being said, the title is problematic for other reasons as Australia does not have a Conservative party. I'd favour either "Other parties'" and have reactions from Liberals, Nationals, Greens, Democrats and Family First (the parties with parliamentary seats at the time of the apology) and the CDP (who attract the most votes of remaining parties), provided these can be adequately sourced. We should avoid commentary, and use reliably sourced material. That gets around most major objections, I think. Orderinchaos 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking generally, the quality of this article for such a major issue is all over the place. I'll have a look later in the week and see what I can do to improve its flow and clarity, and issues such as the above can be addressed. Orderinchaos 16:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
problem sentence - false reference
In the introductory section of the article is the sentence:
"The policy typically involved the removal of children into internment camps, orphanages and other institutions.[3]"
I have read the reference and found no mention of "internment camps", which I would suggest has been included in a biassed manner to evoke thoughts of Guantanamo Bay and Auschwitz, etc.
Also the term "policy" is not used once in the reference cited.
OzWoden (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will remove the sentence with the above points in mind if someone cannot provide a proper reference. OzWoden (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence deserves to stay. I've removed the term 'internment camps'. The reference used describes the key provisions of the Aborigines Act (1905-1963) saying: "Regulations may be made for `the care, custody and education of the children of aborigines and half-castes' and `enabling any aboriginal or half-caste child to be sent to and detained in an aboriginal institution, industrial school or orphanage'." Crico (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "institutions" anticipated by the Act were probably reform schools, but that particular movement had already started to die a death in wider society even as this was being enacted, so I doubt many (if any) young Aboriginals ended up in them. Orderinchaos 16:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Correct - "internment camps" should not be there. The only correct use of "internment" in Australia relates to two specific situations, that of Japanese Australians and of Italian POWs during World War II, and of certain classes of refugees after 1994. Orderinchaos 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence deserves to stay. I've removed the term 'internment camps'. The reference used describes the key provisions of the Aborigines Act (1905-1963) saying: "Regulations may be made for `the care, custody and education of the children of aborigines and half-castes' and `enabling any aboriginal or half-caste child to be sent to and detained in an aboriginal institution, industrial school or orphanage'." Crico (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou for removing the questioned word Crico.
- I still have an issue with the sentence. As stated before the reference does not mention any "policy".
- Also the sentence begins with "The policy" as though the reader would know what policy is being spoken about. As no policy has been introduced prior to this sentence, the sentence is unclear. OzWoden (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Terminology
'Aboriginal' is an adjective. 'Aboriginal people' is the way to go. --Funkarama (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Aboriginal is given in one of my dictionaries (Collins - Aust ed.) as an adjective and a noun. There has been some suggestion that the latter use is deprecated, but it does remain current. Other than that I agree, 'Aboriginal people' is the way to go. It is also often possible to avoid the term altogether. cygnis insignis 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funkarama, I commented on this on your user talk page before seeing that you'd brought up the issue here. Actually, "Aboriginal" is a noun as well as an adjective. It's used as a noun in the Australian media ("older Aboriginals in urban communities", Australian Broadcasting Corporation; "Govt approach to Aboriginals flawed: Coroner", The West Australian; "thousands of plants that Aboriginals have always lived on", The Age...). Likewise in scholarly publications, such as Geoffrey Blainey's Triumph of the Nomads. When I was doing my MA at Sydney Uni back in 2003, an Aboriginal lecturer at the Koori Centre mentioned that "Aboriginal" was preferred to "Aborigine" as a noun. Aridd (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Respect to the Koori lecturer, but usage in media doesn't make it best usage. We are inheriting, repeating and perpetuating a number of poor practices, it is early days yet in 'getting it right' on a number of counts. Appreciate cygnis insignis' comment observing dictionary and
- 'Aboriginal people' is the way to go.
- Respect to the Koori lecturer, but usage in media doesn't make it best usage. We are inheriting, repeating and perpetuating a number of poor practices, it is early days yet in 'getting it right' on a number of counts. Appreciate cygnis insignis' comment observing dictionary and
Poor sentence & paragraphing
The intro section of the article contains:
The term "Stolen Generations" is still controversial in Australia as of 2008.[5][6] However, the idea that children were stolen from Aboriginal parents was already current in the early 1900s, thus
- In 1923 the Adelaide Sun told its readers: "The word "stole" may sound a bit far-fetched but by the time we have told the story of the heart-broken Aboriginal mother we are sure the word will not be considered out of place."[7]
Firstly, from "In 1923..." displays on a new line and is indented slightly, which I find rather odd.
Secondly, concerning the sentence ending "early 1900s, thus". Is this meant to lead onto the next sentence or has something not been typed? It is very poorly worded and strangely written since the very next text is a new sentence.
OzWoden (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is indented because it is a quote. Paul foord (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- We could always paraphrase the sentence.Bless sins (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Serious revision needed?
Shouldn't this article reflect the realities of the Stolen Generations in each state and territory rather than blanket terms? IMHO this is imperative because while there may be debate about the motives and extent of policies, there are some hard facts available that are not given the importance they should in this article. I will start with my own state, Victoria. In Victoria the Stolen Generations Taskforce Report of 2003 came to the conclusion "In Victoria unlike other states such as New South Wales there was no formal policy for removing children" (Page 73). The Taskforce does not deny the existence of Stolen Generations, rather, as Victoria had no Stolen Generations in terms of removing aboriginal and mixed race children for any purposes of breeding out aboriginals, the Taskforce redefined the Stolen Generations as:
- Individuals who were removed as children;
- Family members who suffered as a result of their removal;
- Non-Indigenous family members in adopted families; and
- Descendants of those forcibly removed who, as a result, have been deprived of communities ties, culture and language, and links with and entitlements to traditional land.
This information should be included in the article. While other states may have had policies of removing children for purposes of breeding out aboriginals, Victoria's own sympathetic Taskforce concluded this did not occur here. Victoria, therefore, has been exonerated of trying to breed out aboriginals by its own harshest critics, and in fact Stolen Generations is not a term that denotes any wrongdoing, as the Stolen Generations here are any of the above listed, and removal also includes children who were voluntarily given up for any reason.
Tasmania falls into the same category as Victoria. It did not have a similar Taskforce that I am aware of, however, Debra Hocking (Aboriginal projects officer with the Department of Health and Human Services) has said that "In Tasmania there were no removal policies as such as there were in other areas around Australia." The source is here. Perhaps her admission is not conclusive, but it is supported by this: Infants Welfare Act 1935
The relevant legislation that children were removed under in Tasmania is the Infants Welfare Act of 1935. I have read through this and find no declaration of intention to breed out aboriginals. Nor can I detect any specific targeting of aboriginals, but even that is beside the point: Tasmania was not removing children to breed out aboriginals. Children were also removed under the later Child Welfare Act of 1960
The courts ruled that children removed in Tasmania were removed under this legislation. I cannot see it as intending to breed out aboriginals, nor even specifically targeting them. Again, it should be included in the article that there was no breeding-out policy in Tasmania.
South Australia's Bruce Trevorrow case puts SA in the same boat. Mr Trevorrow was removed illegally. If there was a policy of removing children for the purposes of breeding them out it would have been legal, and Trevorrow would have lost his case.
The Federal Government and thus Territories were exonerated in 1999 by the Gunner and Cubillo cases which found there was no evidence of policies of specifically removing aboriginal and mixed race children for the purposes of breeding out aboriginals.
The fact is that in these four situations there was no removal of children with the intent of breeding out aboriginals, or if there was it has not been proven. Justice O'Loughlin said that the Gunner and Cubillo cases don't rule out later evidence that proves there was some policy, and this is as it should be. But the fact remains that currently (and for the foreseeable future) there's no evidence any of these four situations that there was a government policy of removing aboriginal and mixed race children to breed them out, and while historians can make all the claims they want the evidence right now says they're wrong for these four places. I am open to WA, QLD, and NSW, but these four are clear cut, and it seems this article is lacking because it doesn't specifically address the states and territories to represent the different situation. 121.44.193.86 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Timeshift (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
First paragraph = very poor
The first paragraph of the article states:
The Stolen Generations (also Stolen Generation and Stolen children) is a term used to describe those children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent who were removed from their families by the Australian and State government agencies and church missions, under various acts of their respective parliaments, denying the rights of parents and children[citation needed] by making Aboriginal children wards of the state, between approximately 1869 and (officially) 1969.[citation needed]
Firstly, "denying the rights of parents and children" is not supported in anyway. Which rights of parents or children were denied? Were any rights denied at all? My understanding would lead me to believe the latter, that no rights were denied.
Secondly, would someone please reference the dates. If no one does I will simply remove the words "between... and (officially) 1969". OzWoden (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Official?
What on earth does the apology being official or not have to do with the GG/monarch?! Timeshift (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because the House of Reps passes a motion doesn't make it anything official. What you'd need is a law or a proclamation, both of which need the involvment of the GG or monarch, to make it official. --G2bambino (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Royal assent is only sought for legislation - the rest of the business of the house is conducted without reference to the monarchy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, precisely. Hence, the apology is "official" nowhere beyond the walls of the house, and could be altered by any future vote of the representatives. --G2bambino (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the minds of Australians it was official. The status of what type of official is another question. Paul foord (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Official? Who cares? What difference does it make? It was an apology to the stolen generations on behalf of the Parliament of Australia. Michael talk 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "In the minds of Australians"? I can only wonder how one person knows what goes on in the minds of all Australians, even if that had any importance here. --G2bambino (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is the problem that the representative role/prerogatives of the of Monarch of Australia been ignored? Paul foord (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a particular problem other than that some people seem to be giving this apology more scope and "officiality" that it really has, not being able to make the distinction between a motion adopted by a parliamentary house and a law or proclamation made by the executive. The apology falls under the former, and, as the former never needs the participation of the monarch or viceroy, their prerogatives aren't being ignored at all. They only way they could be seen as such is if anyone was trying to present this motion as some kind of law or official national policy; some activists and/or media pundits may be attempting to spin it that way, but the reality is that it is not.
- The situation here really is analogous to that which surrounds the passage of the motion in the Canadian House of Commons that recognised the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada; despite what sovereigntists and media reports asserted, the wording of the motion was deliberately obscure in its definitions, and remained only a motion of the house with no binding or official effect beyond that institution's walls. --G2bambino (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is the problem that the representative role/prerogatives of the of Monarch of Australia been ignored? Paul foord (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- "In the minds of Australians"? I can only wonder how one person knows what goes on in the minds of all Australians, even if that had any importance here. --G2bambino (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Official? Who cares? What difference does it make? It was an apology to the stolen generations on behalf of the Parliament of Australia. Michael talk 04:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the minds of Australians it was official. The status of what type of official is another question. Paul foord (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, precisely. Hence, the apology is "official" nowhere beyond the walls of the house, and could be altered by any future vote of the representatives. --G2bambino (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Royal assent is only sought for legislation - the rest of the business of the house is conducted without reference to the monarchy. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The apology was official, because it came from the Government. The Government could have passed a bill, but that they chose to do so through a motion of parliament makes it no less so. The rest is just monarchist pedantry. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't have said it better. I think i'll re-add official once this is thrashed out a bit more. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, a motion put before the house isn't official, it's just a proposal. Even after the motion is passed it isn't official outside the house itself.
For it to be officially "from the Government" [sic], it would have to be an Order-in-Council, which this apology clearly is not. (I can't see how an apology could be passed as an Act of Parliament.) If you don't like that, take it up with Rudd.Okay, I take that partly back. Rudd did say "on behalf of the government of Australia"; so, it does seem the apology stems from the Council. I suppose where there's ambiguity here is in the definition of "official." The apology was not issued from the Crown as an Order-in-Council, it was not passed by both houses of parliament and granted Royal Assent as an Act of Parliament, and without that permanence seems to me not to be official. It merely seems to be an expression of the feelings of this present Cabinet, which could be blown away by the next one. I still say the term "official" be avoided here. --G2bambino (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, a motion put before the house isn't official, it's just a proposal. Even after the motion is passed it isn't official outside the house itself.
The time for me to re-add 'official' is getting closer, as nobody except G2 objects with "monarchist pedantry" as MH so puts it. Timeshift (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is that the best you can come up with? Rather pathetic, really. --G2bambino (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't for a moment think it wasn't official in the ordinary understanding of the term. However, I have made the point elsewhere that the Constitution says the parliament includes not only the 2 houses, but also the Queen (or her representative), so anything that doesn't involve the GG could be argued as not being an utterance by the entire parliament. But the houses make their own standing rules etc without reference to any other body or person, and they're fully "official". And even if the apology had been put into a piece of legislation that then went to the GG for royal assent and became a law, a later law could theoretically overturn it. So, it was not necessarily "parliamentary" in the full technical sense, but it was undoubtedly "official". It helps not to get too technical when we're discussing the officialness of things like this. There's no law that defines when something is official or not - it's a matter of perception, ultimately. (I'm involved in a similar debate about when Advance Australia Fair officially became the national anthem; to some, it was no earlier than 1984 when the GG formally proclaimed it as such; to me, it was a decade earlier, when PM Gough Whitlam announced, officially, that it was now the anthem.) To ordinary Australians, and to indigenous Australians in particular, it was profoundly official - mainly because of the manner in which it was done, which is why it resonated so strongly throughout the country. It also happened to receive the almost unanimous support of their representatives, but that in itself does not affect the "officialness" or otherwise of the matter; if the motion had just scraped through by one vote in each house, it would still have been just as official as it is now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the debate here turned to one of official vs. not official, but my initial point was about an ambiguity surrounding in what way the apology was official. There shouldn't be any room left for someone to presume from the wording of the article that the apology was somehow officially from the Crown - i.e. from the Australian state - and thus more deeply entrenched as a national policy as opposed to just an expression of the Cabinet or a motion of one parliamentary house. As I said, this situation is analogous to that of the Canadian House of Commons passing the motion put forward by the Prime Minister that recognises the Quebecois as a nation: it was deliberately left "unofficial" beyond the house itself - i.e. not an Act of Parliament or proclamation - in order to avoid political, and legal, ramifications. In this case, either avoid the term, as Rudd did, or somehow give an explanation of context so as to avoid confusion or possible misinterpretation. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the word "official" is not particularly helpful - official means different things in different contexts, and it is better to simply give the context. However, the apology was worded as coming from the Parliament of Australia. It was passed by both houses of Parliament. Leaving aside the curious technicalities about the Parliament including the Queen (I suspect the real issue is the lack of a procedure for the Parliament as a single body to do anything other than enact legislation, including apologise - I think G2 is confusing "officialness" with legal ramifications), where does the wording about "on behalf of the Cabinet" in this article come from? The motion was passed by the two houses, and Rudd also said "I am sorry" as PM, "on behalf of the government", and "on behalf of the parliament". JPD (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did wrestle a bit with that. The Executive Council is the government of Australia, but the Cabinet is effectively the only part of the Council, along with the Governor-General, that actually governs. The apology certainly didn't stem from the Governor-General, so it seems it was only coming from the circle of ministers: the Cabinet. It was then put before the House of Representatives as a motion. I think in this case the word "government" is also causing confusion with its multiple meanings depending on context. I chose "Cabinet" because it is the organ of government from which the apology seemed to emerge. --G2bambino (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may have a point, and the multiple meanings of "government" are definitely a source of confusion, but in the absence of evidence of the formal involvement of the Cabinet I would say your interpretation is OR. Even with evidence that the Cabinet (or even the Parliamentary Labor Party, a very common if less legally sensible meaning of "government"), I don't see how it is helpful to speak of any sort of "government" in the sentence that now refers to the Cabinet. A formal apology, in the voice of the Parliament of Australia, was presented (by the PM) as a motion for the House to vote on and also as a motion for the Senate to vote on. Wherever the apology emerged from, it was formally offered by the two houses of parliament. JPD (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully acknowledge the place of parliament in this matter. However, you earlier said Rudd also apologised "on behalf of the government"; therefore "the government" seems to have a part to play here, whatever "the government" is. I could see the sentence saying: At 9:30am on February 13, 2008, Rudd read out to the House of Representatives, on behalf of himself, the government, and the parliament, the apology to Indigenous Australians, and presented it as a motion to be voted on by the house. The passage of the apology by the house makes it an official motion of the Australian House of Representatives, but the words "the government" still throw a spanner in the works here as it is unknown what "the government" means in this instance, and they imply a governmental officiality that just, in reality, isn't there. At the same time, it seems disingenious to ignore the word "government" all-together. Hence, I said on behalf of the Cabinet – the effective government of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that that clause is only there because it had been moved from an earlier passage, about a time when the details had been even less clear. I wouldn't say Rudd read it out (on behalf of anybody) and presented it as a motion - he simply presented it as a motion. We might then also want to mention his later statements as PM, on behalf of the government and on behalf of the parliament, but I don't think we should confuse the description of the formal apology by dragging too much into it. JPD (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I fully acknowledge the place of parliament in this matter. However, you earlier said Rudd also apologised "on behalf of the government"; therefore "the government" seems to have a part to play here, whatever "the government" is. I could see the sentence saying: At 9:30am on February 13, 2008, Rudd read out to the House of Representatives, on behalf of himself, the government, and the parliament, the apology to Indigenous Australians, and presented it as a motion to be voted on by the house. The passage of the apology by the house makes it an official motion of the Australian House of Representatives, but the words "the government" still throw a spanner in the works here as it is unknown what "the government" means in this instance, and they imply a governmental officiality that just, in reality, isn't there. At the same time, it seems disingenious to ignore the word "government" all-together. Hence, I said on behalf of the Cabinet – the effective government of Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- You may have a point, and the multiple meanings of "government" are definitely a source of confusion, but in the absence of evidence of the formal involvement of the Cabinet I would say your interpretation is OR. Even with evidence that the Cabinet (or even the Parliamentary Labor Party, a very common if less legally sensible meaning of "government"), I don't see how it is helpful to speak of any sort of "government" in the sentence that now refers to the Cabinet. A formal apology, in the voice of the Parliament of Australia, was presented (by the PM) as a motion for the House to vote on and also as a motion for the Senate to vote on. Wherever the apology emerged from, it was formally offered by the two houses of parliament. JPD (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did wrestle a bit with that. The Executive Council is the government of Australia, but the Cabinet is effectively the only part of the Council, along with the Governor-General, that actually governs. The apology certainly didn't stem from the Governor-General, so it seems it was only coming from the circle of ministers: the Cabinet. It was then put before the House of Representatives as a motion. I think in this case the word "government" is also causing confusion with its multiple meanings depending on context. I chose "Cabinet" because it is the organ of government from which the apology seemed to emerge. --G2bambino (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the word "official" is not particularly helpful - official means different things in different contexts, and it is better to simply give the context. However, the apology was worded as coming from the Parliament of Australia. It was passed by both houses of Parliament. Leaving aside the curious technicalities about the Parliament including the Queen (I suspect the real issue is the lack of a procedure for the Parliament as a single body to do anything other than enact legislation, including apologise - I think G2 is confusing "officialness" with legal ramifications), where does the wording about "on behalf of the Cabinet" in this article come from? The motion was passed by the two houses, and Rudd also said "I am sorry" as PM, "on behalf of the government", and "on behalf of the parliament". JPD (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the debate here turned to one of official vs. not official, but my initial point was about an ambiguity surrounding in what way the apology was official. There shouldn't be any room left for someone to presume from the wording of the article that the apology was somehow officially from the Crown - i.e. from the Australian state - and thus more deeply entrenched as a national policy as opposed to just an expression of the Cabinet or a motion of one parliamentary house. As I said, this situation is analogous to that of the Canadian House of Commons passing the motion put forward by the Prime Minister that recognises the Quebecois as a nation: it was deliberately left "unofficial" beyond the house itself - i.e. not an Act of Parliament or proclamation - in order to avoid political, and legal, ramifications. In this case, either avoid the term, as Rudd did, or somehow give an explanation of context so as to avoid confusion or possible misinterpretation. --G2bambino (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't for a moment think it wasn't official in the ordinary understanding of the term. However, I have made the point elsewhere that the Constitution says the parliament includes not only the 2 houses, but also the Queen (or her representative), so anything that doesn't involve the GG could be argued as not being an utterance by the entire parliament. But the houses make their own standing rules etc without reference to any other body or person, and they're fully "official". And even if the apology had been put into a piece of legislation that then went to the GG for royal assent and became a law, a later law could theoretically overturn it. So, it was not necessarily "parliamentary" in the full technical sense, but it was undoubtedly "official". It helps not to get too technical when we're discussing the officialness of things like this. There's no law that defines when something is official or not - it's a matter of perception, ultimately. (I'm involved in a similar debate about when Advance Australia Fair officially became the national anthem; to some, it was no earlier than 1984 when the GG formally proclaimed it as such; to me, it was a decade earlier, when PM Gough Whitlam announced, officially, that it was now the anthem.) To ordinary Australians, and to indigenous Australians in particular, it was profoundly official - mainly because of the manner in which it was done, which is why it resonated so strongly throughout the country. It also happened to receive the almost unanimous support of their representatives, but that in itself does not affect the "officialness" or otherwise of the matter; if the motion had just scraped through by one vote in each house, it would still have been just as official as it is now. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Its an adjective bandied about to lend legitimacy to the appeasement it was. Leave it in, you give the apology credibility, take it out and the apology is empty rhetoric. Why isn't there more of an effort to make sure the article is more substantively edited rather than arguing over copy? This back and forth is nothing more than an intellectual pissing contest. Get over it. Proberton (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Racially discriminative language
I take issue to the sentence in the opening section that reads:
"Motivations evident include child protection, beliefs that given their catastrophic population decline post white contact that Aboriginal people would "die out", fears of miscegenation and a desire to maintain Caucasian racial purity.[7]" The boldened word is of concern.
I have two responses in mind:
- I change the word "white" to "European" or "British"
- I change the sentence to read "...decline post white contact that black people would "die out", fears..."
If someone else does not make an edit or let me know which of the two options should be pursued I shall toss a coin and implement one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OzWoden (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why were people turning their backs?
Hello, I understand this is a very charged issue for Australians but as a non-Australian I have to ask why people who turned their "backs on the screens displaying Nelson giving his speech" did so. It's not entirely clear in the article. Were they opposed to the apology or opposed to Nelson? Thank you. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As an Australian, my understanding of it is that Nelson was basically undercutting the PM's apology. Those turning their backs had no problem with the PM's apology, nor neccesarily Brendan Nelson per se, but specifically those views that the Leader of the Opposition (Nelson) was making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.83.251 (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The 'thanks' image
Please see this discussion in reference to the image. The author of the image is in contact with wikimedia who are the ones responsible to make a decision as to whether it should stay or go. And as the removal of the image from this page is a change to the status quo, consensus is required to remove the image. So any removal will be reverted. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
- "730Report" :
- [http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s115691.htm No stolen generation: Australian Govt], [[7:30 Report]] ABC TV 3 April 2000, retrieved 19 February 2008]
- {{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s115691.htm|title=No stolen generation: Australian Govt|date=[[3 April]] [[2000]]|work=[[7.30 Report]] ([[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]])|accessdate=2008-02-23}}
DumZiBoT (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
cquote farm
ugh this article is a {{cquote}} farm see the block quote section of wp:mosquote. Solenodon (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Bruce Trevorrow
Ahoy, just thought that the Bruce Trevorrow subsection is more than a little misleading. Even without pointing out that Andrew Bolt is not an academic source and is unfit to be cited as an authoritative source ANYWHERE on wikipedia, some of his arguments here are just plain wrong. Bolt writes, 'As Gray ruled: "Mrs Angas may have been well-intentioned . . . but was well aware, or ought to have been aware, that the removal of the plaintiff from his family, and his placement with the Davies family, was undertaken in circumstances that were understood to be without legal authority, beyond power and contrary to authoritative legal advice."
That illegality, said Gray, was why Bruce Trevorrow deserved a payout.
The picture the judge paints over many pages is compelling: South Australia never had any laws – or policies – authorising anyone to steal Aboriginal children for racist reasons."'
I thought this was suspect, and I didn't take me long to confirm my suspicions. A quick scan of the Supreme Court ruling brought me to section 422. It simply states:
"Evidence placed before the Court demonstrates, that the South Australian Government, during the early to mid 20th century, engaged in the policy and practice of removing Aboriginal children from their families and communities with a view to absorbing the Aboriginal population into the remainder of the community. "[6] And for those who care to read on, this statement is backed by a mountain of evidence. When Andrew Bolt first his 'the Stolen Truth' article I quizzed him about the ruling on his blog site. He didn't see fit to respond. Not only did Bolt get it wrong in this case, he clearly deliberately distorted the evidence to suit his own historical agenda. Let's ensure that this article is based on hard historical evidence, and remove pundits like Andrew Bolt from this page. Alright, cheers --Aaalasdair.M (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Racial Purity?
Typically, racists and eugenicists, want to preserve the purity of the race in question by the total prevention of race-mixing. Evidence of this can be seen in the former laws of the United States, and Nazi Germany. There is much talk in this article of the motivation for the Stolen Generations being the preservation of racial purity, but this simply does not run parrelel to logic. If the Australians responsible for this crime were concerned with that, then they would not mix with the Aborigines, however this is simply not the case and they encouraged mixing with them, as is states in the first two quotations of the page:
"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white."
"Eliminate the full-blood and permit the white admixture to half-castes and eventually the race will become white."
Shall we change this? Offer your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeroAxis (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- ^ "Video: Watch Kevin Rudd's full apology". Retrieved 14 Feb. 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ "Full text of Kevin Rudd's speech". Retrieved 14 Feb. 2008.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help)