Talk:Native white Australians

Merge?
There is already an article on Currency lads and lasses which covers essentially the same topic. Appropriate to WP:MERGE? Boneymau (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

→That article seems to be more about the usage of the word Currency Lads, whereas this article has room for a lot more, being about the native white Australian identity. The Currency Lads article indicates that the term grew obsolete by 1898, by contrast some of the sources I put in here came after that, indicating that Currency Lads was a 'period term' for the native White Australians. If there is to be a merge, the merge should be from Currency Lads into Native white Australians, probably under a separate section dealing with that subject. That would certainly be appropriate.

I've got the book 'The Native Born' by Molony, I will use that to expand the article.

Another book I saw was "THE HATCH AND BROOD OF TIME. A study of the first generation of native-born white Australians"; I haven't got that though.

Greglo (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Doing New Page Patrol, I do tell that my first thought about this page was to merge it to European Australians. My second thought was that all the references to Molony - with no online link to the text - is utterly feckless. I am going to the Wikipedia library platform to see what linkage is available. A lot of references are made to Molony. -- Whiteguru (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge needed. I recommend Australian Natives' Association. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

European Australians are a different subject and so is the Australian Natives' Association. The Australian Natives Association existed to advocate for who? The Native White Australians (also called the currency lads). A separate article is entirely justiﬁed, although there's no doubt it needs improvement. The article links heavily to Molony because evidently there are not many other dedicated books on the matter, although there are some. That's not a reason to remove this article, and in light of the fact that the redirect was done without consensus (and as I have said, is not justifiable) I will undo it. Is there a policy that says there should be an online link to the text? -- Greglo (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Exactly what is the difference between the subject of this article and Currency lads and lasses? As it stands, this article is based on one book and a bunch of antiquated, POV-laden newspaper articles. This does not clearly establish that the category/idea "Native white Australians" is a genuine concept supported by reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello AleatoryPonderings. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to working with you to make this a great article. As for the difference between this article and the other, that's quite simple. As I explained above in response to Boneymau, Currency Lads was a phrase to refer to native white Australians. It was used during the early-mid 1800s and gradually dropped out of use. It would be simply bizarre to have an article about a particular name for a particular group of people without having an article about the people themselves. As I said earlier, it is a 'period term'. To put it another way, this article encompasses the entire history of native white Australians, not simply those alive during the period they were derogatorily called Currency Lads.


 * Regarding your claim that one book and a bunch of antiquated, POV-laden newspaper articles does not establish "Native white Australians" as a genuine concept, that's easy. The sources here reflect what I had and could get a hold of in the brief window of opportunity I had when I created the article. I'm well aware that many were rubbish as far as they go, and some were obviously original research (since removed by another). There are many sources available to us, but few dedicated precisely to this subject. That should not be a reflection on anything: is the native white Australian identity during the Australian colonial period something that you expect to have a lot of dedicated reference books on? I don't think so. It's enough to have at least 2 books that were dedicated to the subject, alongside the numerous other more general Australian history books which document the colonial period. There's no doubt in any of them that the concept is genuine. But to prove that there is no problem with this as a genuine concept, it is sufficient to point out that currency lads is not in dispute as a genuine concept. The fact that native white Australians were called currency lads proves that native white Australians are a genuine concept. Currency lads was simply what some people called them. That article should be merged into this one, not this one into another. It cannot be the other way, because it is a period-exclusive term to refer to this people (which exist for a longer period) and because it is derogatory. Native white Australian is neutral and accurate term. If you have another term you prefer, please share it with us.


 * Dedicated references to native white Australians.
 * John Malony - The native-born: the first white Australians (I have this one)
 * Portia Robinson - The hatch and brood of time. A study of the first generation of native-born white Australians (I don't have this one)


 * It is not dedicated to the subject, but this book on the history of Australian republicanism mentions them clearly.


 * There's no doubt based on the references that it is a genuine concept. These are in addition to the books by other authors about colonial history.


 * Greglo (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm starting to see your point. Thanks for this explanation. My concerns about WP:OR in the article as it stands, but the existence of two books (one published by Melbourne University Press and the other by Oxford University Press) establishes notability for the concept. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be simply bizarre to have an article about a particular name for a particular group of people without having an article about the people themselves. The currency lads and lasses article is clearly about the people, not the name. "Native white Australians" is simply not a topic. The content of the article would mostly be appropriate at Australian Natives' Association but the content you're intending would be appropriate for British Australians and other similar articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR problems
This article is virtually entirely sourced to newspaper articles from the 19th century. We need contemporary historical scholarship to support the content. If none exist, this article should probably be deleted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We certainly do need more, but "virtually entirely" is not equivalent to "none". The article should not be deleted. Australian history is literally incomprehensible without a proper understanding of the native white identity. -- Greglo (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)4
 * Ok what direction is the intent on the article...to be like Old Stock Americans or a claim of ethnicity like American ancestry?-- Moxy 🍁 13:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)