Talk:Stolen Generations/Archive 1

Why did you remove History of public awareness
User:Paul foord, why did you remove the rather excellent "History of public awareness" section? Shermozle 08:06, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

did not remove History of public awareness
Please note it was vandalism by user:203.134.187.58. They removed History of public awareness. Paul foord 10:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

major rewrite would be excellent
A major rewrite would be excellent, sadly it will just be another of the unrealistic versons driven by those with the most political of aganda. The sad truth is that it was just one minor operation by the (largely church) do-gooders of the day, claiming they would be helping these children. Perhaps they did actually save some from rabbit holes or the like, but on the whole the operation was conducted without any willingness to accept that they were ripping families apart. The same disregard for the truth as the authors of these one sided reports now conduct. Indeed some 80,000 British children were shipped away from their homes at the same time, most never to see any of their families ever again. And more recently half the West Papuan population has been wiped out during the pass thirty years by the friendly Indonesian forces who invaded in 1961 to reverse the Papuan independance which Holland had been promoting. Yet these raise not a mention from the 'moral' majority..
 * What a load of crap. It was systematic and government sanctioned. Read the reports, whoever wrote this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The person who wrote this was right in highlighting the other abuses that occurred around the same time. Orphans were shipped to a church-run place called Bindoon near where I live, where they suffered awful conditions, forced manual labour and many were sexually abused. Apparently government figures turned a blind eye. The Aboriginal children were by no means the only victims of that awful period in the history of Australia. - Mark 14:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think a valid point can be drawn out of this. Taking kids from parents was standard (Commonwealth) government practice for any children whose natural family environment was deemed unsafe (ie. poor, retarded, or in this case Aboriginal parents). "Stolen Generation" has been made into a reference to merely the latter, on particular grounds, that it quickly spiralled into a gov-sponsored racist pro-Christian agenda. The other grounds for baby snatching should not be left unmentioned.--ZayZayEM 01:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * While I agree it would be good to put this in context, I've taken out the sentences regarding other forced removals on the basis that the sentences are very vague and don't actually provide any facts. If anyone has access to details of any acts of parliament, media reports about UK to Australia removals or other, that would be great. Ashmoo 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm launching a major rewrite of this article - I just finished reading the official report from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. In order to avert accusations of lack of NPOV I am going to quote from the official government report heavily - the accusations of bias might come because it is so appalling... Christ I had no idea how horrific it actually was... MMGB

Unfortunately this type of thing wasn't just happening in Australia. I believe that illegitimate children and orphans were being sent from British children's homes to Canada and Australia -- without meaningful consent from the children -- from the 1900's until the early 1960's. In theory it was supposed to give them a chance of a better life but in practice many of the children were very badly treated by strangers who took them in for a variety of reasons. -- Derek Ross

I know... it's amazing that these things could happen. Did you know that the Pope issued an official apology today for the involvement of the Catholic church in these forced removals?

Not relevant, but read this direct quote from the Stolen Generation report:

As Brisbane's Telegraph newspaper reported in May 1937, "Mr Neville (the then Chief Protector of Western Australia) holds the view that within one hundred years the pure black will be extinct. But the half-caste problem was increasing every year. Therefore their idea was to keep the pure blacks segregated and absorb the half-castes into the white population. Sixty years ago, he said, there were over 60,000 full-blooded natives in Western Australia. Today there are only 20,000. In time there would be none. Perhaps it would take one hundred years, perhaps longer, but the race was dying. The pure blooded Aboriginal was not a quick breeder. On the other hand the half-caste was. In Western Australia there were half-caste families of twenty and upwards. That showed the magnitude of the problem".

WHen I read that my blood went cold... - MMGB

I agree that it is quite appalling. As a non-Australian, I am curious as to how much that past racism is connected to the modern racism of the One Nation party. -- Egern.

What One Nation party? hehe - they don't exist anymore... the party fell apart about a year ago, and lost the only seat in government they had (in Queensland... our version of Alabama). The foreign media made such a big deal of the One Nation party, but they were always nothing more than a trivial and irrelevant movement. Certainly their views were racist, but then so are the views of the White Nazis or other such lunatic fringe organisations. The entrenched racist views would still exist in rural Australia, no doubt, but they are an incredible minority. All nations have racists, but it seems that the foreign media particularly like focusing on ours. - MMGB


 * Well, as an American, I can testify to the fact that most Americans know little about the rest of the world, and own media gives far too little coverage to what is going on elsewhere, including Australia. So I apologize about my ignorance concerning the death of the One Nation party.  To be honest, I don't think the One Party got much coverage here either.

Media particularly like focusing on other countries racists. Authorities were pretty fast and loose with children generally, shipping them about the world, sometimes even telling their parents the child had died... when you've done stolen generation, take a look at child migrants: http://www.childmigrants.com

Oh jeez... do I have to? I'm depressed enough as it is... :) I'm finding this article REALLY difficult to write well, by the way. -- MMGB

I think you're doing a great job, Manning. I've never heard of this before; it makes me angry to read about it. It's going to be very difficult to keep things NPOV, but I think you have the right idea with heavy quoting of government officials and documents. --STG

Fascinating, Manning--very good job.

It seems to me there are two questions that need to be answered better, however. First, what happened to the children when they were taken from their homes? (The government taking children from their homes! Horrific!  In fact I am surprised there hasn't been a major film made about it yet.)  This is never made clear. At one point it sounds as if they were taken and then simply killed. The second paragraph, in particular, only contains hints, where clarity demands that the differing views about what happened to them, if there are any, be stated explicitly. Are some of the present-day aborigines descendants of the Stolen Generation?


 * I have taken the (dubious) approach of handling the history of the stolen generation investigation first, then I will handle the details. Then I'll decide what order seems best (unless someone else decides for me). It was already 2AM when I quit, hence there are lots of areas left undone.


 * Yes, the Stolen Generation and their descendents most definitely do make up a substantial fraction of Australia's present indigenous community. Many indenenous politicians, notably, are part of it. --Robert Merkel

Second, is there anything like a consensus about what percentage were taken from their homes? If this is a point of disagreement, or if many informed people believe we simply don't know (or that we know it's only within some range), it seems to me that should be said. Right now it sounds as though one faction believes it's 100% and one faction believes it's 10%, which is probably a huge simplification of the situation, I imagine. --Larry Sanger


 * I'm looking for that - the official report does not provide a number, and the newspaper articles say that "Many believe 10% is an understatement", but they do not clarify what number IS more widely accepted or who these "many" are. I'm wurking ahn eet. - MMGB


 * It is a point of substantial debate. Records are incredibly sketchy, and it seems that there were at least some children who were given up for adoption "voluntarily" - though whether it was ever truly informed consent and what fraction of the Stolen Generation it applies to are difficult to determine.  One might even assume that the people concerned were kinda ashamed of what they were doing and didn't want the records to be too precise . . . --Robert Merkel


 * Yes, it is probably impossible to determine a valid number. At one extreme, you have the perfectly benign situation where mothers intentionally volunteered their children for adoption, as occurs in all western societies, and this can hardly be a cause for complaint. At the other extreme you have horrendous tales of children being forcibly and illegally abducted by police from sobbing parents. In the (very murky) middle ground you have cases where mothers "volunteered" their children under suspected duress and/or uninformed consent, and all shades of other variations. The records are appallingly bad, and it is unlikely that any true number will ever be determined. The figure of 30000 and a minimum of 10% seem to be generally accepted minimum numbers, hence I have used them. Frankly even if it was only 10 people, it would still be a horrifying actuality. - MMGB

notes to myself...
The following are all quotes from the official report: "inculcate European values and work habits in children, who would then be employed in service to the colonial settlers" "By the middle of the nineteenth century... [Governments] typically viewed Indigenous people as a nuisance." "Unlike white children who came into the state's control, far greater care was taken to ensure that [Aboriginal children] never saw their parents or families again. They were often given new names, and the greater distances involved in rural areas made it easier to prevent parents and children on separate missions from tracing each other" "Government officials theorised that by forcibly removing Indigenous children (of mixed descent) from their families and sending them away from their communities to work for non-Indigenous people, this mixed descent population would, over time, `merge' with the non-Indigenous population. "

I'd like to compliment you for the way you wrote this page -- TK

Thanks TK - it's certainly been the toughest article I've ever written. In case anyone is wondering why I have placed [sic] after every usage of "aboriginal" (instead of Aboriginal) - this is a specific issue of complaint by Aborigines in this country, one never writes "english people" or "american", and it is regarded as offensive to be denied the proper noun status. Pedantics might argue that "aborigine" also has a generic meaning (which it does) but it is not being used generically in these cases. Most government documents I have quoted use the lower case, so I have noted this with [sic] to indicate that the Wikipedia does not participate in this slightly derogatory behaviour. Interestingly, it is only around 1965 that government documents start capitalising the term. - MMGB - Article says:
 * and such a complaint would need to be heard at the International Court of Justice.

I wouldn't mention the ICJ here, since it is not the only body with jurisdiction, and the only way the ICJ could hear a case on the Stolen Generation would be if another State complained against Australia. (The ICJ has no jurisdiction over complaints by individuals, rather only by states.) But these sort of complications aren't relevant, so I'd just not mention the thing at all. -- SJK

--- I reverted the changes to the previous version. The sentence "Though Governor Macquarie funded the first school for aboriginal children in 1814 and the British government had by the mid nineteenth century estabished a system of protectorate authorities with complete authority over Aboriginal welfare and rights, the term Stolen Generation generally refers to the family seperations after Australian federation in 1901." doesn't make any sense, raises an irrelevant school created by Macquarie (that was a failure and shut after three years anyway). Most importantly it detracts from the key notion that the actions were performed with the full knowledge and blessing of the federal authorities, as is cited in the HREOC report.

The next statement "However as the size of the Aboriginal population was unkown, many did not speak english and lived away from any town; Section 127 of the 1901 Australian constitution stated "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal {sic] natives shall not be counted." is not only grammtically incorrect and has bad spelling (correctable), it is also inaccurate in its implications. The Aboriginal community were not classified as "civilised", therefore they were not regarded as a part of the commonwealth, it was not simply a matter of difficulties in counting. Also, even if this were the case that their exclusion of Aboriginals were solely a matter of challenges with the census, it doesn't change the fact that the legal interpretation was that Aboriginals did not have equivalent human rights under Australian Law. Again refer the HREOC report for verification. It's not pretty, but it is a verifiable truth.

I don't know who changed it or why - perhaps it was because they wished to soften the damnation that this article offers. But although I'm as proud as the next Australian, this is a pretty fair and unbiased article. The truth really WAS that horrible. I have no problems with corrections and improvements (as SJK has already done) but only when they improve the article and do not introduce fallacies and ambiguities. - MMGB

-

Somebody's edited this page again, and I found the last version more informative. I'm for a reversion to the previous version. --Robert Merkel

Good work so far. Big questions from me include who and why. Who were the people that thought this up, and how did it become policy? What did the people implementing this think they were going to accomplish? Do they think they succeded? -- ansible

Ansible - these are really good points, I think the article could be tweaked to give greater attention to the actual reasoning behind the actions. I'll do it later (at work now) - MMGB

Morning, I've pushed the date of the policies back to 1869. M.F. Christie (footnoted) highlights that the child removal policy was initiated in Victoria in the 1860s by well-meaning Missionaries. I recommend the book to everyone, btw. --Che tibby 22:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Some parts of this article still lack a neutral point-of-view. Not ALL Australians believe that the Federal Government should apologise for the atrocities committed by Federal governments 50 years ago. Also, how do we prove the report was an embarrassment for the Howard government? I doubt you can quote them saying that, and it must be speculation, which we definitely don't want in an article of this significance. Whilst I appreciate how important it is to investigate the stolen generation, does this article really have to be the place for people to air their grievances against the current Australian government???? - Mark Ryan


 * Mark, John Howard admitted the reaction of Aboriginals at the Reconciliation Council (IIRC) when they turned their back on him was embarrassing and on reflection he wished he had have handled himself better. Might I also suggest their constant attempts to poke holes in the report indicated that they probably wished it had never been written.  --Robert Merkel

Again, removed this, for much the same reasons as explained in Talk:Australian Aborigine. Tannin 08:39 27 May 2003 (UTC) ''Important: Since the 'Stolen Generation' is of much political importance in Australia, it is difficult to find unbiased facts. Many things even in this article may not necessarily be accurate. It is important to put the situation in perspective. Many mixed blood children in Aboriginal families were abused by their parents and simply did not fit in with the tribe. All in all, if you are studying this topic - make sure you read widely and of different viewpoints, because of the political nature of this topic. No one can claim to be the expert on this matter! Not even your lecturer!''

www.bennelong.com.au insertion
Just for the record, in this edit the anonymous user with the IP address 165.228.127.160 inserted the full text of this copyrighted article. I suggest keeping an eye on his edits. --Eloquence 06:08 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Whilst our copyright-infringing anonymous friend edits are not NPOV, we don't really cover the views of people who disagree who disagree on the facts and interpretation of the Stolen Generation. We should cover this part of the story better --Robert Merkel 08:32 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I would like to change the opening sentence from


 * The Stolen Generation is the generation of Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.

to something like


 * Stolen Generation is the term commonly used to mean the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972.

Why? Two reasons.
 * Style. We're trying to define the term "Stolen Generation" but we are using the term "generation" in the definition.
 * Accuracy and NPOV. Yes, this is a semantic argument, but this is an encyclopaedia, and and semantics are important. No definition of "generation" fits the actual group of children concerned.

What I am NOT trying to do:
 * Deny that it happened.
 * Diminish the awfulness of the events described.
 * Apologise for the people responsible, or defend the current government's (pathetic) response.
 * Try to stop people using the term "Stolen Generation". However I do want to see it defined accurately.

Anybody have any strong feelings one way or the other?

Icd 10:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * No problems here. - Borofkin 22:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Book?
Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book about the Stolen Generation? I'd like to read more. Amazon doesn't seem to have anything truly comprehensive.


 * I recommend the work of Henry Reynolds. Teutonic Knight 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I can reccomend petedavo 09:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My Place by Sally Morgan, Fremantle Arts Centre Press

History wars probably relevant
Not sure how it would be included but Keith Windshuttle, Centre for Independent Studies probably have pro-Howard but controverted views relevant to this Paul foord 07:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

see


 * ... sustained and well-publicised criticisms by Ron Brunton, the Director of the Indigenous Issues Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), in Betraying the Victims (1998). Paul foord 07:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Right-Wing media?
I don't think it's a good idea to state that "right-wing" media calls it the Stolen Generation. I'm from Australia and "Stolen Generation" is not the best term to use. I myself use "the so-called Stolen Generation" to speak about this period in history simply to be neutral about the whole matter. Labelling the people who call it "the so-called Stolen Generation" as right-wing is offensive and against NPOV. Perhaps we should change it to "often conservative" or some similar terminology. Werdna648 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ive just edited the part about "so called stolen generation" because it isnt conservative or NPOV to call it "so called". So called is a term of derision to cast doubt on how serious the matter was. Consider "so - called" holocaust, terrorist attacks, elected president etc. etc. If people have research that does cast doubt on the findings of the HREOC reports then that would be a useful contribution to the article. Also, I accept the people wish to deconstruct the use of the word "generation" so I elaborated on that. Fyntan 11:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But is it not so that it is called the stolen generation? It is not derisive, it is simply saying that that is what the event is so called. OzWoden (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Semantics. -(Bobbo9000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

problem with links
There is a problem with links on this page. Special those ending with au.com. The same problem occurs on the lemma rabbit-proof fence. --Joep Zander 10:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The links to pages in the age and SMH need to go because you cant look at old articles without paying for them Fyntan 12:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's add some facts
I don't want to argue with anyone, but some facts are missing here to make this article truly NPOV.

1) No government policy ever existed in the NT to support the idea of a "stolen generation". In a well known test case in 2000, Peter Gunner and Lorna Cubillo lost when a Federal Court in Darwin ruled it could find no evidence that the Northern Teritory ever had a policy to steal children for racist reasons. No evidence. None. Fact.

2) Nancy Barnes, an aboriginal activist, said in her autobiography ("Munyi's Daughter"), "We are referred to as the 'Stolen Generation'. I consider myself saved." So not all native Australian agree either. Fact.

We have a situation now where welfare organisations are reluctant to rescue aboriginal children in dire circumstances, where a white child would not have to suffer in the same situation. Fact.

As I said, don't argue with me please. These are facts. --Commking 26 September 2005


 * Your first point appears to be already in the article. As for the second, if you remove thousands of children from lower-class families and place them in richer ones, I'd be pretty damn surprised if a few of them didn't end up better off. I'm not arguing with you that those are 'facts', what you've missed is that they're utterly insignificant. --Last Malthusian 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What is significant is I've offered facts - you've offered opinion. The truth is, trying to put a racial slant on this is wrong (and I don't think you have yourself), when the truth is no such government policy existed. The result now is that white children are more likely to be removed from abusive and/or unsanitary conditions where indigenous children and more likely to be left due to the "stolen generation" connotations. Suffer the little children. Utterly Insignificant? I think not. --Commking 10 October 2005


 * Just noting that Commking's facts appear to come from Andrew Bolt's article from Sept 23. Like in that article, there is a missing causal link between the alleged stolen generation and the fact that Aboriginal children are less likely to be removed from abusive situations. There are other possible causes for this.

From Robert Manne's web page "Bolt has written that there was no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" children. This is blatantly wrong. One example must suffice. In 1934, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior in Canberra outlined government practice in the Northern Territory like this: "It is the policy to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs." What does Bolt think this means?" I think it means that Andrew Bolt isnt a credible source to quote for this entry, Ive been looking at his writing online and he doesnt reference anything that he claims. Fyntan 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In other countries
I removed a line about similar instances happening in the US, as it has no source. The Canada line at least has a source, but I'm still skeptical that the practice was comprable to what happened in Australia.--Cuchullain 19:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy?
This article refers to a "policy" several times. There is no source or external link given to the actual policy being referred to. What policy? If we can't see any evidence of a policy, we should get rid of this. --Commking 08:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody has come up with a policy yet. Thi is a very emotional subject for some people so I've allowed a very long time for any input. In the next few days I intend to remove all references to it. Last chance to come up with Citations or References! --Commking 09:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that this is an old post and that you have not removed the references to "policy" as promised; the main reference for this article is the "bringing them home report" (plenty of links to it if you want to look) which makes abundant reference to the various policies of removing indigenous children from their parents since the start of colonisation. I dont think the word "policy" needs referencing, since it is the policy of removing children, leading to the "stolen generation" that is the subject of this article. that might be just me, though Fyntan 12:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics as the policy source
A. O. Neville, Chief Protector of Aboriginals from 1915-1940 in Western Australia, believed that biological absorption was the key to 'uplifting the Native race.' Speaking before the Royal Commission, which investigated the administration of Aboriginals in 1934, he defended the policies of forced settlement, removing children from parents, surveillance, discipline and punishment, arguing that "they have to be protected against themselves whether they like it or not. They cannot remain as they are. The sore spot requires the application of the surgeon's knife for the good of the patient, and probably against the patients will."

In his twilight years Neville continued to actively promote his policy. Towards the end of his career, Neville published Australia's Coloured Minority, a text outlining his plan for the biological absorption of aboriginal people into white Australia. It is a classic example of the eugenics policies popular at the time in the Western world.

And I heard that there was some sort of scientific theory that was common in the early part of the 20th century known as Eugenics that was used throughout the world to justify castration, segragtion and other acts based on racial, mental, criminal and genetic discriminators. petedavo 09:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent arguments
Look, I love all this crap about how the stolen generation did the aborigines over. It makes the white folks who live in the city feel the way they know they ought to feel; guilty. We've got a guilt complex, and we know it. But the stolen generation is a great con of the Aboriginal Industry. It happened, yes. Terrible things happened. Just ask and of the Liverpool Children who were sent away from the Blitz in the middle of WWII and were told their parents were killed and vice versa. Its a British thing to do this, the believe the State and the Empire knows best.

But we have to be reminded why we must say sorry. Because its all our fault, us whiteys, what they do to themselves today. Our ancestors did their ancestors something bad, which means we are responsible today for what they do to themselves today with grog.

Let us not ignore the other side of the stolen generation story. Drunkenness and decreptiation are what's left after we'vecome and brought our grog to the aboriginals and taken away any supervision of it. The current generation of under 40's are, from my experience here in W.A., no good at all. Mostly drunks, violent drunks especially out in the bush. Its all over the news, now, as if our great conservative media had discovered it under a rock in the desert and it didn't exist before. But I'll tell you this, and it's true, those of th stolen generation out here in W.A. are the least likely to be sitting on a 55 degree sidewalk in Halls Creek blasted from their skulls on VB. They're the ones who have turned out decent.

And what are we supposed to do to redress the stolen generation? Give them more money to say sorry? Give them an excuse to blame us for their problems, which are all home grown? Give them license to get drunk and sell their kids off on the street to buy more grog? Or do we take these kids away from this generation of wasted drunkards, steal them away for their own good, teach them White culture and White work ethics and White attitudes to booze and money and respect for themselves?

Yeah. The stolen generation is as simple as "oh you poor aboriginals how terrible, mea culpa mea culpa". But there are those of the first generation who are glad they aren't on their arses drunk, and I'm sure, if you saw the way the current generation lives up in the north, you too would want to steal another generaion so that five year old kids don't get venereal disease.

So. Find a way to tell the story about how it did some good to some people. Tell the story about how its being used, now, as an excuse by aboriginals why they are social misfits, and why their grandkids steal cars and get killed on the roads. Because I certainly can't meet the current POV article with an NPOV rendition of the other reality of the non-stolen generation. And you all can't write dick about fuck all about the aborigines because you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolinator (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2006


 * Please try to keep discussion to how the article can be improved. - FrancisTyers 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Im new to this so I thought Id put it on the talk page first, by way of disagreeing with what rollinator said and also for comments as to wether this could be included as is in the article or if I should affect my own summary and then reference it, cheers.

"A three-year longitudinal study undertaken in Melbourne during the mid-1980s revealed the numerous differences between respondents removed in childhood (33%) and those who were raised by their families or in their communities (67%). Those removed were,


 * less likely to have undertaken a post secondary education;


 * much less likely to have stable living conditions and more likely to be geographically mobile;


 * three times more likely to say they had no-one to call on in a crisis;


 * less likely to be in a stable, confiding relationship with a partner;


 * twice as likely to report having been arrested by police and having been convicted of an offence;


 * three times as likely to report having been in gaol;


 * less likely to have a strong sense of their Aboriginal cultural identity, more likely to have discovered their Aboriginality later in life and less likely to know about their Aboriginal cultural traditions;


 * twice as likely to report current use of illicit substances; and


 * much more likely to report intravenous use of illicit substances (Dr Jane McKendrick, Victorian Aboriginal Mental Health Network, submission 310 page 22).

A national random survey of Indigenous people conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1994 allows us to compare further the life circumstances of the people who had been separated as children against those of the people raised by their families and communities. It shows no significant difference between the two groups with respect to their educational achievement."

Bringing them Home Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families April 1997 Fyntan 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed
There are too many claims without any references. This is Wikipedia guys, not Peter Pan. I shall go to the article and indicate where, in my opinion, a reference ought to be provided to back up contentious claims. Captainbeefart 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the last bit. Too hard. Somebody who has read all of the reports ought to step in to clean up this article. It is definitely not clear what is documented where. Captainbeefart 15:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Genocides in history
There is an article called Genocides in history and a section called Australia the section consists of two paragraphs the second of which is:
 * On a federal level, since at least 1901 it was Australian policy to remove 'half-caste' (mixed Aboriginal/European) children from their families. Defended in terms of social welfare, it is now perceived to have caused extensive emotional and cultural damage among the Aboriginal people. This practice falls neatly within the (otherwise shaky) UN definition: "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Australia signed the UN Convention in 1951, however the practice was continued until 1972. Individuals who were taken from their families are now said to belong to the "Stolen Generation".

As can be seen, it does not have any sources and refers to this article. The quote in the paragraph comes from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Who has made this claim? Because without a WP:V it ought to be removed. Also it seems to me from reading this article that the actions were a breach of the CPPCG this is accepted by most Australians, or the Australian courts, and as such is not a neutral point of view ((NPOV).

I am currently trying to clean up the Genocides in history page and would like to get some sources for the paragraph. I would prefer is someone who knows more about the subject than I would either make suggestions here for Reliable sources and a more balanced NPOV, or better still just edit the paragraph in the GIH article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV (Again)
I'm totally neutral on this subject as I know nothing about it, however reading this article it is -highly- point-of-view oriented towards the more left-wing arena. The introductory passage alone is very inflammatory. I would recommend to the editors and authors of this piece that neutrality, taking oneself out of the equation, and focusing on academic and most importantly encyclopedic writing technique is the forte required to get through this one. 211.30.71.59 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know nothing of it how can you tell it is POV oriented towards left wing?


 * Because there's hardly any argument for the "so-called Stolen Generation" and "it did not happen" sides. --Gunny01 07:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the connection between NPOV and denying history. Do you also feel that The Holocaust is POV because there's no mention of Holocaust deniers? Dazcha (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the connection between the supposed "stolen generation" and the Jewish "Holocaust" of WWII. Apples and oranges Dascha. Actually make that apples and bananas.OzWoden (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt
Andrew Bolt should not be used as a source in any Wikipedia work. His is an opinion collumist whose work is rarely researched and usually consists of extreme right wing politics that usually have no basis of fact. I'm not saying that right wing politics have no place in this article or any wikipedia reference, but if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously it should not source any "ēvidence" from this man.

What a load of demonising hogwash! - pure pojection. AB works with facts and is one of the few sane voices in Australia. Why don't his critics ever back up their smears with evidence? It's always the same, no matter who they disagree with - attack the man and obscure the facts. Hypocrites - Gordon Hewitt

I have been reading some of the articles by Andrew Bolt available on the internet and I am interested in helping to create a wikipedia article that soundly addresses his critisisms. I think his articles have created a renewed interest in "the stolen generation" and that there is probably a lot more traffic to this article as a result of him. I am having trouble identifying his research and specific critisisms of "the stolen generation" that arent addressed by the two reports compiled in 1995 and 1997. His claims that the women who created rabbit proof fence misrepresented themselves, and that the stolen generation does not exist at all are quite baffling to me. Could some of the supporters of Andrew Bolt please start posting facts that we can check? Fyntan 09:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How can they post facts when he does not? Andrew Bolt writes opinion columns and his claim that women who misrepresented themselves was simply along the lines of his belief that it was unlikely for children to make that journey.  I mean, he may well be right, but it is not something wikipedia can source. Disco 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did Andrew Bolt make a claim that the women misrepresented themselves? In this page:, Bolt seems to make the argument that it was the movie that misrepresented the book. Bolt challenged Robert Manne to produce a list of 10 names of mixed-descent children that were removed not from harm but from their aboriginality. Bolt says, "Robert includes Molly Craig, 14, and her cousins Daisy and Gracie, apparently because he saw the film Rabbit Proof Fence. But when Molly as an adult saw the film she declared “That’s not my story”, and if Robert had checked the book on which it is based he’d know why." Bolt claims that Manne - probably the leading voice of the Stolen Generations movement - could not even produce a list of 10 names of mixed-descent children that were removed from their families because of their aboriginality. If Manne truly is unable to do this task, then imo, that raises serious doubts about the nature of his research. Maybe most of these children were removed from their parents for genuine reasons...? Atreyu81 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Shared experiences of the Stolen Generation
Given the heated nature of the subject, I have removed the following, awaiting a source: "Not all members of the stolen generation consider being taken from their natural families such a bad thing. Alec Ross of Alice Springs is one example: he credits his long and successful life and career to being taken from his teenage mother as a infant when he was chronically ill with pneumonia and mentions with sadness that of his nine later siblings only one is still living. He notes that his very young age at which he was taken is probably a contributing factor in his positive experiences." Mdbrownmsw 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote from the "Bringing Them Home" Report.
 * "We were all happy together, us kids. We had two very wonderful old ladies that looked after us. It wasn't like an institution really. It was just a big happy family. I can say that about that home - United Aborigines Mission home that was at Quorn. Y'know they gave us good teaching, they encouraged us to be no different to anybody else. We went to the school, public school. There was no difference between white or black."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html
 * tactik 05:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that all information be verifiable but all of the sources for this section, with the exception of one which has no citation at all, are to confidential submissions meaning that it is not possible to verify the statements. On this basis it is hard to justify retention of this section.

Aditionally, generalisations are made based on a single, non-verifiable reference. For example "Generally the treatment of the fostered children was poor". The supporting statement for this has been awaiting a citation for over 3 months.--AussieLegend 07:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

first hand accounts
I think what is missing in the article is more first hand accounts of the experience. I know some autobiographies have been published ... Johncmullen1960 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very important. Firstly because it is clear that these "debates" are not even remotely interested in Indigenous people. So terms as "half catse" are highly offensive and highly racist, denoting the fantasy that race is biological - A fantasy which ensured that Indigenous children were taken away. People can debate actual number of children stolen til the cows come home, but the reality is that every single Indigenous community in Australia was effected by these policies. This "debate" isn't about how many children were literally ripped out of their mothers arms - but about the fear that was forced on Indigenous communities; it is about all the stories of Indigenous children knowing to run away when the welfare cars came; it was about the threats and coercion; it was about having brothers or sisters taken, or one of your parents being removed as a child. The one major difference between the white mothers who had their children taken away (unfairly much of the time, and this should be recognised) was that they were white. Aboriginal mothers were assumed to be uneqaul and inferior, and the white Australia policy continued to dominate the way people conceptualised this relationship. It is indicative I think that to look at who is talking when this "debate" is being had - very rarely does it include Indigenous people. And anyone who seriously think Andrew Bolt has anything even remotely logical to say about any of these needs to have their head examined. At least there are plenty of right-wing people out there who can string a sentence to gether about this - Andrew Bolt can barely manage this.

Citation needed (elsewhere)
I removed the fact tag. I said there was a ref at Internment, but this was wrong. Apologies. I reworded sentence, to the term at article, so I don't think there is a problem with this page. Except maybe for internment skeptics :) - Fred

Objectivity
I'd like to see some more objectivity to the article in terms of content rather than tone. I'd like to see an attempt at more accurately demonstrating the world view of the day. Rather than condemning the likes of A.O. Neville et al, I'd like to see someone objectively exploring the world view of the day epistemically, rather than writing an article of condemnation and moralising. The world was different then. Not even the great mind of Leonardo Da Vinci would have picked something like human evolution from the primates so lets not judge the Paternalism and Social Darwinism of that period through a 21st Century lens. I'm pretty sure I don't know enough about the topic myself but if someone is interested and prepared to help me I'm willing to try. I'm not for a moment suggesting a section of excuses indulging in the assuaging of guilt, but to explore what drove 19th Century thinking. I'm thinking primarily of John Locke, Voltaire, the Great Chain of Being etc. I'm thinking of an opening that goes something like:

"Paternalism motivated the practice of forceful removal of indigenous and half caste children from their parents in early 20th Century Australia. This can be contextualised within the evolution of humanism.

"Humanism brought science out from beneath the shadow of religion. The world became 'classifiable' and fledgling sciences were born.

" The judgement of the evolution of the indigenous Australian was first a technological one that begat the false assumption of an evolutionary status based on biology. They allegedly could not fend for themselves and it was believed the 'noble savage' could be civilised. Even James Cook's observations betray the notion of the day... of the 'noble savage' untouched by the scourge of civilisation."

To conclude this little proposal I'd just like to point out that if we had our time over again we'd know what the right thing to do would be.

Proberton 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not exactly sure what lack of objectivity you can be referring to. There is no condemnation of A.O. Neville in the article (the present version does not even mention him). The section entitled "emergence of the child removal policy" explores "the world view of the day epistemically" - I cannot find any trace of condemnation or moralising this section, just explanation. The section of the article which discusses moral and ethical debates over the stolen generation is under a separate heading, and as far as I can see all points of view are accorded fair weight. Edelmand 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Stolen Generations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724105956/http://www.tim-richardson.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Athe-stolen-generations-robert-manne&catid=67%3Aopinion&Itemid=72 to http://www.tim-richardson.net/joomla15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Athe-stolen-generations-robert-manne&catid=67%3Aopinion&Itemid=72
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23229208-7583%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.als.org.au/Publications/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C23140963-662%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.smh.com.au/national/howard-will-not-attend-apology-20080208-1qzm.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C23206474-661%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23206550-29277%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C23421344-2702%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/incoming/Chapel%20Guardian%20Ang%20%28I-AD%29.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.multicultural.online.wa.gov.au/wppuser/owamc/march03news/noongar.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://qldstories.slq.qld.gov.au/home/digital_stories/mt-isa_response
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C20371786-5000117%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.als.org.au/Publications/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Adelaide Sun
I can find no other reference to "Adelaide Sun", other than the quoted cite. My guess is it's a reference to the Sunday Mail (Adelaide), but changing it, especially because it is referenced, would be OR. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * State Library of SA had trouble finding the Sun too, but see refs added. It would be OR to dig out the clipping and verify the exact quote, but a search on the mother's name revels extensive data on Priscilla Karpany and baby Manuel. Perhaps others will be motivated to do the OR and publish it, so I have left the query (so far as it concerns the exact words quoted)as it stood. Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Search re Adelaide Sun or The Sun goes like this. (Query): "A (probably) related event can be found at:  The reference is around p 145: (iv) C. E. Taplin, Honorary Protector of Aborigines to Chief Protector of Aborigines, Flinders Street, Adelaide, April 21 1924. Dear Sir My attention has been drawn to the case of the native girl – Precilla Karpany – having her baby, nine months old, taken away from her under the provisions of the Aborigines Act passed last year. Also to the report of the occurrence, with severe comments thereon, published in “The Adelaide Sun” of April 12th. The tenor of that article makes a vivid criticism of the gross inhumanity of such a ruthless, and cruel administration of the Act. That a woman should have her own baby recklessly dragged from her arms, and taken entirely away from her, at the behest of a Government Official, because some female inspectress thought the mother an unsuitable guardian, is shocking to contemplate. What does the female official know of the right way to treat an aboriginal baby? As a matter of fact I have taken this young native woman into my own home, and find her clean and well behaved. Not at all such a character as might be expected to illtreat her own child......
 * This suggests 1924 as the date, rather than 1923. I can find no reference to a newspaper of this name on (The State Library of South Australia) site, and only one at the NLA newspaper collection, namely a reference of to the Adelaide “Sun” losing a libel case in 1924, reported in the Melbourne Argus."
 * (Reply - in part- says) "Sands & McDougall's South Australian directory for 1924 has a listing for 'Sun (The), Adelaide, Saturday (midnight)' in the Mercantile directory listing for Newspapers but there is no listing in the 1923 and 1925 directories indicating that the Sun may have been shortlived and that it may not have survived the £200 damages claim for libel awarded to plaintiff Clifford Otto Roennfeldt, musician of 9 Rundle Street Adelaide (Argus, 19 Jan. 1924, p. 34 [p. 32 according to Index to "The Argus"] ). ... Australian Securities & Investments Commission Index of corporate and business names lists Sun newspaper(Melbourne),Deregistered  28/03/1927  and THE SUN NEWSPAPER CO. LIMITED (Vic.) Deregistered   30/06/1915 but not Sun (Adelaide) although there is an Adelaide Sun Limited(SA), Deregistered   12/12/1940. The article "A newspaper sued"(Advertiser, p. 19 columns (c) - (d), 19/1/1924) names "the persons who are co-partners in the firm for the purposes of proceedings against them...[as] Thomas Alfred Humble of Fullarton - retired farmer; John McKellar Giles of Blackwood, journalist and Walter George Jones, of Willowie, pastoralist..." also naming Mr Giles as the editor who wrote the article. Also mentioned in the article are Archibald Alfred Thomas of Glenelg and Hugh Charles Howie of Goodwood Park, journalists of the Adelaide Sun.  I am sorry that I have not been able to track issues of the Sun for you and hope that one or another of the suggested approaches above will lead you to a more detailed account of Ms Karpany's mistreatment. The State Library of South Australia maintains a listing of local newspapers we would like to microfilm for preservation purposes and if by any chance you do locate copies of this paper we would appreciate it if you could let (the) Coordinator of our Preservation Services Team, know where copies can be found." Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the  tag. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This suggests 1924 as the date, rather than 1923. I can find no reference to a newspaper of this name on (The State Library of South Australia) site, and only one at the NLA newspaper collection, namely a reference of to the Adelaide “Sun” losing a libel case in 1924, reported in the Melbourne Argus."
 * (Reply - in part- says) "Sands & McDougall's South Australian directory for 1924 has a listing for 'Sun (The), Adelaide, Saturday (midnight)' in the Mercantile directory listing for Newspapers but there is no listing in the 1923 and 1925 directories indicating that the Sun may have been shortlived and that it may not have survived the £200 damages claim for libel awarded to plaintiff Clifford Otto Roennfeldt, musician of 9 Rundle Street Adelaide (Argus, 19 Jan. 1924, p. 34 [p. 32 according to Index to "The Argus"] ). ... Australian Securities & Investments Commission Index of corporate and business names lists Sun newspaper(Melbourne),Deregistered  28/03/1927  and THE SUN NEWSPAPER CO. LIMITED (Vic.) Deregistered   30/06/1915 but not Sun (Adelaide) although there is an Adelaide Sun Limited(SA), Deregistered   12/12/1940. The article "A newspaper sued"(Advertiser, p. 19 columns (c) - (d), 19/1/1924) names "the persons who are co-partners in the firm for the purposes of proceedings against them...[as] Thomas Alfred Humble of Fullarton - retired farmer; John McKellar Giles of Blackwood, journalist and Walter George Jones, of Willowie, pastoralist..." also naming Mr Giles as the editor who wrote the article. Also mentioned in the article are Archibald Alfred Thomas of Glenelg and Hugh Charles Howie of Goodwood Park, journalists of the Adelaide Sun.  I am sorry that I have not been able to track issues of the Sun for you and hope that one or another of the suggested approaches above will lead you to a more detailed account of Ms Karpany's mistreatment. The State Library of South Australia maintains a listing of local newspapers we would like to microfilm for preservation purposes and if by any chance you do locate copies of this paper we would appreciate it if you could let (the) Coordinator of our Preservation Services Team, know where copies can be found." Keepitshort (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the  tag. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the  tag. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent sleuthwork Keepitshort! Your last paragraph leaves no doubt that the Adelaide Sun was a real paper, however short-lived, so I've removed the  tag. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Mixed race
If these policies applied only to biracial people, why doesn't the lead say that? When I read it, I thought it meant only "full" Aboriginal and TSI children were taken away. 76.246.149.144 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance
Please remember to balance reports re the stolen generation with the true fact that many of the children taken from aboriginal parents were neglected and in fact close to death. The second born of twins, for example, was often left to another tribe member to be cared for, as the mother was only able to carry one child when on walkabout. Many nursing sisters and police officers from regional areas were concerned regarding the health of these children as they arrived close to death to be treated for various medical conditions. Some children would present 2 or 3 times and when this happened, the nursing staff would approach the local police officer to take the child to provide better care. I have no doubt that some children were given less than adequate care, but so were many white children also in care at that time. There seems to be little balance to reports of the stolen generations. There is a need to report the fact that many of the "stolen generation" in fact owe their lives to the well-meaning intervention of caring nurses and police from remote areas of our great country. Don't take my word for this; go and talk to retired nurses and police who worked in the remote parts of Australia. You may be surprised at what you learn. Kerry Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.26.84 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This may or may not be true, but to go and talk to "retired nurses and police" would constitute original research and should not be included in Wikipedia. What you need to do is find a secondary source, such as a history text, journal article, or biography, that confirms what you say and then include your statements in the article citing your sources.203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

fears of miscegenation and a desire to attain white racial purity
This claim should be removed if it is not supported by the reference given. It is illogical because to remove mixed race children from remote aboriginal communities to urban predominantly white areas would tend to reduce "white racial purity", not attain it. Qemist (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the quotes here? The explicit aim was biological absorption. "Half-castes" would be physically assimilated to produce white offspring, until Aboriginals "disappeared" and the entire population of Australia was white. It was quite coherent in the minds of those who advocated it. Aridd (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point that Qemist made is that people who are concerned about racial purity want to prevent intermarriage and mixed-descent children, not encourage it.
 * The idea that the Aboriginal race was disappearing wasn’t based on a sinister plan to ‘breed out the colour’. It was based on a widely-held belief that full-blooded Aboriginal people weren’t reproducing fast enough to replace their numbers (negative population growth) and that eventually the full-blooded Aboriginal people would all be gone; widespread infertility due to introduced venereal diseases was the major factor in this situation. It’s been argued that, in many areas of Australia, this was an accurate assessment of the situation until the development and distribution of effective antibiotics post-WW2.
 * Along with that was an ‘expectation’ that people whose ancestry was ‘only’ 1/8th, 1/32nd, 1/124th Aboriginal and who had been raised in a Westernised culture wouldn’t identify as Aborigines.
 * The quotes referred to are the personal opinions of 2 public servants not a statement of government policy. It is, as anyone who has any knowledge of the public service knows, quite common for public servants to hold and advocate positions that are contrary to the government policy. It’s not a problem so long as, when they are acting in their official capacity, they apply the government policy and not their own personal preferences. Any public servant who spent public funds implementing their own policies rather than the government's would be placing themselves in danger of going to prison for misuse of funds.
 * When the notion of controlling the marriage of mixed descent Aboriginal people was put to the government, it was completely rejected. J.A. Perkins, the minister in the Lyons’ government whose department covered what’s now called Aboriginal Affairs, stated in Parliament in August 1934 that: “It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter.”
 * There’s been an unfortunate practice of quoting the personal opinions of various people and then claiming that this was the government policy, rather than stating the real government policy.Webley442 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage!  My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too).  This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook.  Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo.  It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue.  If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote.  It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can.  So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”.  Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotes referred to are the personal opinions of 2 public servants not a statement of government policy. It is, as anyone who has any knowledge of the public service knows, quite common for public servants to hold and advocate positions that are contrary to the government policy. It’s not a problem so long as, when they are acting in their official capacity, they apply the government policy and not their own personal preferences. Any public servant who spent public funds implementing their own policies rather than the government's would be placing themselves in danger of going to prison for misuse of funds.
 * When the notion of controlling the marriage of mixed descent Aboriginal people was put to the government, it was completely rejected. J.A. Perkins, the minister in the Lyons’ government whose department covered what’s now called Aboriginal Affairs, stated in Parliament in August 1934 that: “It can be stated definitely, that it is and always has been, contrary to policy to force half-caste women to marry anyone. The half-caste must be a perfectly free agent in the matter.”
 * There’s been an unfortunate practice of quoting the personal opinions of various people and then claiming that this was the government policy, rather than stating the real government policy.Webley442 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage!  My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too).  This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook.  Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo.  It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue.  If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote.  It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can.  So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”.  Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There’s been an unfortunate practice of quoting the personal opinions of various people and then claiming that this was the government policy, rather than stating the real government policy.Webley442 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage!  My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too).  This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook.  Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo.  It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue.  If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote.  It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can.  So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”.  Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The critics are correct, Aridd. If you are afraid of "miscegenation" you don't then try to promote interracial marriage!  My understanding is that under the old "Jim Crow" laws in the American South, one drop of "black blood" made you black, and it was illegal for black and white to marry (and in other parts of the country too).  This is different to the stated aim of Neville and Cook.  Until comparatively recently, there was the common idea that "half castes" and "quarter castes" were rejected from both black and white societies and were in a limbo.  It seems fairly clear to me that the absorption of this "under class/caste" of people into the general community is about solving the problem of having a group on the fringes, rather than a eugenics or "racial purity" issue.  If it were about racial purity, they would have banned mixed race people from marrying whites, which is the opposite to what Neville and Cook tried to promote.  It seems to me that too many people are propagandising this issue, to the point of trying to use the most emotive language possible and demonising as much as they can.  So much so that mutually contradictory assertions are made: like claiming that wanting to push intermarriage and assimilation is equal to trying to promote “white purity” and preventing “miscegenation”.  Frankly such absurd, and illogical, claims damage the cause which is supposed to be promoted because it leads the careful reader to wonder if it is all exaggerated or invented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons
I think that the comparison (at the bottom) with New Zealand's 'Native Schools' is unfair. The Stolen Generations involved taking children away from their parents. The Native Schools involved instruction in Maori to Maori children. One is a form of state-sponsored kidnapping (if not cultural genocide), the other is not. Perhaps the comparison should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.158.29 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that the "Native Schools" in New Zealand are different, since they were taught in Maori. However even now Family and Children’s' Services have the power to take into care a child whose welfare has been deemed to be neglected by the parent(s).  I dare say this happens in New Zealand too.  Even if there were no specific idea of "taking aboriginal children" simply because they were aboriginal (this is disputed), Aboriginals were clearly going to make up a disproportionately high number of such removals due to the dislocation of their society (with many single mothers - a sign of poor conditions for children for most welfare people in those days), the wretched poverty of most aboriginals and aboriginal communities, and the lack of education (or access to it) of most such children and their parents.  It’s easy for a welfare officer to come in and say the children are living in appalling conditions (many probably were) and this proves neglect or unfitness by the parents.  So the “kidnapping” you talk of still continues, it is just that it is mostly non-aboriginals affected these days.  The law still allows the state to take children away from their parents if an officer deems it in the child’s “best interest”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that the "Native Schools" in New Zealand are different, since they were taught in Maori. However even now Family and Children’s' Services have the power to take into care a child whose welfare has been deemed to be neglected by the parent(s).  I dare say this happens in New Zealand too.  Even if there were no specific idea of "taking aboriginal children" simply because they were aboriginal (this is disputed), Aboriginals were clearly going to make up a disproportionately high number of such removals due to the dislocation of their society (with many single mothers - a sign of poor conditions for children for most welfare people in those days), the wretched poverty of most aboriginals and aboriginal communities, and the lack of education (or access to it) of most such children and their parents.  It’s easy for a welfare officer to come in and say the children are living in appalling conditions (many probably were) and this proves neglect or unfitness by the parents.  So the “kidnapping” you talk of still continues, it is just that it is mostly non-aboriginals affected these days.  The law still allows the state to take children away from their parents if an officer deems it in the child’s “best interest”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

After apology
I read this article on the ABC's website -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/24/2992280.htm?section=justin

A conference in Darwin has heard that there's been no changes after the apology.

This is probably notable enough to be worked in somewhere.70.189.214.56 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article dwells excessively upon the "apology" which, let's face it, was little more than political theatre, and undertaken specifically on the understanding that there would be "no compensation" as a result of it. Rudd specifically claimed that was his legal advice, although he didn't formally release it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article dwells excessively upon the "apology" which, let's face it, was little more than political theatre, and undertaken specifically on the understanding that there would be "no compensation" as a result of it. Rudd specifically claimed that was his legal advice, although he didn't formally release it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Extent of policy
Should it be mentioned in a small section that the child removal legislation wasn't limited to Indigenous families? More than 200,000 white children were forcebly removed from their "white" parents over the same time period and they are also seeking an apology. Western Australia apologised to them last year but are the only state to do so so far. Wayne (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Genocide
In Canada, the term Cultural Genocide is often used to describe the Commonwealth policy of the Residential schools to "take the Indian out of the child". It was the systematic stripping of a person of their language, culture and identity.50.71.50.203 (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that something about this should be added to the article? If so, you would need a reliable source that mentions it. Do note that near the bottom of the article is a link to Cultural genocide, part of our Genocide article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Andrew Bolt
Really a credible commentator on history? I personally think if he's included it should be under some kind of media-sub heading because as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as far as the academic community is concerned his 'opinion' is worth just about nothing to the actual discussion. It feels like the equivalent of putting Glenn Beck into the article on the Holodomor.--27.32.168.222 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's not credible. He is paid to be controversial. It's therefore hard to know what his real views are. He appears to have no particular qualifications to comment authoritatively on Aboriginal history. But he is influential. I see less value in his opinions than mine, and I no better qualified than him. (Not quite true, actually, but leave it at that.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He is absolutely NOT credible on this matter, having been criminally charged for the promotion of his views about Indigenous Australians. Keith Windschuttle is different because he is a historian and has a published book critiquing the historiography of the Stolen Generations. It's very much a minority view, but nonetheless done with historical analysis. A journalist is not a historian, though, and Andrew Bolt does not belong in this article at all. I have removed the references to him; they do not qualify as a credible source.
 * Vision Insider (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vision Insider (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Source(s) required
Regarding the text added by user Soundofmusicals: "These incidents had been used to justify the introduction of deeply controversial legislation by the previous Liberal administration that had all the hallmarks of the paternalistic policies that had caused so much damage to the Aboriginal communities since the mid-1800s; indeed had led to the 'Stolen Generation' in the first place. By including these references, many felt that Nelson was using his speech to offer a moral justification for past atrocities, while at the same time justifying current prejudiced policy. "

Soundofmusicals, you state that it "May well need rewording and/or better citing..." That text has no source or citing at all, the only source linked to that paragraph makes no such statements. Wikipedia policies include Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Unless you are citing or paraphrasing something from a verifiable source, then you are just inserting your own personal point of view into the encyclopaedia. If you don't have a verifiable source for your text, don't put the text in. If you have a source, cite it. Otherwise you should remove the text.121.208.25.28 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original research/original analysis has been removed as it is in clear breach of WP policy. If similar commentary is to be included, it needs suitable references. One can't include these types of comments without such references - at best it is original research and in this particular case also has a obvious POV bias.  Even the remaining (reworded) content is borderline and one-sided, but at least it is factual and supported with references.  Rather than simply reintroducing the removed content, the article would be well served with a balanced explanation of the reaction, supported by proper references Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original research/original analysis has been removed as it is in clear breach of WP policy. If similar commentary is to be included, it needs suitable references. One can't include these types of comments without such references - at best it is original research and in this particular case also has a obvious POV bias.  Even the remaining (reworded) content is borderline and one-sided, but at least it is factual and supported with references.  Rather than simply reintroducing the removed content, the article would be well served with a balanced explanation of the reaction, supported by proper references Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Questioning existence of Stolen Generations
Why in the Hells is this not included in the article? 58.7.198.176 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC) Harlequin


 * Probably because Bolt's commercially motivated displays of bigotry don't belong in a balanced, global encyclopaedia. (He gets paid to encourage real bigots.) HiLo48 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it would give undue weight to this "debate" relative to the body of accepted knowledge on the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for opposition
What is the source for:

the main reasons put forward for the rejection were concerns that a formal apology could be construed as an admission of deliberate wrongdoing, rather than reflect on the claimed original "well intentioned aim of Child Protection".

According to the age the reasons were:

''"I do not believe as a matter of principle that one generation can accept responsibility for the acts of earlier generation," he said. "In some cases, children were wrongly removed, in other cases they were removed for good reason, in other cases they were given up and in other cases, the judgement on the removal is obscure or difficult to make."''

article here http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/03/11/1205125911264.html

Unchartered (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Revision needed
The article requires major revision to address the following points more prominently at the beginning of the article :

The majority of historians would concede that the High Court conclusion that the purpose of the legislation was to promote the protection and welfare of Aboriginal people, and it did not authorise any act that could result in genocide, was correct and the interpretation of genocide made by the Bring Them Home report was incorrect opinion. Currently this is buried and stated in weasel words.

I also think the article needs a section detailing the perpetration of the myth due to (a) its quasi-incorporation into the national curriculum (b) Sorry Day (c) providing an excuse for continuing chronic social dependence, the failure of social programs, and more aggressive intervention. Engleham (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is genuine debate surrounding the use of the term genocide. There is not, however, any historical relevance to your other observations, such as the national curriculum, social problems and the like. If you believe these matters are related or even directly caused by the Stolen Generations then they belong in this article. Otherwise, there is nothing to add. Vision Insider (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is genuine debate surrounding the use of the term genocide. There is not, however, any historical relevance to your other observations, such as the national curriculum, social problems and the like. If you believe these matters are related or even directly caused by the Stolen Generations then they belong in this article. Otherwise, there is nothing to add. Vision Insider (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt references
You should just leave References about Andrew Bolt in the Articles. Whether you like it or not he has a large influence on many people. By editing his name\views out just makes the left sound fearful off him and makes is sound like the left is just trying to shut down debate instead of making the debate more detailed and complete. Have the courage to allow everyone to read as much as possible and come to there own personal, considered view point! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.74.210 (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the community's consensus regarding due weight as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is, we strive to provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding a subject. It is not a forum for debates or for pushing every contrarian viewpoint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the community's consensus regarding due weight as well as what constitutes a reliable source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is, we strive to provide a summary of accepted knowledge regarding a subject. It is not a forum for debates or for pushing every contrarian viewpoint. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Split
I think the section on the apology needs to be split out into its own article because of the following reasons: Thank you for your consideration and views. The name I'm proposing, Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples, is what the speech is called on australia.gov.au. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The apology itself is a notable speech, and its own historical event.
 * This article is a big article, and moving the apology to its own article will allow other sections of the article more closely connected to the topic of the Stolen Generations to grow.
 * I agree that such a split would be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"church missions" in lead
The mentions that children were removed from their families by govt agencies and church missions. But the rest of the article leaves the role of church missions completely unclear. The article only the govt's reasons for removal of the children, and only govt laws and policies are described.

In the passage from "Bringing Them Home" (section "Social Impact...") the Aboriginal person says he was put in a "mission dormitory", but this is described as the "government's past actions".

Are these in fact church missions? The lead seems to give equal weight to the actions of the government and church missions, but the article is silent on any church activity.Snarfblaat (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "The Apology Was A Public Relations Exercise" and "The Apology Was Justified"
I've decided to be bold and remove two large sections of text added in good faith by an anonymous user on 21 September 2016.

My primary reason for deleting these sections is that they are written in an essay-like manner (see WP:NOTESSAY); they pitch two arguments against each other and present the lines of evidence that support each perspective, with conclusions at the end of each. This does not fit the tone or style of Wikipedia and risks constituting original research. For example, the titles of the sections are presumably meant as a way of saying "Here are the arguments that...", but they result in Wikipedia stating, in its own voice, that the apology was a public relations exercise, and then that the apology was justified, which is taking a stance on a subjective issue, and furthermore is contradictory.

However, it does seem that there is some potentially valuable content in there. The sections appear useful, just not for Wikipedia as they stand, but perhaps someone could work elements of them into a form that works for Wikipedia. Hence this talk page post: I didn't want to just delete willy-nilly some good work done in good faith that could potentially be used to improve the article; I'd rather explain my reasoning and point to the existence in the edit history of those sections for anyone who wants to draw on them for additions to this article.

If they are to do so, I would just highlight that any sort of conclusion statement or synthesis of perspectives in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided as that would effectively be original research, and that (less significantly, but personal MOS crusades of mine) straight rather than curly apostrophes and quote marks should be used and headings should be in sentence rather than title case. Also, the "Other" section was meant to remain in the Comparisons section and was presumably accidentally pushed down by the 21 September editor, so try to keep that in place.

If anyone does read this and decide to make something of those sections, good luck, and thank you for contributing in more depth than I will today! BreakfastJr (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Keith Windschuttle – History Wars section
I've placed the NPOV tag to alert editors that the Keith Windschuttle's position is left wholly to represent the modern historiography in that section, without counterbalance from such historians as Robert Manne, leaving the section with issues of due weight. The editor in question only response is that I should do it myself (at the event, I am occupied elsewhere), but the onus is actually on the editor behind the new addition to ensure the article is well-balanced and not skewed outside of scholarly consensus. El_C 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the contentious info till it has been discussed here. I agree, the onus is on the editor adding new claims, and it certainly seems to fall under the due weight guidlines. --Dmol (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently the following is considered contentious and has been removed by an editor (Dmol) until it has been discussed here: Historian Keith Windschuttle argues that his analysis of the records shows that Aboriginal children "were never removed from their families in order to put an end to Aboriginality or, indeed, to serve any improper government policy or program". He argues that only a small number of children were actually removed (approximately 8,250 in the period 1880 to 1971 ), far less than the tens of thousands claimed, and that most of the removed children had been orphaned or were abandoned, destitute, neglected or subjected to various forms of violence, exploitation or abuse. These removals were based on traditional grounds of child welfare. He argues that his analysis of welfare policy shows that none of the policies that allowed the removal of Aboriginal children were unique to Aborigines and that the evidence shows they were removed for the same child welfare reasons as white children who were in similar circumstances. "A significant number of other children were voluntarily placed in institutions by Aboriginal parents to give them an education and a better chance in life"
 * Apparently the following is considered contentious and has been removed by an editor (Dmol) until it has been discussed here: Historian Keith Windschuttle argues that his analysis of the records shows that Aboriginal children "were never removed from their families in order to put an end to Aboriginality or, indeed, to serve any improper government policy or program". He argues that only a small number of children were actually removed (approximately 8,250 in the period 1880 to 1971 ), far less than the tens of thousands claimed, and that most of the removed children had been orphaned or were abandoned, destitute, neglected or subjected to various forms of violence, exploitation or abuse. These removals were based on traditional grounds of child welfare. He argues that his analysis of welfare policy shows that none of the policies that allowed the removal of Aboriginal children were unique to Aborigines and that the evidence shows they were removed for the same child welfare reasons as white children who were in similar circumstances. "A significant number of other children were voluntarily placed in institutions by Aboriginal parents to give them an education and a better chance in life"


 * 1. Windschuttle has written a book on the history of the Stolen Generations. All the material in the paragraph is sourced from the book, accurately reflects the arguments in it and contains accurate references to where the material may be found.
 * 2. Another editor (El C) has argued that "The onus is on _you_, as the editor behind the new addition, to ensure that in the context of the article as a while, it is well-balanced and that it does not provide a one-sided interpretation of the modern historiography" and that "Not adding the response to him in the historiography" violates undue weight. The argument that it is on the editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also add critical material is not, and has never been, Wikipedia policy. It has never been the responsibility of an editor adding accurately sourced and relevant material to an article to also locate and add any criticisms that may have been made. Please, point to an example of a situation where Administrators have upheld such an argument, if you can. I doubt that you will be able to because your arguments are a misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy.
 * 3. The article is heavily skewed towards the proposition that there are no flaws in the Stolen Generations thesis. Adding accurately sourced and relevant material from a critic of the thesis helps to balance the article.
 * 4. Other editors are not constrained from adding any relevant criticism of Windschuttle's position on the issue.
 * 5 This risks the appearance that the editors concerned are attempting to bias the article by removing material that they don't like on specious grounds. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One further point - the heading of this section is Keith Windschuttle overrepresented in History Wars section. Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now. Overrepresented? The only way that there could be less representation of his work is if all mention of him was removed. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of text (try to be concise), that does little to respond to our argument: the onus is on you, as the editor behind the new addition, to have the article represent scholarly consensus (i.e. a balanced representation of the modern historiography). Because, otherwise, it lacks due weight thereby rendering the article non-neutral. El_C 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the onus is on you to show that your removal of text complies with Wikipedia policy. I repeat as above "Windschuttle is a key figure in the History Wars. As it stands, the Stolen Generations article mentions him but makes absolutely no mention of what his arguments are. Readers are left to wonder what he has said because it certainly isn't in the article as it is now." Removing all mention of his arguments violates undue weight by skewing the article towards one point of view. You are violating the undue weight policy, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying it does not make it so. I think you'll find (am finding} that according to consensus, it is up to you. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * His view should be represented according to the weight it bears on the modern historiography—no more, no less. El_C 08:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. What arguments do you have to support the removal of the arguments of the chief critic of the thesis of the Stolen Generations so that readers of the article are left to wonder what those arguments are? Have you anything to say that can justify your violation of the undue weight policy by your removal of information about the opposing arguments regarding this issue? 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because, it makes the section unbalanced—failing to fully represent the scholarly consensus and the modern historiography. It's problematic to have article prose make such a significant comment unqualified; it makes the section too one-sided. It is, indeed, about living up to due weight, which your edit fails to do. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where there are opposing arguments in regard to a historical issue, the article is only unbalanced if the existence of, and the explanation of the opposing arguments are edited out. This amounts to clear bias by making the issue appear uncontested. That violates the requirement for a NPOV. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia NPOV policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." NOTE that it says "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". If the material seems one-sided to you (one-sided being the definition of bias) then follow Wikipedia policy which it that the material can be "balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective". If there are sourced criticisms of Windschuttle's arguments, then cite them as required by the policy. Do not violate the policy by removing sourced material. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: "Remove material only where you have a good reason believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."—I have a good reason. The addition violates due weight: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It is not fairly doing so in that section about the History Wars. El_C 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IP 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E: reiterating that the content is WP:UNDUE, that the ONUS is you present balanced addition content. As for claiming that you aren't edit warring: wrong. You either have a dynamic account, or have been IP hopping since early February in order to introduce your WP:POVPUSH. You fail to understand what WP:3RR means: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In other words, you must follow WP:BRD and not display the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been engaging in thus far. I would also suggest that you create an account. IP addresses do not guarantee you anonymity, nor do they assist other editors in knowing who they are addressing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. The section mentions that Howard opposed making an apology but makes no mention on his reasons for doing so, therefore the text explains nothing except that he opposed an apology. Herron made a semantic argument, not a historical one, when claiming that the term was wrong because 10% did not constitute an entire "generation" The text reporting that anthropologist Ron Brunton pointed out that the evidence in the testimonies was not tested for factual accuracy is neutral. There is no mention in the section of whether Brunton 'believes in' the Stolen Generation or not, merely mentioning that he criticised the flawed procedures in the Commission. The fact that the evidence was not tested doesn't mean that it was wrong, just untested. There is NO material in this section about the HISTORICAL DEBATE from the historian who has been the chief critic arguing that the historical evidence shows that the premise of the Stolen Generations is false. Every time some such material has been added it has been removed based on spurious NPOV claims. Removing the arguments made by one side of the debate does not create a NPOV, it creates, quite deliberately it appears, an article biased towards one POV, the one you clearly favour since you have only acted to help exclude material which criticises that POV. Interesting that you claim that I am the one pushing a POV when it is clear that you and others are the ones doing that by excluding as much material from an opposing POV as you can. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:6430:5D62:BCF1:678A (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor disagreeing with you, and you're the elephant in the room. Suggested reading: WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. What arguments do you have to support the removal of the arguments of the chief critic of the thesis of the Stolen Generations so that readers of the article are left to wonder what those arguments are? Have you anything to say that can justify your violation of the undue weight policy by your removal of information about the opposing arguments regarding this issue? 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because, it makes the section unbalanced—failing to fully represent the scholarly consensus and the modern historiography. It's problematic to have article prose make such a significant comment unqualified; it makes the section too one-sided. It is, indeed, about living up to due weight, which your edit fails to do. El_C 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where there are opposing arguments in regard to a historical issue, the article is only unbalanced if the existence of, and the explanation of the opposing arguments are edited out. This amounts to clear bias by making the issue appear uncontested. That violates the requirement for a NPOV. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia NPOV policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." NOTE that it says "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased". If the material seems one-sided to you (one-sided being the definition of bias) then follow Wikipedia policy which it that the material can be "balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective". If there are sourced criticisms of Windschuttle's arguments, then cite them as required by the policy. Do not violate the policy by removing sourced material. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes: "Remove material only where you have a good reason believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."—I have a good reason. The addition violates due weight: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." It is not fairly doing so in that section about the History Wars. El_C 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IP 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E: reiterating that the content is WP:UNDUE, that the ONUS is you present balanced addition content. As for claiming that you aren't edit warring: wrong. You either have a dynamic account, or have been IP hopping since early February in order to introduce your WP:POVPUSH. You fail to understand what WP:3RR means: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In other words, you must follow WP:BRD and not display the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour you have been engaging in thus far. I would also suggest that you create an account. IP addresses do not guarantee you anonymity, nor do they assist other editors in knowing who they are addressing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. The section mentions that Howard opposed making an apology but makes no mention on his reasons for doing so, therefore the text explains nothing except that he opposed an apology. Herron made a semantic argument, not a historical one, when claiming that the term was wrong because 10% did not constitute an entire "generation" The text reporting that anthropologist Ron Brunton pointed out that the evidence in the testimonies was not tested for factual accuracy is neutral. There is no mention in the section of whether Brunton 'believes in' the Stolen Generation or not, merely mentioning that he criticised the flawed procedures in the Commission. The fact that the evidence was not tested doesn't mean that it was wrong, just untested. There is NO material in this section about the HISTORICAL DEBATE from the historian who has been the chief critic arguing that the historical evidence shows that the premise of the Stolen Generations is false. Every time some such material has been added it has been removed based on spurious NPOV claims. Removing the arguments made by one side of the debate does not create a NPOV, it creates, quite deliberately it appears, an article biased towards one POV, the one you clearly favour since you have only acted to help exclude material which criticises that POV. Interesting that you claim that I am the one pushing a POV when it is clear that you and others are the ones doing that by excluding as much material from an opposing POV as you can. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:6430:5D62:BCF1:678A (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor disagreeing with you, and you're the elephant in the room. Suggested reading: WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This section titled “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” has been edited to remove ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view. The section mentions that Howard opposed making an apology but makes no mention on his reasons for doing so, therefore the text explains nothing except that he opposed an apology. Herron made a semantic argument, not a historical one, when claiming that the term was wrong because 10% did not constitute an entire "generation" The text reporting that anthropologist Ron Brunton pointed out that the evidence in the testimonies was not tested for factual accuracy is neutral. There is no mention in the section of whether Brunton 'believes in' the Stolen Generation or not, merely mentioning that he criticised the flawed procedures in the Commission. The fact that the evidence was not tested doesn't mean that it was wrong, just untested. There is NO material in this section about the HISTORICAL DEBATE from the historian who has been the chief critic arguing that the historical evidence shows that the premise of the Stolen Generations is false. Every time some such material has been added it has been removed based on spurious NPOV claims. Removing the arguments made by one side of the debate does not create a NPOV, it creates, quite deliberately it appears, an article biased towards one POV, the one you clearly favour since you have only acted to help exclude material which criticises that POV. Interesting that you claim that I am the one pushing a POV when it is clear that you and others are the ones doing that by excluding as much material from an opposing POV as you can. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:6430:5D62:BCF1:678A (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only editor disagreeing with you, and you're the elephant in the room. Suggested reading: WP:BLUDGEON. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you are unable to address the real issue with any valid arguments. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can address that issue in a meaningful way, WP:BLUDGEON is a red herring, you are simply trying to divert attention from your own actions in trying to assist other editors to bias this article by excluding content which conflicts with their POV. The fact that a relatively small group of editors agree among themselves to bias an article by controlling what POV can be represented in the article is a matter of concern to anyone who uses Wikipedia. The phenomenon of editors 'commandeering' or 'sanitizing' articles to push only their favoured POV (along with the repeated failure of administrators to deal with it) is the great flaw in Wikipedia. 124.181.48.192 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you are an SPA who doesn't want to get an account for fear of the recognition of all of your editing revolving around this article. Stop IP hopping and behave like a serious editor if you believe you should be taken seriously. Your WP:TL;DR tirades are getting tedious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again you are avoiding the real issue because you have no valid arguments in your favour. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can make a valid argument against including the opposing arguments, it is impossible to conclude anything but that you want to bias the article. Your attacks on me because I want a balanced article and obviously you don't, give you away to any objective reader of this talk page. Stop avoiding the real issue. Either produce a valid argument or admit your bias and stop obstructing. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:2D78:8AF9:62C0:3226 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again you are avoiding the real issue because you have no valid arguments in your favour. ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out of this article. Unless you can make a valid argument against including the opposing arguments, it is impossible to conclude anything but that you want to bias the article. Your attacks on me because I want a balanced article and obviously you don't, give you away to any objective reader of this talk page. Stop avoiding the real issue. Either produce a valid argument or admit your bias and stop obstructing. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:2D78:8AF9:62C0:3226 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:D5C2:41E0:A153:C2E4 (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 1
The following is the existing text in the section under dispute 'sorted' in order to show the relative proportions of text as it relates to each POV:

Neutral wording in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations”

The word "stolen" is used here to refer to the Aboriginal children having been taken away from their families. It has been in use for this since the early 20th century. Historian Inga Clendinnen suggests that the term genocide rests on the "question of intentionality", saying: "There's not much doubt, with great murderous performances that were typically called genocide, that they were deliberate and intentional. Beyond that, it always gets very murky."[98]

In most jurisdictions, Indigenous Australians put under the authority of a Protector, effectively being made wards of the State.[83][84] The protection was done through each jurisdiction's Aboriginal Protection Board; in Victoria and Western Australia these boards were also responsible for applying what were known as Half-Caste Acts.

Anthropologist Ron Brunton also criticised the proceedings on the basis that there was no cross-examination of those giving their testimonies or critical examination of the factual basis of the testimony.[92]

Wording which favours the Stolen Generations thesis and containing statements regarding the historical basis for it.

For instance, Patrick McGarry, a member of the Parliament of New South Wales, objected to the Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 which authorised the Aborigines' Protection Board to remove Aboriginal children from their parents without having to establish cause. McGarry described the policy as "steal[ing] the child away from its parents".[32] In 1924,[80] the Adelaide Sun wrote: "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."[81][82] More recent usage has developed since Peter Read's publication of The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (1981), which examined the history of these government actions.[3] The 1997 publication of the government's Bringing Them Home – Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families[85] heightened awareness of the Stolen Generations. The acceptance of the term in Australia is illustrated by the 2008 formal apology to the Stolen Generations,[86] led by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and passed by both houses of the Parliament of Australia. Previous apologies had been offered by State and Territory governments in the period 1997–2001.[87] The Bringing Them Home report provided extensive details about the removal programs and their effects. Sir Ronald Wilson, former President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commissioner on the Inquiry, stated that "when it comes to the credibility of those stories, there is ample credibility, not from the cross-examination of the children themselves, but from the governments whose laws, practices and policies enabled these forced removals to take place. We had the support of every State government; they came to the Inquiry, came with lever-arch files setting out the laws from the earliest days right up to the end of the assimilation policy, that is up to the 1970s and more importantly, senior government offices attended. In every case, these senior officers acknowledged that there was a lot of cruelty in the application of those laws and policies."[92]

Historian Peter Read referred to the children affected as the "Stolen Generations". Another historian, Robert Manne, defended that terminology, making the analogy that other people refer to the "generation that lost their lives in the First World War" without meaning over 50 per cent of the young people at the time; rather, people use that phrasing as a metaphor for a collective experience. Similarly, he believes, some of the Aboriginal community use the term to describe their collective suffering.[94] Sir Ronald Wilson, President of Australia's Human Rights Commission, alleged that the policies resulting in the Stolen Generations constitute attempted genocide by the government, as it was widely believed at the time that the Aborigines would die out.[95] In its 12th report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Australian Government denied that the removal policies and programs constituted a breach of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[96]

Manne argues that the expressed views of government bureaucrats, such as A. O. Neville, to assimilate the mixed-race children into the white population by means of "breeding out the colour", and therefore eventually resulting in the full-bloods being "forgotten", bore strong similarities to the racial views of the Nazis in 1930s Nazi Germany.[97] Manne points out that, though the term "genocide" had not yet entered the English language, the policies of Neville and others were termed by some contemporaries as the "die out" or "breed out" policy, giving an indication of their proposed intent.[97] He also states that academics "generally acknowledge" that the authors of the Bringing Them Home report were wrong to argue that Australian authorities had committed genocide by removing indigenous children from their families. Social assimilation has never been regarded in law as equivalent to genocide.[97]

Though historian Paul Bartrop rejects the use of the word genocide to describe Australian colonial history in general, he does believe that it applies to describing the Stolen Generations. Bartrop and US scholar Samuel Totten together wrote the Dictionary of Genocide, for which Bartrop wrote the entry on Australia. He said he used as the benchmark for usage of the term genocide the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which had also been cited by Wilson in his 1997 Bringing Them Home report.[98]

Many historians argue against these denials, including to Windschuttle in particular.[91]

Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis There is some opposition to the concept of the term "Stolen Generations". Former Prime Minister John Howard did not believe the government should apologise to the Australian Aborigines. Then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs John Herron disputed usage of the term in April 2000.[88] Others who disputed the use of the term include Peter Howson, who was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs from 1971 to 1972, and Keith Windschuttle, an Australian historian who argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have been exaggerated and in some cases invented.[89][90] In April 2000, Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Herron tabled a report in the Australian Parliament in response to the Human Rights Commission report which stated that, as "only 10% of Aboriginal children" had been removed, they did not constitute an entire "generation".[88] The report attracted media attention and protests.[93] Herron apologised for the "understandable offence taken by some people" as a result of his comments, although he refused to alter the report as it had been tabled.

'''Wording in this section that explains the historical basis for arguing that the Stolen Generations thesis is false. '''

ZERO, i.e. none, nothing - all edited out.

2001:8003:642A:6C00:7882:D1C3:9C8E:7DF6 (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Text excerpts hidden/collapsed 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) by Sangdeboeuf (talk))
 * You gotta condense your thoughts better. It's too lengthy. It's not fair subjecting us to this much text. And please consider registering an account, ZERO, it would make things much easier for everyone. The point is consensus, here on Wikipedia and in the historiography—try addressing that, briefly. El_C 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How horrible for you to have to read something longer than 140 characters. If you'd bothered to even glance at the text above you might have noticed that what is above, everything after the point where I noted that I have referred the issue to the NPOV Noticeboard, is just the text of the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” sorted in order to show the relative proportions of text as discussed from the differing POVs. You might have also noticed that the word ZERO at the end of it is under the category "Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis". It's there to make it easy for any objective readers of this page to realize that ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view have been edited out, that while there is ample content representing the pro side of the argument, there is ZERO content left in the section “Historical debate over the Stolen Generations” from the opposing side of the historical debate. The article has been sanitised so that only one POV is represented. The historiography of the Stolen Generations is that it has been a hotly contested issue and still is. Since it has been a controversial issue, readers of the article might like to know why, i.e. they might like to know what arguments the opposing side presented. Sanitising an article is not presenting a NPOV, it is the exact opposite.
 * How about a response to the actual issue rather than obsess over the fact that I don't use an account?
 * PS there is a reason that I haven't registered an account. I am aware of at least 3 editors who were hounded off Wikipedia by trolls. The trolls all used the same technique - once they decided that they didn't like an editor, they identified what contributions that editor had made and set about reverting, overwriting and generally wiping out any contributions that editor had made. Dealing with them became so time-consuming that the editors all just gave up editing Wikipedia. Is that the sort of thing that you mean when you say "it would make things much easier for everyone"? No thanks, I'll stick with my dynamic IP address; it limits the potential damage. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I reject your assumptions of bad faith about registering an account—though maybe it helps when you are an single purpose account with only one aim on Wikipedia. I also reject the notion that you need to be so longwinded—you can and ought to condense your thoughts much more briefly, thereby having a better chance they'd be read closely, by myself, or anyone else. Drowning us in text is not the way to advance your argument. Finally, I reject the claim the article has been sanitized of opposing views—if anything, these are overrepresented well beyond scholarly consensus. El_C 07:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, avoiding the issue, denial, but no rational explanations as to how removing ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view makes for a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my response: I dispute that all opposing views had been removed, as you claim. And furthermore, I challenge that, if anything, the minority point of view is overrepresented in the article, enough to constitute undue weight. El_C 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS there is a reason that I haven't registered an account. I am aware of at least 3 editors who were hounded off Wikipedia by trolls. The trolls all used the same technique - once they decided that they didn't like an editor, they identified what contributions that editor had made and set about reverting, overwriting and generally wiping out any contributions that editor had made. Dealing with them became so time-consuming that the editors all just gave up editing Wikipedia. Is that the sort of thing that you mean when you say "it would make things much easier for everyone"? No thanks, I'll stick with my dynamic IP address; it limits the potential damage. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I reject your assumptions of bad faith about registering an account—though maybe it helps when you are an single purpose account with only one aim on Wikipedia. I also reject the notion that you need to be so longwinded—you can and ought to condense your thoughts much more briefly, thereby having a better chance they'd be read closely, by myself, or anyone else. Drowning us in text is not the way to advance your argument. Finally, I reject the claim the article has been sanitized of opposing views—if anything, these are overrepresented well beyond scholarly consensus. El_C 07:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, avoiding the issue, denial, but no rational explanations as to how removing ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view makes for a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my response: I dispute that all opposing views had been removed, as you claim. And furthermore, I challenge that, if anything, the minority point of view is overrepresented in the article, enough to constitute undue weight. El_C 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, avoiding the issue, denial, but no rational explanations as to how removing ALL the arguments criticising the premise of the Stolen Generations from a historical point of view makes for a NPOV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:9159:D3A6:4C2A:D773 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my response: I dispute that all opposing views had been removed, as you claim. And furthermore, I challenge that, if anything, the minority point of view is overrepresented in the article, enough to constitute undue weight. El_C 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Break 2
IP hopper: There is no 'break 2'. Again, read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTHERE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, Break 2 was inserted by El_C, not me, perhaps you could ask him why. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:NOTHERE are more red herrings and more Wikilawyering [] by you. I am simply trying to achieve a balanced article despite the efforts of you and the other editors to promote only one POV. 2001:8003:642A:6C00:8C54:1E4D:7B89:BC10 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I added break 1 and 2, for ease of use in the legend—because the IP's textwalls are rather lengthy. El_C 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . The WALLS were doing my head in, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, . The WALLS were doing my head in, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I have refactored this discussion somewhat to hide lengthy, quoted excerpts and more clearly indicate the flow of replies to comments. Hope it helps. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"On the other hand"
This looks like an example of undue WP:WEIGHT or WP:FALSEBALANCE based entirely on WP:SYNTHESIS of primary sources. Any help finding reliable, secondary sources to support this analysis would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that analysis. El_C 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bishop Gsell
This is another example of giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the opinion of some person, based entirely on WP:ORIGINAL analysis of a WP:PRIMARY source – if reliable, secondary sources have commented on Gsell's "defending" of the policy, then fine. If not, then why is the quote here other than to provide a WP:FALSEBALANCE to mainstream scholarship on the issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks again; looks like more WP:SYNTH. El_C 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that, . The article has been in need of a clean-up for some time. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Background
I think some background information regarding the European colonization of Australia would be very helpful for establishing the context in which the child removal policies occurred. A "See also" link such as to, or to could direct readers to more detailed information. Consider the following statements by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission concerning the Northern Territory:

"Very soon explorers such as Leichhardt and Giles trekked across the Territory in earnest.This exploration revealed the great wealth of natural resources in the Northern Territory that would bring a flood of mining companies, pastoralists and gold diggers. By the late 1880s most lands were occupied for some kind of development, much of it by large companies.

"The occupation and exploitation of land in the Northern Territory was achieved by dispossessing another community – Indigenous people. Forced off their land, Indigenous people moved to work on farm stations or in the mines (with Chinese immigrants).The farm stations were particularly dependent on Indigenous labour, but paid barely subsistence wages in the knowledge that Indigenous people had few other choices.

"Other Indigenous people set up camps on the outskirts of non-Indigenous townships.

"The rapid pace of development and non-Indigenous expansion gave rise to violence on both sides.The police played a strong role in controlling this violence, though usually by taking the side of the non-Indigenous developers".



Any help finding other sources for background information would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Other - Imperial Russia, Ottoman Turkey

 * Russia (19 Century) kidnapped Asian children to educate them and use them as administrators.
 * Devshirme Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with improving this article unless reliable sources explicitly compare these things with the kidnapping of Indigenous Australian children. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So please remove the subsection, which lacks sources.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the section in question now. You're welcome to make edits to the page yourself. However, I have removed the content whose relevance to this article is not supported by sources, and placed links to those topics under "See also". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FYE, Xx236 has been a Wikipedia gnome for many years. His English is awkward, so he's reticent to make content changes without someone at least proof reading them. I follow up on his observations on talk pages as he has a keen eye for detail, plus provides links to usable material. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Source : http://www.originsamerica.org/adoption-trauma/adoption-induced-ptsd-in-mothers/ Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)