Talk:Stolen Generations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:32, 26 January 2022 editSangdeboeuf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users53,593 edits →top: Auto-archiving – page is over 110 KB with multiple stale discussions← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:59, 27 November 2024 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users53,593 edits →top: Stray line break
(44 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Controversial\|date=June 2017}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{Controversial\|date=June 2017}}
			{{On this day\|date1=2011-02-13\|oldid1=413662608\|date2=2014-02-13\|oldid2=595101184}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|
			{{WikiProject Discrimination\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Ethnic groups\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Australia\|importance=High\|Indigenous=yes\|Indigenous-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Women's History\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=Mid}}
			}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	\| age=17600		\| age=17600
Line 10:		Line 19:
	\| minarchthreads=2		\| minarchthreads=2
	\| format= %%i		\| format= %%i
	}}
	{{On this day\|date1=2011-02-13\|oldid1=413662608\|date2=2014-02-13\|oldid2=595101184}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Discrimination\|class=B\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Ethnic groups\|class=B\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject Australia\|class=B
	\|importance=High\|Indigenous=yes\|Indigenous-importance=top}}
	{{WikiProject Women's History\|class=B\|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement
	\|class=B
	\|importance=High}}
	}}		}}
	{{Split article\|from=Stolen Generations\|from_oldid=844812669\|to=Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples\|diff=845379478\|date=11 June 2018‎}}		{{Split article\|from=Stolen Generations\|from_oldid=844812669\|to=Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples\|diff=845379478\|date=11 June 2018‎}}
Line 26:		Line 24:
	\| f1= {{cite journal \|last1=De Bono \|first1=Arielle \|title=Seeing Aboriginal history in black and white: the contested history of the Stolen Generation \|journal=NEW: Emerging scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies \|date=2018 \|volume=2 \|issue=1 \|pages=1–8 \|doi=10.5130/nesais.v2i1.1465 \|doi-access=free \|url=https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/NESAIS/article/download/1465/1548/0 \|issn=2208-1232 \|format=PDF}}		\| f1= {{cite journal \|last1=De Bono \|first1=Arielle \|title=Seeing Aboriginal history in black and white: the contested history of the Stolen Generation \|journal=NEW: Emerging scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies \|date=2018 \|volume=2 \|issue=1 \|pages=1–8 \|doi=10.5130/nesais.v2i1.1465 \|doi-access=free \|url=https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/NESAIS/article/download/1465/1548/0 \|issn=2208-1232 \|format=PDF}}
	}}		}}

	==Historical debates over the Stolen Generations==
	{{NPOV-section\|February 2014}}
	This section is flat out appalling. It does not contain any debates at all, rather it is almost entirely a series of denials about the Stolen Generations. I'd also suggest that Andrew Bolt is NOT a reliable source on this issue as the Australian Courts have convicted him of hate speech before.

	Ideally, this article would be best rewritten by informed opinions who are not Australian. This article is of a poor quality, especially this section. That said, it is still possible to retain it, but not in its current form. The "debate" takes more space than the explanation of the events.

	In short, there is more on this page that disputes the Stolen Generations than explains what they were. The "denial" position is not the consensus historical view, and does not deserve such heavy weighting.
	] (]) 04:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

	The debate over the term Stolen Generations should absolutely not come within the lead in. Misplaced Pages's convention is to have criticisms towards the end, or at the end, of an article. There is still too much weight given to the debate and not a lot on the issue itself, the effects and the people involved.

	I've also removed Andrew Bolt altogether. He is not a historian and is not a credible source, so doesn't belong whatsoever in this article. That's not sour grapes because I disagree with him; Windschuttle is a historian who disagrees with the consensus and his material remains within. That said, I read through the sources provided and one of them is not only NOT a reliable source, but didn't even include the quote being used.

	I appeal to historians other than Australians to write this article because there is generally a lack of objectivity in such issues within Australia. For one thing, the "controversy" surrounding the Stolen Generations does not really exist outside of Australia and it is given too much weight here. It is similar to expecting that the Apartheid articles in South Africa would be better written by historians who are not South African. ] (]) 05:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

	I know that I'm the only one writing in this thread, but this article desperately needs attention. Suggestion that the ''Stolen Generations'' do not exist are a minority opinion that is, for the most part, not credible (presumably this is why Windschuttle is used so much throughout this article; no other historians agree with him). That's not to say that the section debating it doesn't belong, as uncomfortable as it may make people. HOWEVER, the bulk of this article is either on the Federal Government apology OR the arguments surrounding the issue. There are many cases that could be used to explain what the Stolen Generations were, and how they affected people. ] (]) 05:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
	:
	: Hi. I've tried to improve the NPOV in this section, and for now have removed the issue sign, but if you think there are still issues or improvements please do add them. ] (]) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
	{{od\|2}}
	1. Text that reads that Windschuttle "argues that various abuses towards Australian Aborigines have, in some cases, been exaggerated and in other cases, invented" is an accurate statement of his position. The terms 'denies', 'denier' and 'denial' are commonly linked to Holocaust Denial and their use with respect to a historian who does not deny that there were abuses but argues for an accurate assessment of what abuse did occur would fail the requirement for a NPOV.

	2. Please refrain from using the terms 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines. Basically 'Aboriginal' is only to be used as an adjective, not as a noun.
	Some Aboriginal people consider being called an 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' insulting. It was explained to me by Aboriginal people that when they hear the terms used that way they feel like it is being deliberately done and that white people who use them are avoiding using the words 'person' or 'people', that they are being called an Aboriginal 'something' but not a person. It may not be intended that way but that is how they feel.
	It is so widely known that you don’t use 'Aboriginal' or 'Aboriginals' as nouns with respect to Australian Aborigines that this really shouldn’t be an issue anymore. The following are just a few of the references that are out there regarding this issue.

	http://www.monash.edu/about/editorialstyle/writing/inclusive-language
	www.health.nsw.gov.au/aboriginal/Publications/pub-terminology.pdf
	https://www.flinders.edu.au/staff-development-files/CDIP%20documents/CDIP%20Toolkit%202015/2_%20Appropriate%20Terminology,%20Indigenous%20Australians.pdf

	3. With regard to the use of the label 'Conservative' attached to Ron Brunton.
	Relevance and consistency: Labelling someone with a political tag might possibly be justified if all the relevant parties were labelled because it was necessary for the purposes of the discussion. It is clearly not in this case, Brunton simply makes the point that in the Commission, witnesses were not cross-examined nor was their evidence tested for accuracy in any other way, such as by examining the original records of their cases. The fact that the testimony was not checked for factual accuracy is not a conservative, left-wing, right-wing, progressive or whatever issue, unless you want to argue that only conservatives care about factual accuracy, therefore attaching the 'Conservative' label to Brunton is irrelevant.
	There are numerous persons referred to in the article. Is there a political label attached to all of them? No. Then why attach a label to Brunton unless you want to mark him out as a ‘special case’? That would violate the NPOV requirements for representing views fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Labelling one out of numerous sources with someone’s personal opinion of what that source’s political leanings are appears to be unfair and editorial bias. ] (]) 03:17, 23 February 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 ], but changing it, especially because it ''is'' referenced, would be ]. ] (]) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
	:
	:State Library of SA had trouble finding the ''Sun'' too, but see refs added. It would be ] 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 ] and publish it, so I have left the query (so far as it concerns the exact words quoted)as it stood. ] (]) 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 ). ... 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... 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." ] (]) 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 <nowiki>{{verification needed}}</nowiki> tag. ]<sup>(]•])</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: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 Misplaced Pages. 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
	:Have you even read the quotes ]? 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. ] (]) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
	::
	::I think the point that ] 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.] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)</small>

	== 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:
	: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”. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)</small>

	== 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.] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)</small>

	== 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 ], part of our ] article. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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.
	:: ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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.] (]) 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 ] (]) 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

	== Questioning existence of Stolen Generations ==
	{{talkquote\|Some critics, such as Andrew Bolt, have questioned the very existence of the Stolen Generation. Bolt stated that it is a "preposterous and obscene" myth and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children. Robert Manne responded that Bolt did not address the documentary evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generations and that this is a clear case of historical denialism. Bolt then challenged Manne to produce ten cases in which the evidence justified the claim that children were "stolen" as opposed to having been removed for reasons such as neglect, abuse, abandonment, etc. He argued that Manne did not respond and that this was an indication of unreliability of the claim that there was policy of systematic removal. In reply, Manne stated that he supplied a documented list of 250 names Bolt stated that prior to a debate, Manne provided him with a list of 12 names that he was able to show during the debate was "a list of people abandoned, saved from abuse or voluntarily given up by their parents"; and that during the actual debate, Manne produced a list of 250 names without any details or documentation as to their circumstances. Bolt also stated that he was subsequently able to identify and ascertain the history of some of those on the list and was unable to find a case where there was evidence to justify the term ‘stolen’. He stated that one of the names on the list of allegedly stolen children was 13 year old Dolly, taken into the care of the State after being "found seven months pregnant and penniless, working for nothing on a station".}}

	Why in the Hells is this not included in the article? ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 17:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
	: Because it would give ] to this "debate" relative to the body of accepted knowledge on the subject. —] (]) 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

	] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:
	:Please familiarize yourself with the community's consensus regarding ] as well as what constitutes a ]. Misplaced Pages ]; that is, we strive to provide a ] regarding a subject. It is not a ] or for ]. —] (]) 15:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

	== Split ==

	I think the section on the apology needs to be ] out into its own article because of the following reasons:
	*The apology itself is a ] 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.
	Thank you for your consideration and views. The name I'm proposing, ], is . --] (]) 03:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
	:I agree that such a split would be appropriate. ] (]) 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.] (]) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

	== Removal of "The Apology Was A Public Relations Exercise" and "The Apology Was Justified" ==

	I've decided to ] 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 ]); 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as they stand, but perhaps someone could work elements of them into a form that works for Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's voice should be avoided as that would effectively be original research, and that (less significantly, but personal MOS crusades of mine) ] apostrophes and quote marks should be used and ] 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! ] (]) 07:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

	==] – History Wars section==

	I've placed the NPOV tag to alert editors that the is left wholly to represent the modern historiography in that section, without counterbalance from such historians as ], leaving the section with issues of ]. 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. ] 08:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	: I removed the contentious info till it has been discussed here.{{diff\|Stolen Generations\|768180575\|768180202}} I agree, the onus is on the editor adding new claims, and it certainly seems to fall under the ] guidlines. --] (]) 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: {{cot\|bg=#ACE1AF\|bg2=#EAF8F4}}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".<ref> Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three, The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, Macleay Press, 2009, p17 </ref> He argues that only a small number of children were actually removed (approximately 8,250 in the period 1880 to 1971<ref>Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three, The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, Macleay Press, 2009, p26 </ref>), 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"<ref> Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume Three, The Stolen Generations 1881-2008, Macleay Press, 2009, p17 </ref>
	{{reflist-talk}}
	{{cob}}
	::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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 08:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::
	::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. ] (]) 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 ] thereby rendering the article non-]. ] 08:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	::::
	::::Wrong, the onus is on you to show that your removal of text complies with Misplaced Pages 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::::Saying it does not make it so. I think you'll find (''am finding''} that according to ], it is up to you. ] 10:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::::His view should be represented according to the ] it bears on the modern historiography—no more, no less. ] 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? ] (]) 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 ], which your edit fails to do. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yes: "Remove material only where you have <u>a good reason</u to> believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."—I have a good reason. The addition violates ]: "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. ] 11:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::::::::IP 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E: reiterating that the content is ], that the ONUS is you present balanced addition content. As for claiming that : wrong. You either have a dynamic account, or have been IP hopping in order to introduce your ]. You fail to understand what ] 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 ] and not display the ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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: ]. --] (]) 22:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

	{{outdent\|11}} 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, ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
	:Clearly, you are an ] 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 ] tirades are getting ]. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
	{{outdent\|2}}I have referred the Stolen Generations NPOV issue to the NPOV Noticeboard. ] (]) 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”'''
	{{cot\|bg=#ACE1AF\|bg2=#EAF8F4}}
	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."

	In most jurisdictions, Indigenous Australians put under the authority of a Protector, effectively being made wards of the State. 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.
	{{cob}}
	'''Wording which favours the Stolen Generations thesis and containing statements regarding the historical basis for it.'''
	{{cot\|bg=#ACE1AF\|bg2=#EAF8F4}}
	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 the child away from its parents".
	In 1924, 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."
	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. 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 heightened awareness of the Stolen Generations. The acceptance of the term in Australia is illustrated by the 2008 formal apology to the Stolen Generations, 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.
	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."

	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.
	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. 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.

	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. 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. 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.

	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.

	Many historians argue against these denials, including to Windschuttle in particular.
	{{cob}}
	'''Wording which reports opposition to the Stolen Generations thesis'''
	{{cot\|bg=#ACE1AF\|bg2=#EAF8F4}}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. 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.
	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". The report attracted media attention and protests. 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.
	{{cob}}
	'''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.

	] (]) 05:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Text excerpts hidden/collapsed 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC) by ] (]))
	:
	: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 ], here on Misplaced Pages and in the historiography—try addressing that, ''briefly''. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] (]) 07:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::
	:::I reject your assumptions of ] about registering an account—though maybe it helps when you are an ] with only one aim on Misplaced Pages. 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

	===Break 2===
	IP hopper: There is no 'break 2'. Again, read ] and ]. --] (]) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
	:
	:If you look closely, Break 2 was inserted by ], not me, perhaps you could ask him why. ] and ] 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. ] (]) 23:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
	::I added break 1 and 2, for ease of use in the legend—because the IP's ] are ]. ] 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::Cheers, {{u\|El_C}}. The WALLS were doing my head in, too. Apologies for the misunderstanding. --] (]) 20:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

	{{outdent\|3}} I have ] this discussion somewhat to hide lengthy, quoted excerpts and more clearly indicate the flow of replies to comments. Hope it helps. —] (]) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

	== "On the other hand" ==

	{{talkquote\|On the other hand, some Aboriginal people do not condemn the government's past actions. They believed that the government intended to offer them opportunities for education and an eventual job. According to the testimony of one Aboriginal person:

	{{quote\|I guess the government didn't mean it as something bad but our mothers weren't treated as people having feelings…Who can imagine what a mother went through? But you have to learn to forgive.<ref>Confidential evidence 305, South Australia.</ref>}}

	{{quote\|I was put in a mission dormitory when I was eight, nine. I cried for two nights, then I was right with the rest of those kids. We weren't stolen; our family was there. It was a good system. Or a better system than now. At least my generation learnt to read and write properly.<ref name="Tiggelen">{{cite news\|first=John\|last=Van Tiggelen\|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/remove-children-plea-at-aurukun/2008/03/13/1205126111240.html\|title='Remove children' plea at Aurukun\|newspaper=]\|date=14 March 2008\|deadurl=no\|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517005437/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/remove-children-plea-at-aurukun/2008/03/13/1205126111240.html\|archivedate=17 May 2008}}</ref>}}

	{{reflist}}}}

	This looks like an example of undue ] or ] based entirely on ] of primary sources. Any help finding reliable, secondary sources to support this analysis would be appreciated. —] (]) 02:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
	:I agree with that analysis. ] 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

	== Bishop Gsell ==

	{{talkquote\|], the Catholic bishop of Darwin in the 1940s, defended the policy of removing especially children of mixed race, writing:

	{{quote\|f they had families, and if they were surrounded by that love and affection family life offers to the young even amongst primitive peoples, it might be cruel. But these creatures roam miserably around the camps and their behaviour is often worse than that of native children. It is an act of mercy to remove them as soon as possible from surroundings so insecure."<ref>F.X. Gsell, ''The Bishop with 150 Wives:Fifty years as a missionary'', Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1955, pp. 154-5.</ref>}}{{reflist}}}}

	This is another example of giving undue ] to the opinion of some person, based entirely on ] analysis of a ] source – if reliable, secondary sources have commented on Gsell's "defending" of the policy, then fine. If not, then ] other than to provide a ] to mainstream scholarship on the issue? —] (]) 19:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
	:Thanks again; looks like more ]. ] 19:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
	::I second that, {{u\|Sangdeboeuf}}. The article has been in need of a clean-up for some time. --] (]) 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 {{section link\|History of Australia (1788–1850)\|Colonisation}}, or to {{section link\|Indigenous Australians\|British colonisation}} could direct readers to more detailed information. Consider the following statements by the ] concerning the Northern Territory:

	{{cot\|bg=#ACE1AF\|bg2=#EAF8F4}}"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".

	*{{cite web \|title=The History: Northern Territory \|publisher=Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission \|location=Sydney, Australia \|date=December 2007 \|url=http://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bth/download/laws/bth_laws_histnt_10r.pdf \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080226224620/http://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bth/download/laws/bth_laws_histnt_10r.pdf \|archivedate=26 February 2008}}
	{{cob}}

	Any help finding other sources for background information would be appreciated. —] (]) 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.
	:] ] (]) 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. —] (]) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::So please remove the subsection, which lacks sources.] (]) 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 ]. —] (]) 08:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
	:::::<small>{{ping\|Sangdeboeuf}} FYE, Xx236 has been a Misplaced Pages ] 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. --] (]) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)</small>
	:Source : http://www.originsamerica.org/adoption-trauma/adoption-induced-ptsd-in-mothers/ ] (]) 09:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

	== Minority historical view ==

	According to the article: {{talkquote\|A minority of historians dispute that substantial numbers of mixed-blood Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families. They contend that some children were removed mainly to protect them from neglect and abuse.<ref name="Flood2006">{{cite book\|last=Flood\|first=Josephine\|authorlink=Josephine Flood\|title=Original Australians: Story of the Aboriginal people\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h0Ph5GLwWOQC\|year=2006\|publisher=Allen & Unwin\|isbn=978-1-74115-962-2\|pages=225–233}}</ref>
	{{reflist}}}}

	This work is not cited anywhere else but after this one short paragraph in the lead section. Surely there must be some further content worth summarizing for the article. Doesn't placing this material in the lead without any context give undue ] to the minority view? —] (]) 11:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
	:In answer to the first query, I'm sure there is material in the publication worth ]. As regards the ], no I don't believe so. Per ], {{tq\|"Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, ''although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text''."}} . The fact that denial has certainly become the minority position is probably worth noting in the lead as it was the antithesis being pushed prior the official apology. I'm uncomfortable with the {{tq\|"They contend..."}} as mixture of ] and ]. --] (]) 04:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
	:: I'm not trying to dispute that denial is the minority view. My concern is that the placement of this text in the lead – and nowhere else – gives undue weight to the minority view itself. This article currently doesn't explain just who this "minority of historians" are – Windschuttle is the only historian mentioned by name as disputing the basic idea of the Stolen Generations – which is one reason the text in the lead looks suspect to me.
	::{{strike\|Using Google preview, I haven't found any mention of "neglect", "abuse", or the phrase "stolen generation(s)" at all in the above-cited work, which is another ] to me.}} Most of the above-cited work is not shown in Google Books preview. I'm not an expert on the subject, so it would be helpful for someone who knows a bit more about it to verify this text, and to add sources that can establish the minority view's standing among serious scholars and historians. —] (]) 09:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I see your point. The article reads as if it were stuck in another decade where the subject was extremely controversial, then left in limbo after edit wars. The site/database would be worth checking through, as would the Australian Government's . I did try to muddle through archived versions being used throughout the article some time ago, and update them to reflect the current layout and live urls. It's probably a good time to do so. --] (]) 23:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
	::::I think the issue that the article needs to capture is that this is not really a controversial issue within academia anymore (with the exception of a few outlier pop-historians like ]); the disagreement is in the media sphere stoked by journalists like ] and politicians like ], and these people have significant followings who believe pronouncements that appeal to their own subconscious biases, and ignore the painstaking research done by people who are actually experts in the field. ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC).
	::::: That was certainly my hunch. Ideally we would cite reliable secondary or tertiary sources that frame the issue in those terms. Any suggestions are welcome. —] (]) 04:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

	I will be editing the statement to represent the dissent as cited to conform with the majority opinion, making it a self-negating sentence, as is popular on Misplaced Pages whenever there is a minority opinion to be included. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this should not be in the lede, as it currently appears nowhere else in the article, and, lacking further explanation while still being notable, let it remain brief, understandable, and, if necessary, glossed over. There is no better place to do this than the lede. Undue weight will apply to the opposing (and common) view if this statement is moved to another section or removed, entirely. ] (]) 02:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
	: Since the statement appears nowhere else in the article, it's definitely ] to have it in the lead section – see ]. {{strike\|I've moved the text to the "History wars" section accordingly.}} —] (]) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
	: Note that this statement was originally sourced only to Windschuttle, and added to the lead (and nowhere else) with the rationale that we had to ]. That's not what a ] is about, and in any event it misrepresents Flood's book (the Flood citation ]), so I've removed it from the article. —] (]) 10:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
	:: I have added back a similar paragraph to the lead acknowledging the minority historical viewpoint. Referenced are ABC News editorial (which is in defence of the majority viewpoint) as well as Keith Windschuttle's book ''The Fabrication Of Aboriginal History Vol. 3'', which serves as a critique of the majority viewpoint. ] (]) 08:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
	::: That paragraph appears to conflate {{diff\|Stolen Generations\|867372827\|"a minority of historians"}} with "critics", most of whom are not historians, by jumping right from the first to the second without explaining the difference beyond adding brief qualifiers such as "anthropologist", "journalist", etc. Whether such critics are "noted" is not sufficiently supported by the references either. Per ], we shouldn't give disproportionate emphasis to minority viewpoints, and {{tq\|the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all}} – since the only "minority" scholar named is Windschuttle himself, and only a few of the named "critics" get any (brief) mention in the article, this material is out of place in the lead section, which is meant to be a summary of the article as a whole. —] (]) 02:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

	== How did it end? ==		== How did it end? ==
Line 393:		Line 36:
	:::# as of , 79% of Indigenous children in care live permanently away from their birth parents and 85% aren't reunited with their families.		:::# as of , 79% of Indigenous children in care live permanently away from their birth parents and 85% aren't reunited with their families.
	:::so yes, ''"It's been suggested that it's still going on"'' seems right on the money there. I would suggest an "Aftermath" section be added to the article which highlights how little official policy changes have changed actual attitudes and interventions. While we're at it, adding the above context to each of the mentioned articles (and not just a bare mention in the See Also list) would improve their coverage too. ] (]) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)		:::so yes, ''"It's been suggested that it's still going on"'' seems right on the money there. I would suggest an "Aftermath" section be added to the article which highlights how little official policy changes have changed actual attitudes and interventions. While we're at it, adding the above context to each of the mentioned articles (and not just a bare mention in the See Also list) would improve their coverage too. ] (]) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
			:The STOLEN GENERATION continues, especially in the Australian state of Victoria ] (]) 05:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
			::That requires a little further explanation. ] (]) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

	~~have~~ a look at the linked forced adoption article as the history of both are linked. by the 60's the idea of foced adoption had been removed from popular opinion and the practice stopped. as it no longer occured for white people they could not argue its inclusion for the aboriginal tribes also.] (]) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)		:Have a look at the linked forced adoption article as the history of both are linked. by the 60's the idea of foced adoption had been removed from popular opinion and the practice stopped. as it no longer occured for white people they could not argue its inclusion for the aboriginal tribes also.] (]) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

			::That's NOT an example of something still going on. ] (]) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
	== Did Australia have a civilisation before 1788? ==
	{{hat\|]. --] (]) 23:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC) {{NAC}}}}
	Civilisation did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the eighteenth century.

			== Too many See Alsos? ==
	Those are the opening words of ]'s epic "History of Australia" and it is very loose thinking to hold any other view. ] is an urbanised society, and we talk of the Ancient Egyptian, Roman, Aztec and other civilisations in this way. To talk of a pre-European Australian civilisation gives the wrong impression. Or perhaps that is the impression being sought by partisan culture warriors; to pump up a land of wanderers into the sort of society we associate with civilisations, including all the infrastructure, government, specialisation and so on.

			Hello dear Wikipedians. While editing I realized there are a large quantity of See Also links - or, more than I am personally used to. I suggest that we cut down on these to maximize readability and prevent future readers from being overwhelmed by the many options.
	We can talk of a pre-European New Zealand civilisation, for the Maori certainly built cities and had a sophisticated society, but for Australia, I think that in the interests of accuracy we can find other words to refer to the culture and society of the inhabitants that the British colonisers found. Not to demean or downplay those inhabitants and their culture, but not to mislead our readers who come to Misplaced Pages seeking information. If we use a word, it should be apt. --] (]) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
			What do you think? Shall we cut down on these?
	: If we wish to make a definite point about the contrast between European society and Aboriginal society, as your two edit summaries suggested ({{diff2\|853176039}} {{diff2\|853476275}}), then we need a reliable, published source that states that contrast explicitly. You did not provide a source, which is why I reverted to the article's ''status quo ante''. Note that the statement is about Europeans' belief in their own superiority, not just a neutral classification of Aboriginal society as urbanized or not urbanized. —] (]) 00:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
			If so, here are 2 possible pathways to reduce the size of the See Also.
	::Doesn't the language used make ''exactly'' that point? But, I'm open to any suggestions that do not misleadingly describe Aboriginal Australians as having a civilisation. I note that our statement is listed as unsourced since January, and goes back at least two years without a source. --] (]) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
			* Creating a small section of the article describing similar comparable instances throughout history, such as "Similar events," as this seems to be the majority of the See Also links.
			*
			Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. ] (]) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023 ==
	The notion that indigenous Australians did not have a civilisation is Eurocentric garbage unworthy of any further consideration. ] (]) 05:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
	:A bold statement! What informs your thinking, ]? --] (]) 06:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

			{{edit semi-protected\|Stolen Generations\|answered=yes}}
	I see this as more of a linguistic problem than a definitional one. ] is correct in saying that Aboriginal society was not a ] according to the somewhat rigid description in that linked article. The danger we face in saying that is any implication that Australian Aboriginal people were therefore not civilised. Unfortunately, with no written history, and the tendency of some even today to want denigrate Aboriginal people, that is an ongoing problem. We must not give ammunition to such people. Many might argue that 18th century European "civilisation" was not that crash hot, with the customs of its legal systems to take minor criminals and execute them, or send them to the other side of the world for seven years. I would prefer to avoid using the word "civilisation", and speak instead of levels of sophistication of society. No educated person would suggest that Australia Aboriginal society was not complex and sophisticated. Even the mention of "comparative technological advancement" is problematic. Europeans had what they saw as great land management technology, but much it turned out be be useless and quite inappropriate in the Australian environment. Think about ploughing and irrigating salt-ridden dry land. Aboriginal people had "technology" that worked here. But that's enough on comparison here. We won't include all of what I have just written in the article. I'm not sure what words to recommend, but hope others can add to my thoughts to develop a good set of words. ] (]) 08:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
			']' section is irrelevant to main article and should be deleted. Instead, in the ']' section a link could be provided for ']'. ] should be added to 'Notable People' section. Contemporary child removal and discussions of a 'second Stolen Generation' should be included <ref></ref> ] (]) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
	:Civilisation isn't about behaviour. It's a binary condition. A society either has urban development or not. That's the basis of the word. One can certainly discuss the quality of a society's culture and behaviour, and I agree that British civilisation of the Eighteenth Century was sadly lacking in many ways. Then again it's hard to find a civilisation of that era that was what we'd now call "civilised", a word which initially meant somebody with city manners, rather than the presumably less sophisticated airs of the countryside. --] (]) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
	::I was trying to highlight the difference between "civilisation" as a noun describing a state of society, and the adjective "civilised" when describing a person or group of people. ] (]) 09:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
	:::In the context of settlers arriving from Europe in the Eighteenth Century, they regarded the locals as neither civilised nor possessing a civilisation. --] (]) 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
	::::Agreed. ] (]) 10:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

			:Thanks for the suggestions, {{u\|AnElectricShangriLa}}. I have added Jack Charles, and moved and reduced the size of the section on white stolen generations, but IMO it deserves a mention to explain how and why that term was applied, specifically in Australia, so left it there for now. Others may disagree - happy to abide by consensus.
	if we use the definitions of a civilisation as set by the ancient egyptians being recognised as the first civilised culture on earth than we can accurately say that with no fixed infrastructure, active trading, currency or agriculture tan no the aboriginal culture were not civilised and there for civilisation in australia did not start until the more likely english landed in sydney. you could argue chinese made settlements in NT but its unclear how much they settled vs just taking form the cultures in the area. the only evidence for this is rice farms they left behind. ] (]) 23:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
			:Agree that there should be mention of contemporary child removal - thanks for the link - but I don't have time for it now so will leave for someone else or another day. ] (]) 11:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
	{{hab}}

			{{talkref}}
	== Removing Windschuttle as a source ==
	{{formerly\|Whitewashing}}

			== "Between one in ten and one in three children" ==
	I note the attempted removal by ] of an article by historian Keith Windschuttle which was cited to support the following text"
	<blockquote>There is ongoing contention among politicians, commentators, and historical, political, and legal experts as to whether the forced removals of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that occurred during the Stolen Generations can be accurately described as genocidal acts and particularly whether they meet the definition of genocide in article II (e) of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.</blockquote>
	Is anyone seriously doubting that this is a contentious issue? Removing all mention here of one side of the issue doesn't make it any less contentious. In fact it smacks of censorship and goes directly against NPOV.

			Although it makes perfect sense mathematically, using "between" in this way seems awkward. I might have expected instead something more like: "At least one in ten, but perhaps as many as one in three children ..." ] (]) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
	Yes, I'm aware that Quadrant is on the list of perennial sources - as "generally unreliable" - but the contribution of editor Windschuttle do not fall under any of the objections raised in .

			== Inconsistent terminology ==
	Perhaps Sangdeboeuf could explain his thought processes on this? From where I sit it looks like there was no review of the material or our text, just a mindless elimination of everything from this source, regardless of any merit. --] (]) 00:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	: Calling the removal "whitewashing" is an odd move. Some might say that's what Windschuttle is doing. In any case, Windschuttle's published ] count as a ] for any "contention", and so should not be used to support statements in Misplaced Pages's voice. If his views are ], then more reliable sources will have noted them.{{pb}}No one is {{tq\|removing all mention}} of any side of the issue. In fact the text of the article was not changed at all. Where does ] say we have to represent "both sides" anyway? —] (]) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	::Could you please comment on the point I raised wrt the wording? Likewise wrt to the perennial source discussion. Thanks. --] (]) 01:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::See reply below. —] (]) 17:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	::"''Removing all mention here of one side of the issue.''.." There are only "sides" for those who desperately seek confirmation from discredited, right wing bigots for their own position. To the vast majority, this is simply a historical article. If you really must promote a position of denial, please find a better source than Windschuttle. If your view is correct, there simply must be better sources. ] (]) 01:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::If an issue is contentious, then surely you accept that there must be contending views? There is a note at the top of this talk page that the issue is controversial. Are you seriously claiming otherwise?
	:::Windschuttle is a noted historian who has written extensively and published books on this topic. I think ] applies here? --] (]) 01:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	::::Windschuttle himself is extremely contentious. I'm sure you know that. HIS article should say that. You would also know that ] does not mean including all fringe views. ] (]) 04:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::Neither of those two words are to be found in ]. I suggest you take note of our BLP procedures, which apply on all of Misplaced Pages, including talk pages. The subject of this article is contentious, as noted. --] (]) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::I'm seeing no good reason to remove Windschuttle's scholarly article, apart from the superficial moans above. --] (]) 04:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::: The source isn't a scholarly article, but an editorial in a ]. If you want to make the case for citing Windschuttle's opinion as a ], then fine, demonstrate that his views are accepted in the scholarly community. I don't see how the ] is going to help you there, though.{{pb}}You appear to be using the phrase "ongoing contention" in ] as a reason to go looking for contentious views to cite. That's the opposite of responsible sourcing, and reflects a bigger problem with this article, which is the apparent over-reliance on ]. Unless there's a source that directly comments on the "contention", then the whole paragraph should be cut, in my opinion.{{pb}}The onus to achieve consensus is on users ]. That means ], not dismissing them as "superficial moans".{{pb}}NPOV does apply indeed. To wit: ]{{pb}}NPOV means following reliable sources. Citing an editorial in a magazine considered generally unreliable makes the article ''less'' neutral, not more. —] (]) 18:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::If you took the time to read the source you rail against, you would realise your mistake. It is not an editorial. It is an article written by the editor-in-chief, and as per the RfC discussion, which you also seem not to have read, is not the sort of user-submitted online content which is rightly considered unreliable. That's why I referred to your contribution here as superficial; you did not look at the material under discussion.{{pb}}I do not need to list ] credentials on a talk page. I refer you to his BLP article.{{pb}}The contentiousness of the subject hardly needs defending; it is noted above in the talk page headers that the topic is controversial. HiLo's bizarre suggestion that a contentious subject involves a uniformity of opinion deserved a response; surely you do not share his view?{{pb}}"Generally unreliable" does not mean "completely unreliable". I refer you to the ongoing discussion where useful sourcing by notable authors has been removed by the sort of mindless robot editing you endorse. Perhaps you could participate in the wider discussion? --] (]) 18:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::"''I do not need to list Windschuttle's credentials..''." Such as his infamous pygmy paper written with a non-existent co-author? Windschuttle is a discredited fraud who edits a discredited journal. He panders to racists and right-wing bigots who pay for his journal. ] (]) 21:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
	::::::::{{re\|Skyring}} : "a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers". The reason for avoiding such sources is that they lack independent fact-checking and other editorial ''oversight'', which are key elements in any ]. Once again, the ] is on you to show how the source is reliable. It's ''not'' on me to go searching through ] for evidence supporting your argument. —] (]) 00:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::The fact that Windschuttle has been a prominent scholarly participant in the topic for decades would be enough for most. I didn't write his BLP, which you don't appear to have read. Have you actually followed any of the sources provided? It makes it hard to AGF with someone just talking off the cuff. --] (]) 02:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::: Since he's such a prominent scholar, it should be easy to cite a peer-reviewed or other ] for his views. But that still doesn't address the ] problem I mentioned regarding primary sources. —] (]) 03:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
	:::::::::::] - Fifteen years ago I studied at a prominent, scholarly, Australian university. Part of my course involved (by choice and with the agreement of my scholarly course leaders) an in depth look at some historical Aboriginal issues. None of the scholarly academics I worked with, and none of the information I found in that scholarly university's extensive collection of relevant, scholarly books and journals, took me anywhere near anything by Windschuttle. When he was mentioned on a couple of social occasions, it was with laughter and contempt. Are you sure he's a scholarly participant in the topic? (I won't argue about "prominent". He is that. But not in a positive way.) ] (]) 03:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

			The terms used to refer to the affected children shifts around a lot in this article. Some of that seems due to direct quotes from different people or documents, but I noticed one point in the "policy in practice" section, which isn't clearly indicated as a quote, within the same sentence it uses both "half-caste" and "mixed-race" to refer to the same category of children. ] (]) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
	== Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020 ==
			:As I read it, "half-caste" is only used in quotations or what are effectively quotations. It would be wrong to use it today outside quotations. "Mixed-race" is a term that wouldn't work to describe something happening in Australia today, but it's correct in the context of this article, where race was still a recognised concept for the duration of the stolen generations. ] (]) 06:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

			== Dicuss the term stolen generation and discuss the role and impact that pseudoscientific such as social darwism and eugenics have on the aborgine population of Australia ==
	{{edit semi-protected\|Stolen Generations\|answered=yes}}

	Please read the following link, your page is grossly inaccurate..https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/white-mothers-of-stolen-children-also-deserve-an-apology-20101207-18o7t.html ] (]) 00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
			Ideas of race Australia ] (]) 17:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 00:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
			:Sounds like you are asking for someone to write a school assignment for you? If so, this isn't the place for this request. Article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article text, not requesting general commentary on the article topic. -- ] (]) 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
			:There is the ] though where you can ask questions. ] (]) 08:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

			== There seems to be no information on this page about how this was advertised to Australian citizens at the time ==

			I.e. was there propaganda? There seems to be leftover news advertisements.. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-5948969/THE-STOLEN-GENERATIONS.html

			Were there Australian citizens of the time who thought "what they were doing was helping?". This perspective seems to be missing from the article. ] (]) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

			:As maybe a ten year old in Australia in the 1950s, my parents told me how nice we white people were being to Aboriginal kids by putting them in special schools where they could learn to be housemaids and farm workers. I won't try to interpret that for you, except to say that, as far as most people were concerned, it was a well intentioned program. ] (]) 09:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:59, 27 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stolen Generations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 years

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 13, 2011 and February 13, 2014.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Australia: Indigenous peoples High‑importance

	Australia portal Stolen Generations is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementWikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementTemplate:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacementAdoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Material from Stolen Generations was split to Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples on 11 June 2018‎ from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

How did it end?

Needs a para on what happened (in the 1960s) to make it end. 120.16.26.193 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)MBG

That's actually a really good question. I haven't seen the answer formally documented anywhere. It was probably all part of the progressive mood of the country at the time. This mood was shown in the Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals), which was one of the few constitutional amendments ever passed in Australia, and it was passed overwhelmingly. It gave the federal government power to make legislation for Aboriginal people (it had previously been exclusively state government business), and said we would count Aboriginal people in the census. Without knowing for sure, I would guess that the state governments finally saw the light. I would love to hear from others on this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's been suggested that it's still going on. .

One of the first reactions people have to the film is, ‘oh my God, I had no idea this was happening. How can this still be happening, I thought this issue had been resolved.’

Daveosaurus (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Chronology progressed something like this:

the government perpetrated the Stolen Generations;
the government made an Apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples for stealing children;
the government simultaneously initiated the Northern Territory National Emergency Response to steal more children;
as of 30th June 2020, 79% of Indigenous children in care live permanently away from their birth parents and 85% aren't reunited with their families.

so yes, "It's been suggested that it's still going on" seems right on the money there. I would suggest an "Aftermath" section be added to the article which highlights how little official policy changes have changed actual attitudes and interventions. While we're at it, adding the above context to each of the mentioned articles (and not just a bare mention in the See Also list) would improve their coverage too. 49.195.32.54 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The STOLEN GENERATION continues, especially in the Australian state of Victoria 2403:5803:7E2B:7900:F40B:4AC7:BC27:E68E (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

That requires a little further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Have a look at the linked forced adoption article as the history of both are linked. by the 60's the idea of foced adoption had been removed from popular opinion and the practice stopped. as it no longer occured for white people they could not argue its inclusion for the aboriginal tribes also.101.167.226.85 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That's NOT an example of something still going on. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Too many See Alsos?

Hello dear Wikipedians. While editing I realized there are a large quantity of See Also links - or, more than I am personally used to. I suggest that we cut down on these to maximize readability and prevent future readers from being overwhelmed by the many options. What do you think? Shall we cut down on these? If so, here are 2 possible pathways to reduce the size of the See Also.

Creating a small section of the article describing similar comparable instances throughout history, such as "Similar events," as this seems to be the majority of the See Also links.
Simply deleting the least pertinent See Also links.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Evedawn99 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

'The White Stolen Generations' section is irrelevant to main article and should be deleted. Instead, in the 'See also' section a link could be provided for 'Forced adoption in Australia'. Jack Charles should be added to 'Notable People' section. Contemporary child removal and discussions of a 'second Stolen Generation' should be included AnElectricShangriLa (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, AnElectricShangriLa. I have added Jack Charles, and moved and reduced the size of the section on white stolen generations, but IMO it deserves a mention to explain how and why that term was applied, specifically in Australia, so left it there for now. Others may disagree - happy to abide by consensus.

Agree that there should be mention of contemporary child removal - thanks for the link - but I don't have time for it now so will leave for someone else or another day. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The Family Matters report 2022

"Between one in ten and one in three children"

Although it makes perfect sense mathematically, using "between" in this way seems awkward. I might have expected instead something more like: "At least one in ten, but perhaps as many as one in three children ..." Toddcs (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent terminology

The terms used to refer to the affected children shifts around a lot in this article. Some of that seems due to direct quotes from different people or documents, but I noticed one point in the "policy in practice" section, which isn't clearly indicated as a quote, within the same sentence it uses both "half-caste" and "mixed-race" to refer to the same category of children. 2600:100A:B1E3:F50E:4C94:93A3:9918:5307 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As I read it, "half-caste" is only used in quotations or what are effectively quotations. It would be wrong to use it today outside quotations. "Mixed-race" is a term that wouldn't work to describe something happening in Australia today, but it's correct in the context of this article, where race was still a recognised concept for the duration of the stolen generations. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Dicuss the term stolen generation and discuss the role and impact that pseudoscientific such as social darwism and eugenics have on the aborgine population of Australia

Ideas of race Australia 165.0.72.92 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are asking for someone to write a school assignment for you? If so, this isn't the place for this request. Article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article text, not requesting general commentary on the article topic. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the reference desk though where you can ask questions. Wallby (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be no information on this page about how this was advertised to Australian citizens at the time

I.e. was there propaganda? There seems to be leftover news advertisements.. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-5948969/THE-STOLEN-GENERATIONS.html

Were there Australian citizens of the time who thought "what they were doing was helping?". This perspective seems to be missing from the article. Wallby (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As maybe a ten year old in Australia in the 1950s, my parents told me how nice we white people were being to Aboriginal kids by putting them in special schools where they could learn to be housemaids and farm workers. I won't try to interpret that for you, except to say that, as far as most people were concerned, it was a well intentioned program. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories: