Talk:History of Indigenous Australians

Australia: Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal History of Indigenous Australians is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

History Low‑importance

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

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:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guideline for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples terminology

Be conscious of the unique, diverse and distinct identities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and understand the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is as a collective name.

Collective names used to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:
When writing about both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, use terms such as:

First Nations Australians
First Australians
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples
First Peoples

Although "Indigenous Australians" is in common use, and is used to encompass both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, many First Nations Australians feel the term diminishes their identity and should be avoided; however, where the word "Indigenous" forms part of an acronym to describe entities, organisations, or government departments the use is acceptable.

When used, the words Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Nations, First Peoples, and First Australians are capitalised.

Note: Never use the collective name "Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander" peoples as it misrepresents the identity of Torres Strait Islander peoples as not being the original inhabitants of islands in the Torres Strait.

Self-identifying terms:
Be specific where possible by using the name of the group or community with whom the people you are referring to identify.

Murri is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from Queensland and north-west New South Wales
Goori is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from northern New South Wales coastal regions
Koori is usually used by Aboriginal people in and from parts of New South Wales and Victoria

This is not an exhaustive list

Language that can be discriminatory or offensive and should be avoided:

shorthand terms like "Aborigines", "Islanders"
abbreviations like "ATSI", "A&TSI", "1st Nations"
using terms like "myth", "legend" or "folklore" when referring to the beliefs of First Nations peoples
terms like "part-aborigine", "full-blood", "half-caste", "quarter-caste", "octoroon", "mulatto", "hybrid"
terms like "tribe", "horde", "band", "clan", "moiety"

This is not an exhaustive list

Note: It is acceptable to use abbreviations in your communications when they form part of an acronym, a web address or an organisation (e.g. AIATSIS, NAIDOC, www.atsi.org.au). Using an acronym or abbreviation to describe a race of people can be offensive and discriminatory.

For further information, please refer to:

Australian Government Style Manual[1]
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies[2]
University of New South Wales[3]
Griffith University[4]

Terminology can change over time and, where possible, it is best practice to find out what the preferred term is from the respective Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group or individual you are referring to. For further guidance, please see the Australian Government Style Guide

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 506.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

New Children section

This new contribution seems to begin in the middle of a conversation, as if it's referring to something already said.

It is also unbelievably (and I mean that word literally) brutal and negative. It is sourced exclusively to books from the 1970s, both difficult to check, and from a time I personally no longer trust. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of my prominent sources is 2002. You are right in saying that from today's perspective, human history is excessively brutal. It was once so in Europe and every other continent also. All these are important historical records. There are hundreds of records regarding pre-colonisation Aboriginal culture that describe these practices. The colonial era observers were not as much shocked by these as we are today, again because the world then was very different. The horrors of WWI and II were yet to come, etc. Confuciussx (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should say the significant sources are from 1996 and 2002. There is more contemporary literature also, but I think the topic is sufficiently covered - expanding it with further detail may seem excessive in comparison to the other sections of the article. I'm happy to consider suggestions. Confuciussx (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there ARE better sources, please provide them. Don't try to argue the case for what you believe by discussing other societies and the hypothetical personalities of the writers. That's original research, and unacceptable here. I wrote more than just about the sources. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points, however the text I added consists solely of facts supported by a broad variety of sources. I've added one more recent one, and renamed the section to "Childhood and adolescence" as a more appropriate title. There are other topics to be added here, such as passing down teaching and tradition - though these have been covered in other sections. Leaving at that and up to the community. Thank you for your comments. Confuciussx (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat one more thing before I leave this for others to comment, The section is entirely negative. Did the children (and women) never have any fun? HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add onto the section with reliable sources Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Warfare section

This really discusses two things, homicide and warfare. They don't really belong together. As with the Children section discussed above, we have one book from the 1970s as a source. The other source is a more recent book. It draws the conclusion that because art scenes of apparent fighting are common (and they are), fighting was common. I am not convinced by such logic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two sections; excessive quotations as well as outright copyright violation from https://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-7-child-abuse-homicide-and-raids-in-tribes/ which is a Wordpress document, which we can't consider to be a reliable source. I find the content farfetched at best. Much better sourcing is needed for such outrageous extraordinary claims. — Diannaa (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are facts - just because we fine cannibalism, infanticide and rape outrageous in 2023 it doesn't mean it didn't happen in the past, on large scale, and practically everywhere in the world, including pre-colonial Australia. I didn't reference a Wordpress site, but numerous academic journals and books, from broad range of sources dated from 1800s to 2000s. Confuciussx (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite the section without copy&pasting, which is the only valid reason out of those you mentioned. Nevertheless, this should have been done as a note to me to correct something, not deleting new content wholesale - that's seems like just editing history not convenient to your world view - there's no place on Wikipedia for this. Confuciussx (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something lost in rewrite? Ecology section

The History of Indigenous Australians#Ecology section currently ([5]) has a paragraph

Most scientists presently believe that it was the arrival of the Australian Aboriginal people on the continent and their introduction of fire-stick farming that was responsible for these extinctions. Fossil research published in 2017 indicates that Aboriginal people and megafauna coexisted for "at least 17,000 years". Aboriginal Australians used fire for a variety of purposes: to encourage the growth of edible plants and fodder for prey; to reduce the risk of catastrophic bushfires; to make travel easier; to eliminate pests; for ceremonial purposes; for warfare and just to "clean up country." There is disagreement, however, about the extent to which this burning led to large-scale changes in vegetation patterns.

The first part in particular is very weird. "these extinctions" seems to be referring to megafauna extinctions but "these" makes it sound like this is something discussed just prior yet the previous paragraph is on dingoes and SEA contact with zero mention of megafauna. Further, in the geography section 3 paragraphs back there is this unsourced text

The Aboriginal Australians lived through great climatic changes and adapted successfully to their changing physical environment. There is much ongoing debate about the degree to which they modified the environment. One controversy revolves around the role of indigenous people in the extinction of the marsupial megafauna (also see Australian megafauna). Some argue that natural climate change killed the megafauna. Others claim that, because the megafauna were large and slow, they were easy prey for human hunters. A third possibility is that human modification of the environment, particularly through the use of fire, indirectly led to their extinction.

which seems to partly contradicts what the ecology section says suggesting it's unclear rather than something most scientist accept. In fact even that earlier section is fairly unclear as it suggests that the introduction of fire-stick farming was responsible for the extinctions but then says they co-existed for 17,000 years, so does this mean that they only introduced fire-stick farming after living there for 17,000 years or that fire-stick farming caused the extinction of megafauna but it took 17,000 years?

Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is clumsily worded in places, probably as a result of text referred in one part being later modified or deleted. I also agree that there is a philosophical problem with the claims that Aboriginal people "caused" extinctions, etc. These events were longer ago than almost anything else this encyclopaedia tries to write about with certainty. The scientists' views vary a lot. I believe our emphasis should be on that fact, and not write anything in Wikipedia's voice suggesting we actually know what happened with any certainty. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First arrival of humans

Hello all

I have changed the lead to state that the estimated dates of first arrival of humans in Australia is 50,000 to 65,000 years ago. I have added sources supporting this, particularly the 2020 study of the Nauwalabila and Madjedbebe sites. The date range in the lead is consistent with the discussion in the article and with the articles on the Prehistory of Australia and History of Australia.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Migration to Australia

Hello all

I have replaced some unsourced content with sourced content. I have also replaced some out of date content with more recent scholarship. For example, the artefacts on Rottnest have been redated to 13-17ka. There is still alot of unsouced information and out of date information in this article and I will see if I can update some of it over the next few weeks.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also changed the heading to simply "Migration". This is because the section also covers the spread of the Aboriginal population throughout Australia, not just the movement to Australia. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarised some excessive technical detail about the Indian migration theory and have given it a more meaningful sub-heading.I have added another source stating that the theory is not widely accepted. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-migration history

Hello all

I have changed the heading from "Early History" to "Post-migration history" because it talks about developments at least 10,000 years after Aboriginal people migrated to the continent and ends with British colonisation in 1788. This is more than early history. I have changed the sub-heading from "Geography" to "Geography and adaptation" and have added sourced content about how the Aboriginal peoples adapted to the changes in the physical geography.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On more mature reflection, "History to British colonisation" is a more accurate heading. I have made the change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

Hello all

I have added some sourced content. I have replaced some old or dubious sources with more scholarly sources.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Hello all

I have rewritten the lead to make it a summary of the article in accordance with policy: MOS:LEAD. It is 5 paragraphs rather than the four recommended by policy, but given the length of the history and the different histories of Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders, I think this is justified.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]