This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australia 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Australia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Australia at the Reference desk.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 28, 2005 Peer review Reviewed June 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted June 29, 2010 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Australia Top‑importance Australia 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat'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. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Oceania Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania 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.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations 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.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. 17 August 2009.

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 100 million views since December 2007.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2009, 2010, and 2013.

Previously titled: Place holder of information for future edit: Aboriginal Names for Australia

I would like to propose the inclusion of an Indigenous Australian name in the introductory summary and also hopefully a section within the main article.

If we are to keep the tradition of exonyms, a strong proposal is outlined later in the post. However, an endonym would be the strongest symbolically. All the strongest endonyms for Australia in the various languages are defined as "ground; land" and they are:

• Biik: referenced in 34,900 academic articles thus biggest candidate. (Melbourne nation)
  • Kurrek: 713 academic articles (rural Victoria).

• Barna: referenced almost equally at 34,600. However, upon review, it seems to have grown to become a reference specifically to the Nation of Western Australia, i.e. Perth coast until the western state boarder, the size of NSW).

• Uthuru: Strongest symbolic candidate as it is the word associated with the central inland nation around Uluru. But I can only find tabloid and social media references of this name, so far none in academia.

Torres Strait Islands Nations as the Primary Candidate for Exonym source:

Keo Deudai: (Out Back — Back Mainland)

• First Primary Candidate
  • Origin: Miriam language of The Torres Strait Islands
  • Meaning: Back Mainland, beyond the regions of the TSI'der people
  • Academic Recognition: Consensus Established. ~900 academic publications inclusive of variations (google scholar). Examples:
    • (Page 28), Sharp, Nonie., "Stars of Tagai: The Torres Strait Islanders", Aboriginal Studies Press, 1993. (ISBN: 9780855752385)
    • (Page 123, Document page 3) Shnukal, Anna. "From monolingualism to multilingualism in Australia’s Torres Strait island communities" International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 1995, no. 113, 1995, pp. 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1995.113.121
    • John Doolah: Lecturer in Indigenous Education @ Melbourne University
      • Doolah, John., "The Stories Behind the Torres Strait Islander Migration Myth: the journey of the sap/bethey." (2021). http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1432705
        • Explicit study of Keo Deudai
        • Keo Deudai / Kie Daudie (latter phonetically preferred): Greater backmainland beyond (inclusively) TSI ancestral territory
        • Zenadth Kes: Primary inhabited TSI ancestral Territory [islands] (Keo Deudai: backmainland, secondary TSI ancestral backmainland, Kie Daudie: backmainland beyond TSI ancestral territory)
      • Doolah, J., 2015. Decolonising the migration and urbanisation of Torres Strait Islanders (Ailan pipel) from the Torres Straits to mainland Australia between the 1960s and 1970s.
        • Kie Daudie: exclusively used
        • Page xvii, document page 17 | Page 47, document page 70

Context & follow up candidate for Keo Deudai:

• Daudai

Daudai (Daudie, Deudai/Deudie), is the primary word used among the Torres Strait Islands (TSI / TSI'der [islander]) people and neighbouring nations which means Mainland (ancestral), denoting the lands themselves. While Zenadth Kes is the territory/region inclusive of waters and lands. Then Papua New Guinea (PNG) is the Op Deudai — Face (front) mainland while Cape York (tip of Australian mainland) and beyond is Keo Daudai — back mainland, inclusive of the TSI ancestral territory of the mainland. Kie Daudie is sometimes used in reference to the mainland beyond the TSI ancestral nation, exclusively.

Keo Deudai (back mainland) and its variations is the primary variation used in publications to refer to Australia as a whole. The primary driver of variation is the micro-dialects and accents in competition with outside observers (whom lack phonetic-linguistic expertise) attempting to document local history using the english phonetic alphabet where linguistic accuracy is not the primary focus. Additionally, the micro-dialects/accents themselves are also still in revitalisation from the colonial genocide inflicted upon in the past whom are still yet to receive reparations.

Second Primary Candidate:

• Ladaigal: (phonetically easier and more inclusive, supported by John Doolah)
  • Meaning: Aboriginal people, non-TSI.
  • Use: Often used in myth telling of the TSI journey from PNG
    • Ladaigal Country: is the more accurate expression of aboriginal land, Ladaigal alone is and can be used interchangeably between aboriginal people and aboriginal land.
  • https://ia801603.us.archive.org/13/items/reportsofcambrid03hadd/reportsofcambrid03hadd.pdf
    • Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits (1898) and Hodes, Jeremy. Index to the Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits and Haddon, Alfred C. (Alfred Cort), 1855-1940 and Ray, Sidney Herbert, 1858-1939. Linguistics. Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits University Press Cambridge 1901
    • CATALOGUE PERSISTENT IDENTIFIER: https://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn458355

... to be continued Bro The Man (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bro The Man Hello there. This isn't the place to put notes or draft content. Please use your sandbox for this. If you have a specific proposal to improve this article please start a discussion here.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was the intention, to propose the inclusion of an Indigenous Australian name in the introductory summary and also hopefully a section within the main article. I'll take your advice onboard and re-edited the topic name to "Proposal to include an Indigenous name for Australia." Bro The Man (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indigenous name for Australia and it's not our place to invent one. I T B F 📢 09:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided evidence that there is one, I hope we can arrive to a consensus as to which one is more appropriate. Bro The Man (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bro The Man sounds interesting, however any of those choices would be us assigning a name when no one name exists. GraziePrego (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest! I agree, a consensus needs to be achieved from available resources. Bro The Man (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand how this works. It is not up to editors to assign an Indigenous name to Australia out of a field of candidates proposed by an editor; Wikipedia is supposed to follow established practice. If a single Indigenous name for Australia ever emerges it will gain wide currency in official publications, the media and everyday use. We won't have to choose one; it will choose itself. Until this happens Australia will remain the only name for Australia in the English language Wikipedia. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But two names already have recognition is 35,000 publications each? Bro The Man (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one you say is in 35,000 publications is just the "Melbourne nation", not even the whole of Australia. Aemilius is quite right, it is not up to us to weigh the options and choose a name- a name will only be suitable for this article when it is in common knowledge and use. GraziePrego (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the previously discussed sentence on the Frontier Wars in order to change the more passive word "Indigenous people died" to "Indigenous people were killed" and similarly change the passive "others were dispossessed" with the active "settlers dispossessed others" as I believe the active is clearer and reads better without changing the underlying meaning of the sentence. After this, there have been further changes by @pastelilac and @Willthorpe that I think deserve discussion.

While I supported the change to split the sentence to read "Those who survived were dispossessed by colonists of their traditional lands", I disagree with the more substantial change to "As settlement expanded, frontier conflicts claimed thousands of lives, predominantly those of Indigenous people." This sentence is much less clear than the previously stable version, "As settlement expanded, thousands of Indigenous people died[/were killed] in frontier conflicts". This sentence suggests causation between settlement expansion to people dying in frontier conflicts. The suggested sentence however, suggests that settlement expansion created the abstract notion of "frontier conflicts" which was the cause of deaths. This is less clear because the phrase "frontier conflicts" is simply an abstract way of describing the process of settlement expansion and resulting fighting. It's clearer to simply describe the process and define it as "frontier conflict" as opposed to giving agency to an abstract concept, rather than the participants. Instead of using a metaphor and winding our way to the issue, it is much clearer to simply state that people were killed. Safes007 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Safes007 My main interest was to also acknowledge the deaths of settlers in the frontier conflicts, given that they were a formative – and deadly – experience for Australians of both backgrounds; I sought to do this whilst also acknowledging that the larger share of deaths were Aboriginal Australians. I don't hold any contention beyond this. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Willthorpe. I might avoid mention of casualties altogether. "Thousands" isn't a very helpful indicator of the scale of things. I'd rather an educated estimate as to total deaths rather than just "thousands". One approach sans casualties: "As settlement expanded, frontier conflicts intensified, further displacing Indigenous people from their traditional lands." - PastelLilac (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing of the relevant section is dated (Bain Atwood 2003.) This is the most researched area of Australian History in the past 20 years and we can do better than this. Henry Reynolds, who is one of the most respected historians in the field, has recently published a second edition of Forgotten War (2022) and concluded that at least 30,000 Indigenous people were killed in fontier conflicts compared with 2,500 settlers. So I think we would be justified in stating "As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers died in frontier conflicts while settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land." Or words to that effect.

The sourcing of the entire article is poor and I doubt that the article would retain its featured article status if it were reviewed today. I would be happy to work with other interested editors to progressively improve the sourcing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this wording, with the replacement of "died" with "were killed" to keep the active voice. Safes007 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the dated source with the Reynolds source. I have slightly changed the wording to "settlers took possession of most of the traditional land of the surviving Indigenous groups.. etc". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Took possession" is euphemistic and kind. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's also using two words when the one word "dispossessed" would suffice. Safes007 (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "stole". HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because the wording didn't make sense: "Settlers dispossessed most of the traditional lands of the surviving Indigenous groups" is wrong. You can't dispossess land. You can either say: "Settlers dispossessed the surviving Indigenous groups of their traditional land" or "Settlers took possession of most of the traditional land of the surviving Indigenous groups" or "settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land." I prefer the latter because it is the most concise. I suggested this above but I assumed @Safes007 objected to it given their changes. As for "stole"; this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PastelLilac@Willthorpe Any suggestions? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your issue were actually with the incorrect use of the word "dispossess", you would have changed the sentence to Settlers dispossessed the surviving Indigenous groups of their traditional land—something you yourself suggested here. Yet this is not the change you actually made. Your claim that this in an encyclopaedic article, not a political tract reveals your true intentions, for your edit is entirely political in nature; you just believe your own politics are neutral, much as fish doubt the existence of water. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was indeed with the incorrect usage and with the dated information. Have you actually read the discussion? I am happy to change the sentence to "Settlers dispossessed the surviving Indigenous groups of their traditional land" and see if we can get a consensus for this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were whole groups killed? As in there are extinct groups? Moxy🍁 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was a rhetorical question. There is no evidence that any Indigenous groups in Australia are extinct. No guess work pls. Moxy🍁 22:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy, I think you should have a read of Aboriginal Tasmanians. The population was reduced from potentially 15,000 down to just *47 individuals in the entire island*. Given there were "more than 60 clans" (quoting elsewhere in the article), even if somehow all 47 individuals were 1 from each clan, that's at least 13 Indigenous groups made extinct. GraziePrego (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best not use the wrong terms genocide vs extinction very different things...best be up to date Dumas, Daisy (Aug 28, 2023). "Unesco removes 'hurtful' document claiming Tasmanian Aboriginal people 'extinct'". the Guardian. Retrieved Nov 7, 2024. Moxy🍁 05:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Jews exterminated? No. Was the Holocaust a genocide? Yes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you suggested is the one I included in the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Safes007, using active voice helps clarify context and removes ambiguity in matters concerning fact. Whether pleasant or not, death and its causes must be respected, not downplayed and obfuscated. Bro The Man (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a change as the half paragraph is odd to read and does not fully explain the sources about populations decline. Plus "tens of thousand of Indigenous people"? what does this mean? it that alot? is it 10% of the population or 60%......lets just say alot and let the linked article deal with stats.

Replace...

The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups. As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers were killed in frontier conflicts. Settlers took possession of most of the traditional lands of the surviving Indigenous groups.

With someone like.....

As a consequence of European colonization, the Indigenous population declined immensely.This is mainly attributed to the transfer of European diseases and, to a lesser extent, conflicts with the colonial authorities, The expansion of settlements without any negotiated treaties led to violent conflicts known as the Australian frontier wars. These wars, lasting more than 100 years, were characterized by widespread killing on both sides along with the displacement of Indegenous peoples as settlers sought to assert control over the land.

Moxy🍁 07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good, it's unsourced original research, factually wrong and much worse than what we already have.

"As a consequence of European colonization, the Indigenous population declined immensely." What does "immensely" mean? How can you possibly criticise "tens of thousands" as too vague (even though it is reliably sourced) but propose that we replace it with "immensely"? Can you cite a single reliable source that uses this term? And did Europe colonise Australia or did Britain?

"This is mainly attributed to the transfer of European diseases and, to a lesser extent, conflicts with the colonial authorities." Attributed by who? What is a European disease? Can you cite any medical studies which classify disease as "European"? What are "conflicts with colonial authorites"? Disputes over tax returns?

"The expansion of settlements without any negotiated treaties led to violent conflicts known as the Australian frontier wars." This is plain wrong. In fact the sources cited make it clear that treaties were probably impractical because Aboriginal groups did not have "chiefs" who could negotiate treaties and enforce them on their group. Moreover, Aboriginal culture did not have the concept of alienating land by agreement. And even more importantly, the history of the US shows, treaties would have been ignored by the colonists and they would have taken all the land they wanted anyway.

I won't go on. I agree that the current paragraph is most unsatisfactory. In particular, the second sentence isn't connected to the first and the third one to form a coherent paragraph. But I lost that battle in the previous discussion. I think @Moxy and @HiLo48 you need to read the sources cited carefully and have another look at the previous discussions on this issue. And some good general histories of Australia. I can recommend the Cambridge History of Australia, Macintyre, 2020 edition. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes understanding of the basics is needed "Indigenous and European Contact in Australia". Britannica Kids. Moxy🍁 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat more concise: "As a result of European colonisation, the Indigenous population declined significantly, primarily due to introduced diseases. The expansion of settlements without any formal treaties led to frontier conflicts characterised by widespread killing on both sides, along with the displacement of surviving Indigenous peoples from their traditional lands." - PastelLilac (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better written but see my comments above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Aemilius Adolphin. There's an overwhelming consensus among modern historians that Australia's actions against Aboriginals were genocidal.

• The Australian Museum
• Bringing Home Report
• Cambridge World History of Genocide

Beyond this, as others here have mentioned, the founder of settler-colonial studies, Patrick Wolfe, specifically cited Australia as the prototypical example of a genocidal settler society.

Genocide is also mentioned in other British settler colony articles, including the United States, Canada, etc. Perhaps the last major historian to deny that genocide occurred is the conservative Keith Windschuttle and his works are no longer deeply influential on the subject of Australia's relations with its native people. Requesting that your edit is self-reverted. There's a pretty clear consensus that these edits are due. (I count 6v1 on this page.) Your edits are coming across as an attempt to whitewash unsavory aspects of Australian history. The claim that a majority of deaths were of "unintentional disease" are also refuted by Ned Blackhawk in the forementioned Cambridge World History of Genocide. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I got pinged...but whatever. As I stated on your user page Tree...Must understand reconciliation in Australia is not at the point of acknowledgment yet in the general public eye. It's not about whitewashing.... but what society has recognized. READ ME The stewards of this article find it a hard topic to tackle so ignore it. That said they're society is moving forward on the idea. An RfC where to take place it would be included as the general Wikipedia community can see its merits and the overwhelming academic support for the idea.Moxy🍁 23:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your Talk page, the debate has moved past Windschuttle a long time ago but there is still academic debate on whether there was genocidal intent, particularly by colonial authorities, and whether the actions of individual settlers amounted to genocide. If you haven't read Henry Reynolds' The Forgotten War (2022 edition) I can highly recommend it as a more nuanced assessment. And, as I suggested, if you want to propose one or two specific factual sentences with reliable citations for discussion on the Talk page then I think you might be able to find a consensus for them. For example, I wouldn't be adverse to a sentence in the frontier expansion section such as "many historians conclude that acts of genocide by settlers were committed during the frontier conflicts, although the question of genocidal intent is still debated." Nor would I oppose a sentence in the discussion of the Stolen generations along the lines of "the HRC called the forced removal of Indigenous children an act of genocide" or words to that effect. But rather than trying to ram home your preferred wording despite objections from other editors, I think the best way forward is to seek consensus for one or two sepcific sentences in the relevant parts of the article. One of my concerns with your current wording is that it is written in stilted English and needs to be better integrated into the article. I prefer my wording but let's wait and see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's similar scholars who deny that genocide occurred in Canada or the United States, yet those respective articles do not "equalize" their opinions between those who say "yes" and those who say "no". That's not how WP:NPOV works. It works by the WP:WEIGHT of sources. Every major Australian history association, museum, and the national government recognizes the events as genocide. If we're using this standard then no event in history (outside of the Holocaust) could be classified as genocide. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, it's all a matter of how we word things. And policy is that a seriously contested view in academic sources should not be treated as fact and opposing views should be given due weight: WP:VOICE. If you have specific objections to my proposed wording please state them and put your proposed changes up here for discussion. And give others chance to express their views. By the way, on second thoughts it might be easier to achieve a consensus if we separate the genocide discussion from the discussion on frontier conflict. if you agree, would you mind moving the discussion to the genocide heading? Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed but not surprised that genocide is not mentioned in this article. Patrick Wolfe described Australia as an archetypical, settler-colonial state that was founded upon genocide. Yet this is mentioned nowhere in the article!

https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/genocide-in-australia/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerApfelZeit (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second the use of the term "genocide" when describing the intentional massacre and displacement of aboriginal Australians.

The only push back I would anticipate to this motion is that racists will label the use of the term genocide without citing a source that uses the term genocide, as a violation of Synthesis / Original Research. Bro The Man (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is an ongoing editoral dispute (including on the talk page above) on whether Australia's actions against Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders can be described in the article as genocidal or simply the product of disease and mutual conflicts. A consensus could not be reached so I am asking for non-involved editors to comment. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option #1:

These early acts of settler colonialism began the genocide of Indigenous Australians, which aimed at eradicating the cultures, religions, languages, and people of both Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders.^[1][2] As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers were killed in frontier conflicts while settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land.^[3] Survivors of the exterminations were frequently forced to convert to Christianity,^[4] confined to Aboriginal reserves,^[1] and were not provided with any legally recognized form of cultural rights,^[1] as British-descended colonizers did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups.^[5][6]

Option #2:

The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease.^[7][5] British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups.^[5][8] As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers were killed in frontier conflicts while settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land.^[9]

Option #3:

As a consequence of colonization, the Indigenous population declined by 90%.^{[a][10][11][12]} This is mainly attributed to the transfer of diseases and, to a lesser extent, land loss and conflicts with the settlers.^[13] The expansion of settlements without any negotiated treaties led to violent conflicts known as the Australian frontier wars.^[14][15] These wars, lasting more than 100 years, were characterized by widespread killing on both sides and the displacement of Indigenous peoples as settlers sought to assert control over the land.^[16] The conflicts have variously been described as terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide, against the Indigenous peoples.^[13]

OntologicalTree (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2. Option 1 gets the timeline wrong, the lack of treaties existed from the start. It is unclear what the "early acts of settler colonialism" refers to, but if it refers to the initial settlement, this was not aimed at eradicating the cultures etc. of any particular group. The initial settlement also certainly didn't affect the Torres Strait Islanders, who live very far away from the early settlements. The RfC opening statement is also quite poor, the "Australia's actions" were a mixture of a number of different actors, and both Aboriginal groups and Torres Strait Islanders are part of Australia. CMD (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly is your objection to option 3? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I raised a specific objection, but the conflation of treaties with settlements should probably be avoided. A lot of the conflict emerged from individual actors, rather than being something organised. The shift from "settlements expanded" to "expansion of settlements" and the addition of treaties makes it sound like government-directed action when it was often wasn't. CMD (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The actual substantive difference between 2 and 1/3 is that the former does not use the g word while the 1/3 do. It would be more honest if you just tell us what your actual objection is. All other objections you list are easily and probably uncontroversially fixable, and given the title of the RFC is Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide? it is eminently obvious what it is we are really talking about here. It helps no one to hide your actual beliefs like this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you talking about? When I made my comment there was no option 3. I never objected to it, as I said before. CMD (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an option 3 now. Why do you prefer option 2? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My initial thoughts are above, but there's not a discussion to be had if someone else is telling me what my non-existent objection is. CMD (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying you don't have an objection to 3, and are thus changing your vote to it? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Australia's actions" were a mixture of a number of different actors is an irrelevant truism. The Holocaust was also a mixture of a number of different actors, ranging from Latvian collaborators to the Ustaše to even Jewish Kapo collaborators. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misunderstanding of the frontier wars, which is a historiographical term that encompasses a couple hundred years of different events, not a single program like the Holocaust. CMD (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a component of the definition of genocide that says it can only last X years long? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Holocaust was also a mixture of a number of different actors — "Most historians agree that Hitler issued an explicit order to kill all Jews across Europe". I don't think the same thing can be said about Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Context source Moxy🍁 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't need to be said about Australia. Numerous other events commonly characterized as genocides by scholars don't rise to this level, including the Armenian genocide, Herero and Nama genocide and the California genocide. Taking the first as an example, the main and official goal of the Armenian genocide was "merely" a relocation program; you won't find a single source claiming its perpetrators gave the orders to exterminate all Armenians wherever they may be. There is a term for certain Turkish nationalists who point to this as evidence against it being a genocide: Armenian genocide deniers. In the Herero and Namaqua genocide, the goal was to punish the indigenous people for a rebellion which resulted in the killing of some German colonizers. Our own Wikipedia article on the subject stated No written order by Wilhelm II ordering or authorising genocide has survived. Still genocide, and again we have a term for people who claim otherwise. Regardless, certain specific groups, if not all indigeneous Australians in general, were absolutely the target of specific orders for extermination, the most notorious (but far from only) examples coming from the Black War. The Holocaust is one of the few events in history where a genocide did rise to this level, but its particular characteristics are not, must not be, the litmus test for a genocide. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: There is a historical consensus that genocide occurred in the context of Australian history. The Australian Museum lists it as such, the Bringing Them Home Report does as well, and so does the recently published (2023) The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Genocide Perspectives V: A Global Crime, Australian Voices (2017), which was published by the University of Sydney Press, states that (on p.62) that "the academic consensus now acknowledges that genocide is an apt descriptor for the Australian aboriginal experience." The government of Australia also labels its own historic actions as genocidal. There will always be historians who deny X or Y is genocidal. (Outside of the Holocaust.) The question is whether a large majority classify it as such per WP: NPOV and WP:DUE. The bar here is indisputably met. OntologicalTree (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: I would prefer to keep the current wording and see if we can build a consensus towards wording on the genocide issue. This issue was still under discussion on the Talk page. The failure of one editor to get their preferred version accepted within a couple of hours of first trying to include it in the article does not equal a failure to gain consensus. I proposed alternative wording to try to meet this editor half way yet this editor chose not to engage in consensus building among interested editors which is usually the first step before you go to a RfC. This is a complex issue and there are dozens of reliable academic sources which discuss this in a more nuanced and accurate way. I am sure that if we had given this discussion the time it deserves we could have come uo with something much better than the two proposed options. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 the option I created... As I believe it reflects best the sources and gives a quick juvenile introduction to the topic as you would see at "Indigenous and European Contact in Australia". Britannica Kids. ....with the addition of adult words like genocide.Moxy🍁 02:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning toward the intent of Option 1 but not the current wording. I cannot see how, in 2024, we can acknowledge the impact of coloniaism and at the same time continue using dated linguistic constructions like Aboriginals. I don't currently have the spoons to work on the wording, just registering my half-!vote at this stage. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 07:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3. The option suggested by Moxy is as comprehensive as you can get in a singular paragraph and it links to articles dedicated to its mentioned subjects, while also retaining a neutral tone. Option 2 is fine, but it fails to effectively summarize the full extent of the conflicts and their impact on the Indigenous peoples and settlers.

I would like to address Option 1 separate from the other options presented. As a fourth generation Australian, I am personally sick of the rhetoric that OntologicalTree is trying to have accepted. Where shall I begin?

• It places undue emphasis on the settlers and British colonization The entire paragraph is thick with the negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics. Easily fails WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT.
• It misleads readers by implying that the events of the Stolen Generations occurred directly after or during the frontier conflicts, thereby presenting an incorrect timeline cobbled together with WP:SYNTH. For those unfamiliar with Australian history, the Stolen Generations is widely acknowledged to have begun in the early 1900s, whereas the frontier conflicts started in 1788.
• It creates the implication that there was little to zero attempt by the British and their descendants to create treaties with the Indigenous peoples. The British did falsely claim terra nullius by legally declaring the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could invalidate Britain's first requirement for occupation, which was that if there was an existing population, Indigenous or otherwise, land should only be obtained through negotiation. However, the problem is that prior to settlement, the Indigenous peoples of Australia had zero form of officially recognized government or judicial system amongst themselves because of the nomadic and kinship-centric nature of their tribes. Additionally, the Indigenous peoples didn't speak English and operated on a significantly different culture to the rest of the civilised world at the time. No centralized governing body means the British had no legal entity to formalize an agreement with, and the cultural differences and physical distance between the various groups and territories of Indigenous peoples meant that even if the British were to create a blanket legal structure for them, they had no guarantee that the terms of such would be satisfactory or even followed by the various groups.

Yeah, I had a lot to say about Option 1. To put it simply, I vote for Option 3 and I find Option 1 unsuitable. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirocco745 The creation of "treaties", the vast majority of which were never honored, is a means by which genocide is legitimated, that is, it is further proof a genocide did occur. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that treaties are meaningless unless all signing parties intend to honour them, I am simply providing some extra historical information to show the difficulties the British would've faced when trying to create treaties.

The British were wrong with what they did to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. I certainly don't approve of what happened back then, and I will openly admit that I am not proud of the racism that Australia was built on. I agree that they committed a large number of atrocities and that there is much work to be done to repair the damage done. However, we formally said sorry in 2008 as a nation, and what came out of it? We haven't really given much help to the Aboriginals, and we haven't stopped saying sorry ever since. Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity.

Yeah, you could call me out on a WP:COI if you really wanted to, and you may be justified in doing so. I am not stupid enough to let my passion for this topic cloud my judgement though. Instead, I will use my passion to contribute positively and constructively to the discussion and to the article whilst retaining Wikipedia's policies at the core of my edits. If anything comes out of this RfC, at least I will have contributed to the discussion with some useful information. Sirocco745 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I cared what possible difficulties the genocidaires would have had with honoring treaties they never intended to honor in the first place, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You are regurgitating irrelevant facts (if they even are facts) that have no bearing on the point of this RFC.

The British were wrong with what they did to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.

The point of this discussion is not to make you feel better about having the Correct Opinions about history. The point of Wikipedia is to call a spade a spade, relying on the reliable sources.

Option 1 has a clear agenda to push, and I am sick of this same blame-centric rhetoric that I have to listen to every week being pushed at every opportunity.

You are taking out your political grievances on a Wikipedia page. Please refer to WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:NOTHERE. We have no interest in the current status of Australian politics, or the guilt some Australians may or may not be feeling. We are here to write an encyclopedia based on what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources blame Australia for anything, anything at all, we report it. If the reliable sources decided Australia was a nation of devil-worshipping child sacrificers, we would have no choice but to report this, no matter how much it hurt your national ego. Please leave your grievances out of this discussion. You may feel this is a shortcoming of Wikipedia, and in another time and place I may even agree with you, but I long ago learned this just isn't the website for that. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I actually agree with you there. "If the reliable sources decided Australia was a nation of devil-worshipping child sacrificers", then I wouldn't be against adding that to Wikipedia at all, because that's what's been found by reliable sources to be the situation. I also agree that the British settlers committed genocide against the Indigenous peoples here. I voted for Option 3 because it provided a sufficiently concise but clear summary of the various reasons for Indigenous population decline whilst also not shying away from the active role of the British in it. Option 2 was more two-dimensional, and Option 1 presented a false timeline by implying the events characteristic of the Stolen Generations were instead perpetrated during the frontier conflicts that occurred almost a century before. Sirocco745 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with Option 3, though I prefer 1, and to be clear, Option 1 says nothing about the Stolen Generations. The closest thing to is the sentence Survivors of the exterminations were frequently forced to convert to Christianity, confined to Aboriginal reserves, and were not provided with any legally recognized form of cultural rights. The word "survivors" all but implies that this sequence of events happened after the Frontier Wars. Additionally the Frontier Wars ended in 1934, while the Stolen Generations are generally dated as beginning in 1905. That's almost two and a half generations of overlap irrespective of the wording. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your use of a phrase like "negative connotations so common in degradation of foreign colonization and this era of historical hindsight apologetics" strongly suggested you need to (re)visit WP:FALSEBALANCE. We write Wikipedia in the 21st century, and the hindsight argument completely false flat anyways when you remember that, as I can entirely assure you, peoples have always resisted their own annihilation regardless of what year it might be. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what possible relevance the fact that the indigeneous Australians didn't have a form of government officially recognized by the very people who attempted to annihilate them, or the fact that they did not speak the language of said genocidaires before ever having met them? What exactly is the "civilized world"? Is it civilized to commit genocide across multiple continents? Please try to answer these questions while doing your absolute best not to sound like you are channeling the spirit of Cecil Rhodes. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blend of options 2 and 3. For brevity's sake I prefer 2. While 3 is more comprehensive, it's quite repetitive. - PastelLilac (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The substantive difference between 2 and 3 is not brevity but the use of the g-word, which is the central point of this RFC, as expressed in its title. bould your proposed blend include this word in 2? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 is broadly correct, providing a historical consensus-based summation and linking to the frontier wars article where the subject can be broached with appropriate sensitivity. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there is a general historical consensus that white Australian settler colonialism constitutes terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide, against the Indigenous peoples. Not every scholars agrees on every one of these terms, perhaps, but that is the point of wording the sentence this way. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brusquedandelion To state that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide is broad and imprecise, and not supported by consensus. There may be, and I presume is, broad consensus that actions during colonisation constituted one or several of those, that there were genocidal acts committed for instance. Much of the process of colonisation may aptly be described as cultural genocide, and the Black War is particularly singled out by many historians who argue it was genocidal. The sentence would be improved if it stated: The conflicts have contentiously been described as terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide, against the Indigenous peoples. @Aemilius Adolphin's proposed statement ...which many historians argue included acts of genocide by settlers is also fair. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fortunately, not one of the proposed options states that colonialism constituted terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide. Please remember that on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCY IN reading comprehension is strictly required. As I stated in my own vote, however, I am ok with 3, even though I prefer 1, and do not think your criticism here susntantively applies to 1, properly read. I do disagree that Much of the process of colonisation may aptly be described as cultural genocide. No, much of the process of colonization constituted at a minimum ethnic cleansing, while another large portion constituted actual genocide, not "cultural" genocide. Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, you have conveniently excused the first portion of the quote, which, in full, is {tq|The conflicts have variously been described as terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide, against the Indigenous peoples}}. This is not only about as clear as can be, it directly speaks to the actual consensus. What do you think the word "variously" means here, and who do you think the unstated holders of these views are?

  The conflicts have contentiously been described as terrorism, ethnocide, and genocide, against the Indigenous peoples.

  Contention on Wikipedia is not contention among scholars. The wording you are opposing has been amply cited, both in the original RFC and elsewhere on this thread. You, on the other hand, have provided no references to speak of. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 followed by 3. Most of the people voting against these options above have summarily disregarded the actual purpose of this RFC, which is, as the title gratiously informs us, is to determine if the article [should] state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide. Answers that fail to actually answer this question directly and make points as to the merits/demerits of this point should be summarily disregarded by the RFC closer as effectively irrelevant. Quibbles about the wording, succinctness, etc. are entirely not germane to the point at hand, and the best possible faith interpretation of multiple people not even bothering to mention the g-word in their votes is that they are simply unable to grasp basic reading comprehension; regrettably, at Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCE is required. The more likely answer, unfortunately, is that they are intentionally clutching pearls about word choice to avoid calling a spade a spade. Remember: any quibbles about word choice, succinctness, etc. can be easily handled outside of this RFC. Alternatively, such pearl-clutchers could have happily suggested alternate wordings that do use the g-word within their votes. ClaudineChionh is the only user who apparently had the sense to do this, while nevertheless voting for 1. Were the only quibbles about succinctness etc., for example, I would be shocked if there had even been an RFC proposed to begin with. Future commentators, please do not bother replying if you do not wish to address the matter at its root. Having said all this: the historians are clear on this: the acts of Australian settler colonists, in various times and places, frequently amounted to genocide or, in other times and places, terrorism, ethnocide, and ethnic cleansing. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - The two other options fail to mention indicate genocidal intent, which is the required mens rea of genocide. The common meaning of genocide applies to examples like the Holocaust, Armenian genocide, and Rwandan genocide. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article; therefore, if option 2 or 3 are chosen for the body, it would be undue weight to include mention of genocide in the lead. Choosing option 1, 2, or 3 comes down to whether a broad or narrow definition of genocide is going to be used. At present, option 1 and 3 only provide one source to support the position that the British settlement policy in regards to Australia was an act of genocide. One source is not enough to decide if the word genocide should be used in this article. A survey of reliable sources needs to be provided to determine what the academic/reliable source consensus is on whether the settlement of Australia was an act of genocide. --Guest2625 (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC); edited 10:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no prerogative for these specific sentences to mention the exact words "genocidal intent"; by calling them genocides, it implies genocidal intent, since there aren't "accidental" genocides. If you haven't actually done the survey you suggest others do, why do you feel so confident voting on a matter you are have professes your own ignorance own? Remember, WP:COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED. Also, could you tell me what is the required number of sources you require to change your vote? Because I am happy to provide them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brusquedandelion please check your talk page. I have left a message there. I know mobile Wikipedia has buggy notifications (WP:TCHY), so I'm leaving this here in the hopes that you see this. Sirocco745 (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the Australia country article. It provides a broad overview of different aspects of the country/continent with one section providing an overview of the history of Australia. This discussion of whether to include the word genocide in the history section should first take place in the History of Australia article. At the moment, there is no mention in that article about genocide. All material that is added to an article needs to be supported by a reliable source and included in neutral point of view fashion which does not give undue weight to any material. The reference that has been provided does not support the inclusion of the word genocide in this article. The reference is not even a systematic review of the topic. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, rather articles summarize the topic as presented in reliable sources. This article which is a feature article has done an excellent job of presenting a broad overview of the topic. -- Guest2625 (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genocide of Indigenous Australians#Denialism sectionMoxy🍁 15:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 per the above discussion, options 1 and 2 fail to represent the academic debate and therefore fail WP:NPOV. Despite this, These wars, lasting more than 100 years, were characterized by widespread killing on both sides and the displacement of Indigenous peoples as settlers sought to assert control over the land needs to be changed, widespread killing on both sides implies equal casualties which there were not, 2,500 vs. upwards of 30,000.

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not necessarily suggest the casualty count was equal. There was a significant toll wrought on both settlers and Indigenous Australians, though something noting the relative numbers that died of each would be acceptable. Will Thorpe (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe:

characterised by widespread killing of Indigenous peoples and to a lesser extent settlers, and the displacement of Indigenous peoples as settlers sought to assert control over the land. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to give some indication of the extent of killings on both sides. @Kowal2701 Out of interest, do you havee specific concerns with the compromise wording I proposed?, viz: "As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers were killed in frontier conflicts which many historians argue included acts of genocide by settlers. Settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good Kowal2701 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aemilius Adolphin Not sure where to put this as the RfC has become convoluted, but I don't think the addendum would need to be attributed to historians as an argument. I do wonder as well if there is a way to integrate it into the sentence rather than appending it, "...frontier conflicts led to tens of thousands of Indigenous people being killed, some in acts of genocide, as well as thousands of settlers..." or similar. CMD (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a 3rd choice as the first 2 do not really reflect the souces in my view. Ping thoses already here @OntologicalTree:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Aemilius Adolphin: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am attracted to @PastelLilac's idea of a blend of Option 2 and 3. For example we might change Option 2 to: "The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups. As settlement expanded, tens of thousands of Indigenous people and thousands of settlers were killed in frontier conflicts which many historians argue included acts of genocide by settlers. Settlers dispossessed surviving Indigenous peoples of most of their land."

One of the difficulties I have is that the lack of treaties should be mentioned because it was unusual in British colonisation, but we should avoid the implication that treaties were a realistic option and would have avoided conflict and acts of genocide. One only need look at what happened in North America and New Zealand (where there were treaties) to see that the idea is very naive. More importantly, I am not aware of any expert in the field who supports such a simplistic notion. Another problem I have is that this is a very high level article on Australia and whatever we say needs to be concise and not worded in a way which is simplistic and misleading. Details and nuances can be followed up in linked articles. A third issue is that I don't think we need to squeeze everything into one paragraph and one section of the article. For example, the section on Colonial Expansion states: "From 1886, Australian colonial governments began removing many Aboriginal children from their families and communities, justified on the grounds of child protection and forced assimilation policies. We could add: "The Human Rights Commission later described this as genocidal." with an appropriate citation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of treaties is quite unusual! If you look up at my vote for the options, I provide some extra context as to the difficulties. There is something else I didn't mention though, and that is the motives of Captain Cook himself. Australia had already been probed by the French and Dutch, and the British desperately needed a new place to dump their prisoners after America said "no, screw you" to them. Australia was too good to pass up and time was of the essence for claiming it as a prospective settlement. As such, the leading theory is that Captain Cook intentionally classified the Indigenous peoples as "fauna" so they could subvert standard British protocol. Here's a source! [5] Sirocco745 (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of treaties is unusual, but I agree with Aemilius Adolphin that this shouldn't be presented as a core reason for death and displacement. Even without treaties, there were attempts by officials at various to reduce conflict; they were often ignored. Option 3 is much better than Option 1, but it is not clear what the core issue that needs to be solved is. CMD (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the lack of treaties isn't really relevant to this paragraph, I just wanted to add my own knowledge to the conversation for those who didn't know. As for the core issue in question, I honestly don't know what was "wrong" with the original paragraph, but this is a good opportunity regardless to revise it. Sirocco745 (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue is that a couple of editors wanted the article to explicitly state that "Aboriginal Australians were the victims of Genocide" but didn't have the patience to seek consensus on appropriate wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A ittle basic research should be done by all...Nettelbeck, Amanda; Ryan, Lyndall (March 31, 2020). "Frontier Violence in the Nineteenth-Century British Empire". The Cambridge World History of Violence. Cambridge University Press. p. 227–245. doi:10.1017/9781316585023.012. the failure of treaties to secure lasting peace led ultimately to military campaigns that were openly acknowledged as warfare. Moxy🍁 13:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we did not have the patience for this, we would not be participating in this RFC. If others had substantive arguments as to why the historians and scholars disagree on this point, they already would have preferred them in lieu of handwringing about word choice and long-winded apologia imperial applogia. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your claim that The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease is not in line with the latest historical sources. The virgin soil hypothesis has largely been replaced by the view that while disease played a role in the initial decinations, it was brutal settler policies that prevented the population from rebounding as they otherwise would have. The Black Plague wiped out as much or more of Europe as any of the virgin soil epidemics of Australia and the Americas, and yet the French, Italians, and English have gone nowhere. If you are going to attempt to cite historical consensus, at least be up to date on the matter. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brusquedandelion: pls review Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Moxy🍁 00:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have generally not reiterated my own viewpoints in different places, only made different viewpoints in multiple places. The fact that multiple people tried to bludgeon this discourse by handwringing about word count rather than getting to the crux of the issue merits being pointed out. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Moxy. Please stop bludgeoning the process. Please stop insinuating that other editors have sinister hidden motives for voting the way they do. Assume good faith. Please stop suggesting that other editors shouldn't participate unless they vote the way you want them to. We don't want a toxic environment that's inimical to consensus building. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed good faith in stating that my first inclination is to believe the voters handwringing about word choice etc. are simply not capable of reading comprehension, or perhaps how RFCs work. I floated a second possibility, that they simply do not want to use the g-word, but this isn't anything "nefarious". Theirs would certainly be an opinion. Not one backed by reliable sources, but it is an opinion. If you can suggest a better faith interpretation of someone flippantly ignoring the actual crux of the matter at hand to instead clutch pearls about word count, something that is eminently fixable, than a simple lack of understanding as to what this RFC is actually about, I am all ears and will happily strike my prior comments on this issue from the record. And may I remind you, one of the handwringers have straight up admitted to having a conflict of interest on this subject, due to nationalist sentiments and grievance politics. Odd that it is me you are dressing down, and not them, when their comments are against the spirit of letter of at least half a dozen Wikipedia policies.

Consensus building requires that people actually talk about the topic at hand. I cannot think of anything more inmicable to this process than people bringing up essentially unrelated issues, thereby muddying the waters, even if it is, as I will assume out of good faith, entirely unintentionally. And I would like to remind everyone that an RFC is also not just a vote for 3 options, but that it has a broad mandate to effect a fairly flexible solution, meaning it is entirely possible for the closer to determine the consensus is to keep the essential aspects of 1 or 3 in a differently worded paragraph.

Frankly, if you don't see how it is a problem to the integrity of the consensus that very few of the comments even acknowledge the g-word in an RFC literally titled Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?—well, what are we even doing here? Brusquedandelion (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 currently says "... the Indigenous population declined of up to 90%.^[1]", which is grammatically incorrect. I was going to see if I could fix it (without changing the intended meaning), but when I checked the reference Hiding the bodies I could not find the quote "... with at least a 90% mortality rate". I did find that quote in Edge of sacred - Exploring the life stories of the Nauiyu community. @Moxy: as the editor who added the option, reference and quote, could you please fix this discrepancy. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it.... are you looking for another source? juvenile publication for simplicity or PMC source Moxy🍁 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it.... — Done. [6][7] Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all

Someone seems to have added a new option to this RfC after people have already voted on the original two options. @OntologicalTree Would you mind withdrawing this RfC in order to give other interested editors sufficient time to propose other options? I also suggest that if you just let others have their say on the Talk page we should be able to come up with consensus wording which avoids the need for a RfC altogether. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero need for withdrawal normal evolution process of an RFC sometimes. Editors that were already here have been informed of a new selection as discussed above early in the process. Moxy🍁 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally a RfC is only initiated when there is a failure to reach a consensus after a genuine attempt. Do you really think interested editors were given sufficient time to discuss and reach a compromise on any of these proposed options? Or to come up with their own? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most RFC happen because multiple good faith attempts with reliable sources have been made to change the text to no avail and people feel the reasoning is not substantiated. It's simply a way of getting those uninvolved involved. This is not a scary process.... nor should it be blocked. In giant RFCs there may be multiple suggestions of change. This is a fluid process not static. I would suggest we see the sources for each paragraph though. Moxy🍁 02:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it scary, I find it shambolic, unnecessary and designed to reduce discussion to three badly drafted options. And your suggestion that I am trying to shut down the argument is plain wrong. I am trying to give editors time to come up with alternative, better worded, options which better reflect recent scholarship. By the way is the Bain Attwood article you cite available through wikilibrary? I can't access it so can't verify that you are accurately summarising it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can access it through your Alma mater here Moxy🍁 02:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have read it. You use this article as a source for your statement, "The expansion of settlements without any negotiated treaties led to violent conflicts known as the Australian frontier wars." But Attwood doesn't say this. The closest I can find is: "As I have noted, they [the British] simply took the land without any negotiation, let alone any treaties; and they used naked force to secure their possession but were unable or unwilling to acknowledge publicly that this was so, for reasons that were moral, psychological and legal." He doesn't say the lack of treaties caused the violent conflict or the frontier wars. It was the spread of settlement and aboriginal resistance to this that caused the conflict. Indeed treaties are usually signed after a period of violent conflict. The article isn't about this at all, it is about the ways the British tried to justify colonisation and present-day denialism of dispossession. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always think it's best to summarize then plagiarize. To me it's pretty clear they did not negotiate they just took the land by force.... thus the Indigenous population fought back and there were wars .... related to the source in way of Terra nullius#Australia. They're unwilling to talk to them let alone negotiate treaties just forcibly removed. I can provide multitude of sources ... as others have above..and assuming you can as well. But this one explains very well in the context of justification. That said the genocide article needs a section about denialism. Moxy🍁 03:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think none of the three is ideal, with reasons given by others. I am not sure any genocide should be attributed to the lack of a treaty/agreement. Any such agreement might have helped but it could just as easily have been ignored. I cannot see a direct link between 'agreement' and 'no genocide'. Better phrasing in the article might help though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Why doesn't Australia have an indigenous treaty?". BBC News. May 24, 2017. Retrieved Nov 8, 2024. The absence of a treaty was cited by Mr Arthur as a crucial and aggravating factor in relations with the first inhabitants of the island, the scene of some of the worst treatment inflicted on Aborigines by British colonists. Moxy🍁 08:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OntologicalTree: Please provide a brief and neutral statement for the RfC. The statement as it stands (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long (at over 9,600 bytes) for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Moxy🍁 22:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoxyI don't think you fixed it, you made it worse. It believe what @OntologicalTree (not you) has to do is concisely and accurately state the nature of the request and then put the three three options after the time stamp. I would suggest wording such as "There is a dispute over whether the article should state that British colonisation of Australia involved genocide against Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. Which of the three proposed options should be included in the article?" @Redrose64 Am I correct? I didn't initiate the RfC and I'm not sure about the technical requirements. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is length was the concern... as that was elaborated on... so simply made a header so it wouldn't be so big. But what you proposed in wording sounds reasonable to me....pretty much the same meaning..... Do we mention genocide or not? Do we follow sources and elaborate on multiple points or not? I would have no complaints if you changed it..... as there's no change in meaning. Moxy🍁 23:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the link to the RfC notification you will find that it is blank. I'm not sure but I think the initiator of the RfC has to fix it. The whole thing is a shambles and the RfC should not have been submitted before other editors had a chance to propose better worded options. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legobot will amended the RfC listings the next time that it runs.... It was simply too big. With the new subheader only the first paragraph will appear now. Moxy🍁 00:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: this edit didn't fix anything, in fact it made it worse by (a) increasing the size of the RfC statement and (b) introducing complex formatting. The only thing that Legobot recognises as the end of an RfC statement is a valid timestamp, as stated at WP:RFCBRIEF (in several slightly different ways).

@Aemilius Adolphin: It doesn't matter who amends the RfC statement, Legobot runs once an hour and if any RfC statement has been edited (by anybody) since the last run, the new version is copied to the RfC listings (per WP:RFC#Modifying an RfC). Unless it is too long or too complex, in which case you either get a partial copy, or nothing at all apart from a link, as with this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so move his signature to the end of the paragraph?  Done Moxy🍁 00:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll find out at the next Legobot run, in about five minutes time. Put Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography on your watchlist now, see if this RfC gets listed there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect it seems to be working thank you for your help. Moxy🍁 01:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this up Moxy, and for all your work to get this RfC into a better shape. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.... this is an interesting RFC..... Seeing everyone's different point of view or approach to this is interesting. Moxy🍁 02:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]