copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Claims that Winston Churchill once stated, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." (Viral Quote, 2019-07-08)
Evidence (2024-08-13): Becoming paralyzed has been the biggest obstacle I have ever had to overcome. However, as the great Winston Churchill once said, "‘The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity, but the optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty." Every day I live my life as an optimist, recognizing that I have been given a great opportunity to do extraordinary things in my life and to help others. [...] Having a disability has made me a stronger and more compassionate person. Increasing disability awareness is very important to me. A person should never be afraid to pursue what they truly desire in life, no matter how great the obstacles may seem. [...] Every day I look forward to the challenges and opportunities life presents. I realize there is no point in looking back at the past and wondering what life would be like if this had not happened. Every day I appreciate the life that I have. Paralympic rugby player Dean Maccabe said it best, "I don’t think about what happened to me, I only concentrate on what I can make happen."
Claim: Claims that Winston Churchill once stated, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." (Viral Quote, 2019-07-08)
Evidence (2017-01-02): 02 Jan "The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity.
Claim: Claims that Winston Churchill once stated, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." (Viral Quote, 2019-07-08)
Evidence (2024-01-01): As a trial lawyer, I am all too familiar with people having a negative perception of our industry. They have one bad experience, or hear one bad story, or absorb one too many smear-campaigns attacking our profession and their perception becomes skewed. They become distrustful of us all. What this washing-machine incident taught me, however, was that it just takes one good experience to change people’s perception. [...] In the wise words of Winston Churchill, "a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." Be an optimist. Seize the day. [...] Copyright © 2024 by the author.
Claim: Claims that Winston Churchill once stated, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." (Viral Quote, 2019-07-08)
Evidence (2019-01-11): What is one fact about yourself that might surprise people? [...] What is your favorite quote? I have two favorite quotes: "If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude."—Maya Angelou "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."—Winston Churchill
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2020-06-28): The Flora and Fauna Act did not exist, and there is no record of any other act legally classifying Indigenous Australians as animals. Experts said the claim is incorrect.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2018-03-20): A regularly repeated claim in public debate is that Indigenous Australians were covered by a flora and fauna act, which did not classify them as human beings, and that this only changed when the constitution was amended following the 1967 referendum. [...] So, is it true that Indigenous Australians were classified according to a flora and fauna act until the 1967 referendum? RMIT ABC Fact Check investigates. [...] Sources - Shareena Clanton, speaking on the ABC's Q&A program. February 19, 2018 - Federal Register of Legislation - Australian Legal Information Institute - Australian Government Office of Parliamentary Counsel - Reconfiguring History: The 'Flora and Fauna Act' and other myths of the Australian legislation, by Samuel Byrnand, Researchgate, May 2015 - Aborigines classified as animals under flora and fauna act? Wafflesatnoon, June 1, 2016 - Myths persist about the 1967 referendum, by Ron Sutton, sbs,com.au, March 11, 2014 - Were Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australians regulated by the flora & fauna act? By David Walker, Club Troppo, June 3, 2013 - Myths about 1967 referendum should be discarded, Anne Twomey, The Australian, May 26, 2017 - Indigenous recognition and constitutional myths by Helen Irving, Constitutional Critique blog, University of Sydney, June 9, 2015 - 'Right wrongs, write yes': what was the 1967 referendum all about?
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2024-09-22): The British Empire established a penal colony at Botany Bay in 1788. In the 150 years that followed, the number of Indigenous Australians fell sharply due to introduced diseases and violent conflict with the colonists. From the 1930s, the Indigenous population began to recover and Indigenous communities founded organisations to advocate for their rights. From the 1960s, Indigenous people won the right to vote in federal and state elections, and some won the return of parts of their traditional lands. In 1992, the High Court of Australia, in the Mabo Case, found that Indigenous native title rights existed in common law. By 2021, Indigenous Australians had exclusive or shared title to about 54% of the Australian land mass.[22]
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2018-03-22): As in the ABC this week, The Flora and Fauna Act myth has strong ties to the 1967 Referendum, which in itself has been misrepresented as providing Aboriginal people with citizenship, the vote, equal wages, and human status by overturning the Flora and Fauna Act - all of which are untrue. Further, it is heralded as the point in time when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were finally counted in the national census, which itself is not entirely untrue, but is entirely misleading. Aboriginal people have been counted in the national census since 1911, which was the first official national census after federation. The point that has been twisted here is that the numbers of Aboriginal people were kept separate from the final count of the Australian population. That fact alone is dark enough without throwing more fabricated shade onto it.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2024-09-25): Strong activism by individuals and both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups greatly aided the success of the 1967 referendum in the years leading up to the vote. Calls for Aboriginal issues to be dealt with at the federal level began as early as 1910.[11] Despite a failed attempt in the 1944 referendum, minimal changes were instigated for Aboriginal rights until the 1960s, where the Bark Petition in 1963 and the ensuing Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd and Commonwealth of Australia (Gove Land Rights Case),[12][13] and Gurindji Strike highlighted the negative treatment of Indigenous workers in the Northern Territory.[14] From here, the overall plight of Aboriginal Australians became a fundamental political issue.[11] [...] [edit]It is also sometimes mistakenly stated that the 1967 referendum overturned a Flora and Fauna Act. This is believed to have come from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, which controlled Aboriginal heritage, land and culture. The other states had equivalent acts which were managed by various departments, including those relating to agriculture and fishing.[32] [...] Sources [edit]- Arcioni, Elisa (2012). "Excluding Indigenous Australians from 'The People': A Reconsideration of Sections 25 and 127 of the Constitution". Federal Law Review. 40 (3). Canberra: Australian National University: 287–315. doi:10.22145/flr.40.3.1. ISSN 1444-6928. S2CID 210774854. Retrieved 3 August 2020.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2021-10-27): From 1850 until the 1960s, under Australia's various state protection laws, Aboriginal people were driven off their lands and gathered into specific missions, reserves and stations. These protection laws continue to have a profound impact on the population of Aboriginal people today. Until the 1960s, the Australian government tried to make Australia a country of people with European ethnic origin.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2010-02-24): With the change in the international climate in the 1960s and with the judgment of the electoral body that the surviving Aboriginal people were showing signs of promise in terms of adopting white ways, Aboriginal people were made citizens of Australia. This was accompanied by a campaign for equal pay for black workers on cattle stations.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2023-08-24): The longstanding myth that Indigenous people were classified as "fauna" under a Flora and Fauna Act until the 1967 referendum is gaining new life ahead of the vote on a proposed voice to parliament. [...] This is false. While Aboriginal people were subject to discriminatory laws and treatment, experts told AAP FactCheck they were never classified under any "Flora and Fauna Act" - which has never existed in any jurisdiction. [...] The claim Indigenous people were legally classified as fauna prior to the 1967 referendum is false.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2020-10-22): FACT CHECK: Were Indigenous Australians Legally Classified As ‘Animals’ Until The 1960s? A viral Facebook post shared over 14,000 times claims that until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act. [...] The Facebook post claims, "Until 1960s, Aboriginal Australians came under the Flora And Fauna Act, classified them as animals, not human beings. Featured alongside the claim is a black-and-white photo that, according to The Guardian, shows a white man standing above a group of chained Indigenous men sitting on the ground at a prison.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2023-09-01): A pervasive myth alleging that Indigenous Australians were once classified by authorities as flora and fauna has resurfaced as the Voice to Parliament referendum approaches. In a number of recent posts shared to social media, users have claimed that Indigenous people were governed — prior to the 1967 referendum — under a "flora and fauna act". [...] "[Aboriginal people] were discriminated against in other ways, not by being part of the flora and fauna act," Professor McGregor said.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2024-10-09): The longstanding myth that Indigenous people were classified as "fauna" under a Flora and Fauna Act until the 1967 referendum is gaining new life ahead of the vote on a proposed voice to parliament. [...] This is false. While Aboriginal people were subject to discriminatory laws and treatment, experts told AAP FactCheck they were never classified under any "Flora and Fauna Act" – which has never existed in any jurisdiction. [...] The claim Indigenous people were legally classified as fauna prior to the 1967 referendum is false.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2021-04-17): Did a law called "The Flora and Fauna Act" classify aboriginal people as animals until Australian voters overturned it in the 1960s? No, that's not true: There is no record a Flora and Fauna Act ever existed. While the historic Australian referendum affecting inclusion of aboriginal people won approval in 1967, it did not replace nor overturn any law classifying aboriginal people as animals. [...] Australia, until 1960s, Aboriginal Australians came under the Flora And Fauna Act, classified them as animals, not human beings. [...] Australia, until 1960s, Aborigines came under the Flora And Fauna Act, classified them as animals, not human beings pic.twitter.com/rHB9TlHM8A -- History In Pictures (@HistoryInPics) December 16, 2014
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2024-04-16): The "Flora and Fauna Act" myth is a belief often repeated in public debate that Indigenous Australians were classified as fauna by legislation, specifically under a "Flora and Fauna Act", and managed as such by the Australian and State Governments, and that the legislation and practice was overturned by a change to the Australian Constitution implemented by the 1967 referendum about Aboriginal affairs. [...] Origin [edit]Academic and indigenous rights activist Marcia Langton, in speaking to the ABC, said she first heard the term "Flora and Fauna Act" mentioned by filmmaker Lester Bostock at a council meeting in Canberra in the 1970s. Langton stated that she believed Bostock meant it in a metaphorical sense and she "had no idea that this would grow into the urban myth that it is today". She went on to say "We were not classified under the 'flora and fauna act' but we were treated as animals."[1] [...] See also [edit]References [edit]- ^ a b c "Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians classified under a flora and fauna act until the 1967 referendum?". ABC News. 12 July 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2023-09-28): Fact Check has previously tackled the claim that Indigenous Australians were classified under a "flora and fauna act" prior to the referendum, finding that this was a myth. [...] - Fact Check: Were Indigenous Australians classified under a flora and fauna act until the 1967 referendum?, March 20, 2018 - National Archives of Australia, The 1967 Referendum - Helen Irving, Indigenous recognition and constitutional myths, June 9, 2015 - Geoffrey Sawer, The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigines, June 1966 - ABS, Informing a nation: the evolution of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005 - ABS, Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1947 - ABS, Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 1911, Statistician's report - Greg Taylor, A History of Section 127 of the Commonwealth Constitution, November 11, 2016 - Parliamentary Library, Research brief: The 1967 Referendum–history and myths, May 2, 2007 - ABS, Population issues, Indigenous Australians, 1996 - ABS, Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census, July 2011 - Elisa Arcioni, Excluding Indigenous Australians from ‘The People’: A Reconsideration of Sections 25 and 127 of the Constitutio - Tim Rowse & Murray Goot, The Debate Over the Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: National Unity and Memories of the 1967 Referendum, 2023
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2013-06-03): "I know that until the 1967 referendum altered our constitution to include all Australians as enfranchised citizens, our first peoples were regulated by the Flora & Fauna Act." What I presume Pickering means is not just that the Flora and Fauna Act covered Indigenous people along with everyone else, or even that it mentioned them specially (say, to give them rights to hunt on the land), but that lawmakers classed Indigenous people as "fauna". [...] Minor update, January 2022: The Indigenous actor Shareena Clanton also made the flora and fauna claim on ABC TV’s Q&A, to Josh Frydenberg. "My mother was born in 1965 and she was not considered a human being until the referendum came through from the flora and fauna act in 1967." Nyunggai Warren Mundine pushed back.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2024-07-04): - Until the mid-60s, Indigenous Australians came under the Flora and Fauna Act, which classified them as animals, not human beings. This also meant that killing an indigenous Australian meant you weren’t killing a human being, but an animal. "I was a child. It still staggers me that for the first 10 years of my life, I existed under the Flora and Fauna Act of NSW." Linda Burney MP - Forcibly removed from their parents under government policy. Children stolen from their families, creating the Stolen Generation.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2017-01-01): It is sometimes stated that the 1967 Referendum overturned a ‘Flora and Fauna Act’. This supposed act classed Aboriginal people alongside native Australian flora and fauna.
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2020-10-22): The claim: Until the 1960s, Australia classified its Aboriginal population as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act [...] There is no evidence of a Flora and Fauna Act under Australian law that classified its Aboriginal population as plants and animals. While the claim speaks to frustrations many Australians harbor around Indigenous equality, we rate this claim FALSE because it is unfounded by law and concluded false by multiple scholars. [...] - Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 19, 2018, "Fact check: Were Indigenous Australians classified under a flora and fauna act until the 1967 referendum?"
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2021-12-09): Aborigines were kept behind fences as if they were wild animals. This kind of segregation was meant to ensure that nobody got in or out. Aside from this intense kind of segregation, the British policies were centered on assimilating the native people to English ways. Tatz points that "Under the Victorian Aborigines Protection Act 1886 aid was restricted to full-bloods and half-castes over the age of 34. All others, regardless of their marital or sibling status, were forcibly expelled from missions and reserves. Children were not exempt. They faced relocation to white foster parents, white adoptive parents and half-caste or assimilation homes."
Claim: until the 1960s, Indigenous Australians were classified as animals under the Flora and Fauna Act (Viral post, 2020-06-28)
Evidence (2022-11-24): I learnt a lot reading this. Many of the contributors described their anguish at being lighter-skinned, asked to prove their Aboringinality, told they could and should ‘pass’ for non-Aboriginal, were questioned on what proportion of their heritage was Aboriginal and found they were too light-skinned for some of their family group or activists but too dark-skinned for European-origin Australians (this chimed with the works I’m reading on people with dual heritages elsewhere in the world, but with special horrors to do with their geography). I also hadn’t realised that Aboriginal people were only accepted as actual PEOPLE in the 1960s when there was a referendum about ‘allowing’ them to appear on the census and vote – before that, they were counted as sort of part of the flora and fauna [Edited to add: this is actually a myth, please see the comments and links by my Australian blogger friends below]. And I was completely unaware that people were captured and removed from Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and other islands and used for labour.
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2019-09-08): The statement appears nowhere in Shakespeare’s writing. It actually comes from writer and politician Eugene Ware‘s 1889 poem.
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2019-09-24): FACT CHECK: Did Shakespeare Say, ‘All Glory Comes From Daring To Begin’? An image shared on Facebook claims that playwright William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." The statement appears nowhere in Shakespeare’s writing. It actually comes from writer and politician Eugene Ware‘s 1889 poem.
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2024-01-01): The thing about any kind of scholarship is that you begin with the evidence. And there is ample evidence that William Shakespeare, a man from Stratford-upon-Avon, and born in this place, became an actor, became a playwright, then eventually returned to Stratford and died.
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2017-02-21): Fake quotes have been in the news lately, from the Republican National Committee’s Abraham Lincoln flub to the bogus Winston Churchill quote about supporting funding for the arts during World War II. Such misattribution is familiar to Shakespeare enthusiasts. Every day, fake Shakespeare quotes are being shared on social media. Here are a few examples: [...] This is a quote from poet, author, and politician Eugene F. Ware, not Shakespeare. "All glory comes from daring to begin." – William Shakespeare — Great Minds Quotes (@GreatestQuotes) February 21, 2017 4. "But for those who love, time is eternal."
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2020-05-12): For the glory of love." ~ Peter Cetera "To win without risk is to triumph without glory." ~ Pierre Corneille "Heroism is the best [quality] in human nature, an ideal we can all aspire to. Of course, there’s exaggeration in the use of the term ‘hero’. Celebrities are confused with heroes these days. Lately the conception of the hero has probably become diluted—it’s being applied to, say, people who buy the groceries for their neighbor. That’s altruism. That’s being decent. But I think the current COVID crisis will throw more definitive ideas of heroism into the spotlight." ~ Philip Zimbardo "Take a risk and go after your dream. This is the only chance you’re going to get. One day, it will be too late – and that day is coming fast." ~ Greg Dickerson "All significant achievement comes from daring, from experiment, from the willingness to risk failure." ~ Sydney J. Harris
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Now is he come unto the chamber-door, That shuts him from the heaven of his thought, Which with a yielding latch, and with no more, Hath barr'd him from the blessed thing he sought. So from himself impiety hath wrought, That for his prey to pray he doth begin, As if the heavens should countenance his sin.
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2019-06-06): Things Shakespeare also did not say, shared in the fervent hope folks will stop mindlessly forwarding flowery memes without actually listening to the words, include:
Claim: Claims that William Shakespeare said, "All glory comes from daring to begin." (Viral Quote, 2019-09-08)
Evidence (2022-07-01): "All glory comes from daring to begin." ― Ruskin Bond.