Talk:Indigenous peoples of Australia

message: the dubbo tribe doesnt exist at all so they are non aboriginals unless you can tell me the aboriginal heritage of dubbo then there is no aboriginal tribe of dubbo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.171.243 (talk • contribs).
:not sure what you mean? the Wiradjuri are from the dubbo area i think --Astrokey44 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comments

message: There's a new poll here that would (hopefully) end all this "Indigenous" vs. "Aborigine" controversy. Feel free to vote. Zarbat 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: If I remove everything from this page which is unreferenced there is nothing left. On the talk page it is disputed that Dubbo forms the tribabl area of any group - I would have thought the current entry is correct but it's not sourced.
Can someone please provide a reliable source for this article?Garrie 01:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: On Tasmania: The original Aboriginal population is estimated to be about 6000, rather than 8000. Michael Roe, 'Tasmania', Oxford Companion to Australian History. Oxford University Press, Melbourne: 1998, p.628.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.19.119 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasmanian Aboriginal Population 

message: Why do vandals sometimes call people boongs? That sounds like an instrument stoners use to smoke marijuana in some other parts of the world. 204.52.215.13 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb slur

message: In the north west of WA, around Carnarvon, the people are known as Yamatji - an equivalent to Koori, Nyoongar, etc. This needs elaboration in the WA section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squawkingalah (talk • contribs) 09:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yamatji 

message: Does anyone else find the inclusion of the picture of Yagan's severed head offensive?  I do, and I imagine many indigenous Australians would too. If nobody violently objects I am going to remove it. The ghoulish treatment of Aboriginal body parts is simply horrific, and this picture perpetuates the degradation and disrespect shown to them.
Melba1 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: removed, 'not censored' is not a reason to include an image. Is there a source that suggests inclusion in this article is appropriate, informative, definitive of the subject, or accurate? cygnis insignis 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One, I have no idea what you're talking about? Two, how is illustrating content "a bad thing?" It is appropriate (there is a section about it right next to the head), it is informative (it shows people what he looked like), and it is accurate (look at the source information if you please). We do not, nor will we ever remove something because it's "offensive" or people "may not like it." It illustrates content. Cite a policy or guideline that supports your opinion. –blurpeace (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I've just recently taken an Australia history lesson (about it's development, Europe's involvement, etc), and I can see why you wish to have the image removed. I support the exchange of the image, but once again, we can not remove it solely on the basis that it might "offend people." –blurpeace (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that its inclusion be explained and supported with reliable sources. The suggestion that an illustration of the severed, smoked, and decorated head of Yagan is representative of the Nyungar people is an extraordinary claim. Someone thought to decorate this stub with the file, it was removed as offensive, it was restored under 'not censored'. I removed it again, for many reasons, and gave enough of them to justify that edit. The assertion that this image is "offensive" is verifiable, it ought to be self evident from the description in the first rationale, and that NPOV would be a concern. The only other reason given for including this image, in this article, is to 'wikipedia is not censored'. This is not an adequate reason for reverting two editors who have given notice of their reasons. I have made reference to several policies in my response, any of them trump this giddy interpretation of NOT. cygnis insignis 05:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cygnis: This particular image is featured in Yagan as his portrait, and that article is a featured article. He is a well-known figure from Aborigine history, so I would think his portrait is fine to include in this section. If you could find a better portrait, maybe you could include that. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are discussing this article. I know who he was. The onus is on editors to offer any justification for its inclusion, then I will verify the reasons for excluding it. I'll repeat what should be obvious: Is there a source that suggests inclusion in this article is appropriate, informative, definitive of the subject, or accurate? Is it likely to be representative if it is also offensive?  cygnis insignis 05:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the answer is in the file description: - Inclusion in the National Library of Australia's archives (the source of the image, http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an7404365) indicates historical significance of an image, does it not? It is representative of a prominent Aborigine figure in Australian history. And while we are discussing this article, seeing what other articles do, especially featured articles, considered the best that Wikipedia has to offer, is good practice when looking at what to do for a particular article WhisperToMe (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That source does not support that assertion, or that a colonists image of a smoked and severed head, with some cocky feathers attached, represents the people. I know who he was, where the image is from, and what a feature article is, their relevance to this article is tenuous and unsupported. cygnis insignis 07:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I regret that WhisperToMe and Blurpeace reveal an ignorance of Australian Indigenous issues. Cygnis insignis is correct that the so-called "portrait" of Yagan does not represent his people. What's more, the caption beneath the article stated that the portrait " "bears little resemblance to the living face of Yagan", hence it does not represent him either. I have removed the portrait from the featured article on Yagan, as it is not representative and is a grotesque insult to the living Indigenes of Western Australia, and particularly to Yagan's own living descendants. Imagine if a feature on Abraham Lincoln used an image of his severed head removed by a foreign power in absolute degradation of him and all he represented? There would be no argument about removing such an image if it existed. A little more sensitivity to the intensely political and emotional issues surrounding Australian Indigenous history is required. In case you were not aware, the basic facts of this history are in dispute at this very moment, and racist colonial perspectives on it are intensely resented by Australian Aboriginal peoples. Melba1 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to bring that up on the Yagan discussion tab, but do know that I'm doubtful you will get far. –blurpeace (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yagan's severed head 

message: * Could include more pictures of the actual groups of people since there are only a few pictures but only one shows a group of people.
*Could have a section about the history of the Indigenous people of Australia in general in the beginning.
*Describe how the Indigenous groups were treated by the government and their rights.
*Describe any achievements that have been made in Australian history regarding rights of the Indigenous.
*Include more information about certain groups such as the Jarrakan, the Alyawarre.
*For the Anmatjera, show works of the artists and include more information.
--Groovy304 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvements 

message: There was quite a lot of text deleted in this series of edits. At a quick glance, it looks like at least some of the material's still missing, and would be worth reviewing for possible re-addition. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 section blanking 

message: I find this whole article confusing. Not being familiar with the AfD process, I found myself directed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous peoples of Australia for comment, where I've jotted down a few issues I have with it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion or merge?