Australian Aboriginal identity 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
I'm glad this article has been created, especially since I'm working on the Indigenous Australians article at the moment. Just wondering if the article and title should include Torres Strait Islander people? I know they're different cultures, but some of the issues relating to assertion of identity in Australia today are interlinked. Think Eddie Mabo, the Closing the Gap government strategy, Stolen Generations, and all of the issues which affect or afflict both groups. Just one ref found on a quick Google, I'm sure much more could be found...[1]Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, having embarked upon expanding this article without checking first, discovered this: Aboriginal Australians#Terminology. I cannot do any more at the moment, but perhaps others can discuss how best to tackle this, i.e. where to keep most of the content. I'll put a note on the other article's talk page too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
members of the Aboriginal groups Pascoe identified with
Author Bruce Pascoe's Aboriginal identity was questioned by Bolt and by several members of the Aboriginal groups he identified with, particularly Josephine Cashman.
... is ...of Warrimay heritage. ... belongs to the Warrimay/Worimi and Aranda peoples and has connections with Marika and Yunupingu people
There does not appear to be a common group shared by Pascoe and Cashman. Have I missed something? Does one of more of the articles need clarify or rewording? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mitch. You're right - it is Cashman's ex-partner who is Yuin, and she started by quoting his opinion. However I'm still working through this article and if not done before, I will get there and fix it up in the next day or two. Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the earlier references on the topic at Bruce Pascoe had Cashman saying something along the lines that her son is Yuin and his father had never heard of Pascoe. I can't find the reference tonight, so feel free to reword. --Scott DavisTalk13:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hidden Generations does not appear to be in widespread use (googling "Hidden generations" Australia), and is also used for other topics both in Australia and elsewhere. While it is no doubt true that Aboriginal people hid their Aboriginal identities, it just doesn't seem that there are strong enough sources to back up the use of this terminology. I would suggest compressing and merging this article (which should probably be in draftspace anyway) into Australian Aboriginal identity, Stolen Generations and/or another article related to this subject. Else PROD delete. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Stolen Generations article unless the page creator, Deeayenai, can provide more information to show the article doesn't breach the WP:ORIGINAL policy. Currently, of the accessible parts of the linked sources, only Austlit contains the word "hidden" ("...it seems that the best way to begin collecting this knowledge was to try to find those people who had disappeared - the Dudbaya'ora - the Hidden Ones."). Meticulo (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Children raised by their bi or multi-racial parents (not removed to the care of strangers or institutions) had quite a different experience to those who were "stollen". Often the "hidden" children's access to information about their true origin/family history was blocked by their parents and extended family. In an era of huge discrimination and restriction of Aboriginal people, the parents had often decided that passing their family off as Anglo-Greek, Italian or Indian was seen as the way to merge into the community and thereby provide opportunities for the next generation. 1.145.94.208 (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor: This is no doubt true, having heard and read about this but Wikipedia has to show evidence of the term "hidden generations" in the Australian context, as well as what it means, in reliable sources. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Sourcing for the term is not strong - only 2 of the online citations provided use this term. I'm not against covering it, just think that the term in particular looks too much like OR, and it is used in other contexts and countries. Perhaps it could be included in a new article called Cultural assimilation in Australia. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate or merge here not to Stolen Generations. Stolen Generation is just one of the triggers it predates and post dates that episode with a lingering affect recorded in language data being collected by the ABS even in this current(2021) year. Gnangarra08:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. I was easily able to find coverage in reliable sources sufficient to warrant this remaining separately. I don't see a logic for merging it here at all: it seems like one of those proposals where someone decides they want an article gone and picks at an article wildly at random to try to find an easy way of doing it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC) The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a rather uncalled-for comment, The Drover's Wife, about an editor who has spent untold hours trying to improve the quality of articles about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on Wikipedia, including this one. I would be happy (if and when I can find the time) to improve the article if you can supply some of the reliable sources you found. I have looked on Google Scholar and drilled into some of those and others I found on Google, and while there are a few, there are also several referring to quite different topics, such as disabled people, immigrants or Canadian Aboriginal people. The article leans heavily on one source (Hromek), and most of the citations do not actually mention the term - therefore, as far as I can see, violating WP:SYNTH. I do think that the topic is worthwhile, just don't think that there is enough in the literature to support the term with reference to Aboriginal Australian people, as a stand-alone article, at this point. In my view it could be quite well covered in this article, with appropriate redirects, and it would have higher visibility than in an article with a title that is not commonly used or sought (current traffic mostly under 10 daily views). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This response basically makes my point - a long response about why you don't think the article should exist, but zilch about why it makes any sense at all to be merged into this article apart from your desire for it not to have an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very strange response, completely ignoring what I have written. Please refresh your memory by having another look at the guides to deletion discussions, personal attacks, and casting aspersions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laterthanyouthink knows their subject and has been working in this area for a long time. I might not always agree with their position, but I respect their views because they do the research and put the effort in to building a useful encyclopaedia. I cannot see a problem with merging the term here in what is the most appropriate place and if it becomes a term in wider use we can split it out again. We can always employ a redirect to cater for those few who go looking for this actual term but realistically those who want information are going to come here first. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Laterthanyouthink (or Skyring, for that matter) has literally not advanced one single reason for why it would make sense to merge that article into this article. What do the two have to do with each other, except that both relate to Aboriginal people? I understand your argument perfectly - it's just not in any way an argument supporting a merge into this article, and being deeply condescending to women because you can't actually answer their responses to your proposals doesn't make them any more sound. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into this article. It speaks directly to Aboriginal identity and this is where readers will come looking, rather than for a term that is not in wide use or whose meaning is not readily apparent. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does it speak directly to Aboriginal identity (in a broad, general sense)? The content of this article largely focuses on attempts at defining Aboriginality. Why would a reader looking for information on the Hidden Generations (a traumatic event and its aftermath) come here? These are critical and completely unanswered questions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is claiming that their child of Aboriginal Australian ancestry is not, in fact, Aboriginal Australian, then that is a matter of Aboriginal identity, surely? I'm puzzled as to how you can see it otherwise. I have no objection to relevant material being included here but the issue of sourcing makes a separate article a notability matter. --Pete (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it always non-Aboriginal people who think they have a right to comment on Aboriginal people's identity? This is just another form of colonisation. If Aboriginal people are saying it needs to be separate, as they clearly are by placing it separately, leave it alone, or just continue good old colonial behaviour as always, which is pretty tiresome. Deeayenai (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
