Talk:Stolen Generations

The terms used to refer to the affected children shifts around a lot in this article. Some of that seems due to direct quotes from different people or documents, but I noticed one point in the "policy in practice" section, which isn't clearly indicated as a quote, within the same sentence it uses both "half-caste" and "mixed-race" to refer to the same category of children. 2600:100A:B1E3:F50E:4C94:93A3:9918:5307 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As I read it, "half-caste" is only used in quotations or what are effectively quotations. It would be wrong to use it today outside quotations. "Mixed-race" is a term that wouldn't work to describe something happening in Australia today, but it's correct in the context of this article, where race was still a recognised concept for the duration of the stolen generations. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideas of race Australia 165.0.72.92 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are asking for someone to write a school assignment for you? If so, this isn't the place for this request. Article talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article text, not requesting general commentary on the article topic. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the reference desk though where you can ask questions. Wallby (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I.e. was there propaganda? There seems to be leftover news advertisements.. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-5948969/THE-STOLEN-GENERATIONS.html

Were there Australian citizens of the time who thought "what they were doing was helping?". This perspective seems to be missing from the article. Wallby (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As maybe a ten year old in Australia in the 1950s, my parents told me how nice we white people were being to Aboriginal kids by putting them in special schools where they could learn to be housemaids and farm workers. I won't try to interpret that for you, except to say that, as far as most people were concerned, it was a well intentioned program. HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Under the section "Emergence of the child-removal policy", there is the following statement:

Studies that were then viewed as scientific claimed that Australian Aborigines traits were less visible after mixing with Europeans than sub-Saharan African traits are, so Australia did not apply a one drop rule to Aborigines like the American South did to people of African descent.

This claim is sourced to a 1960 scientific study that examines the traits of some mixed-race people in order to extrapolate the likely genetic mechanism by which these traits are inherited, and then discusses the implications for the effectiveness of integration policy in light of these findings together with previously known information.

In other words, almost not a single part of the above statement is sourced.

• It is not established how the study fails to be scientific.
• It is not established that there is more than one study.
• It is not established that scientific consensus had any relevance to government policy-making.
• It is not established why the "one drop rule" should be considered the status quo in racial policy or what relevance the "American South" has here. These terms are also unprompted americanisms and should not be contained within an article written in Australian English.

Since relevance has not been established, the statement should be entirely removed. 130.43.213.148 (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for where it says "removing Aboriginal children as genocide" to be changed to "removing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children as genocide" please. ~2025-34829-28 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. No need to single out people when there is no source for it. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Torres Strait Islanders are not classified as Aboriginals. ~2025-35317-48 (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

True, but not relevant unless the source cited discusses Torres Strait Islanders, or you can cite a valid one directly on the same topic which does, as you have been told on multiple occasions, in relation to multiple articles. Please stop spamming Wikipedia talk pages with the same utterly pointless requests. We are not going to arbitrarily include text referring to Torres Strait Islanders alongside text concerning Aboriginals just to suit your personal objectives, regardless of how long you keep this up, and you may eventually find yourself being blocked for disruption. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The article, as it stood, had the Adelaide outpost of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation/Commission conducting a survey which Robert Manne used to estimate between 20,000 and 25,000 Aboriginal children were removed. This is clearly a nonsense as being outside the remit and capability of this honorable but tiny institution. I have no access to Flood (2006) p.232 but surely ABS refers to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has both the remit and facilities to conduct a credible survey. Doug butler (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)