Mitch Ames (talk | contribs) →Lead section: more ... |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
::::{{gi|"I'm specifically ''not'' in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced."}}<br /> I disagree that it would "wildly unbalanced" - this is an article about Aboriginal communities, not Aboriginal rights. As I previously mentioned, the sentence as it stands implies a causal link between the communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, but provides no references to support that implied link, and fails to explain the link. In the absence of any reliably sourced link between communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, the last half of the sentence is simply irrelevant in the context of this article. Possibly [[User:Hack|Hack]]'s reference [http://www.noongarculture.org.au/impacts-of-law-post-1905/] can provide the missing link. Eg perhaps Aborginal communities arose because they were not allowed into Perth or towns because they did not have the same rights as the whites? If that's the case, we need to say so explicitly. But if that is the case, we might need to explain why the communities continued after the were given rights those rights. And how/where does funding fit into it all? [http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Remote-Communities-Reform/History-of-Remote-Communities/ This] might help. I'll have look through those refs and see if I can come up with something better. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
::::{{gi|"I'm specifically ''not'' in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced."}}<br /> I disagree that it would "wildly unbalanced" - this is an article about Aboriginal communities, not Aboriginal rights. As I previously mentioned, the sentence as it stands implies a causal link between the communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, but provides no references to support that implied link, and fails to explain the link. In the absence of any reliably sourced link between communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, the last half of the sentence is simply irrelevant in the context of this article. Possibly [[User:Hack|Hack]]'s reference [http://www.noongarculture.org.au/impacts-of-law-post-1905/] can provide the missing link. Eg perhaps Aborginal communities arose because they were not allowed into Perth or towns because they did not have the same rights as the whites? If that's the case, we need to say so explicitly. But if that is the case, we might need to explain why the communities continued after the were given rights those rights. And how/where does funding fit into it all? [http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Remote-Communities-Reform/History-of-Remote-Communities/ This] might help. I'll have look through those refs and see if I can come up with something better. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
How about [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 11:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{quotation|The governments of [[Australia]] and [[Western Australia]] have supported and funded these communities in a number of ways for the last 40-50 years; prior to that Indigenous people had [[1946 Pilbara strike|limited rights]] with many forced to work for sustenance on [[Station (Australian agriculture)|stations]] as European settlers divided up the areas, or [[Stolen Generation|relocated]] under various Government acts</s>.}} |
|||
== Remote? == |
== Remote? == |
Revision as of 11:30, 30 May 2015
Australia: Western Australia / Indigenous peoples List‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Definition
My recent edit remove a few words from the definition / lead sentence, including.
- communities are groups of people, not "locations"
- "regions" is redundant - without qualification it covers the whole state
- "Western Australia" is redundant - where else are "Aboriginal communities in Western Australia" going to be?
However the resultant sentence is perhaps a bit terse. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Ideas:
- ".. in remote regions ..."? Is it accurate? Do we need to define "remote"?
- What word - other than location or communities could we insert in "Aboriginal communities in Western Australia are
those_____ that have indigenous population ..."
Mitch Ames (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- communities dictionary definition may be groups of people but the sites are being referred to as communities probably for the political reasons that call them what they are towns would make it harder for the governments to paternalistic to people who live there. Then in some cases the community extends beyond a handful of buildings to include the traditional country of a particular group in other cases its previous station lands they have acquired which dont necessarily include their country. Gnangarra 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
List
I've moved the List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia into a separate article. Some works is probably required on the wording of the newly renamed section Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Identification and definition and the lead of the new article. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit - should it be "as well as the communities' self identification", with a possessive apostrophe? Or possibly "as well as the communities and their self identification's", ie the critera of the self identification as well as the government's criteria? (Grammatically correct, but probably has too much superfluous verbiage.) Mitch Ames (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed: [1][2]. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Respose
This is a highly contentious political issue and the level of interest in conent is not where what does this mean? type of messages or speculation are possible without a very large list of watchers are likely to wonder what the hell is going on. If you want a dialogue on this mitch, please go off wiki. I am not answering here. User:JarrahTree 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Lead section
I am not happy about the second sentence of the lead section, which says:
The governments of Australia and Western Australia have supported and funded these communities in a number of ways for over 40 years; prior to that Indigenous people were non citizens with no rights, forced to work for sustenance on stations as European settlers divided up the areas, or relocated under various Government acts.
It appears to conflate several issues:
- Government support and funding for Aboriginal communities
- Indigenous citizenship
- rights
- forced to work ...
- Europeans taking the land
- relocation
The result appears to be factually wrong in parts, potentially misleading, and possibly non-neutral. There are no references for this sentence, and it is not expanded (with refs) in the rest of the article.
Specific problems:
prior to [government support and funding of these communities] Indigenous people were non citizens
– According to
- neither Europeans nor indigenes were "citizens" prior to 1949, both were British subjects, and after 1949 both were Australian citizens.
no rights
– while it's true that Aborigines did not have as many rights (eg they could not vote in federal elections until 1949), "no rights" seems unlikely without a referencegovernments ... have supported and funded ... ; prior to that Indigenous people...
– implies a causal link that is unlikely to be true. Did government funding give them rights? Did that funding give them citizenship? I doubt it. Were most or all Aborigines forced to work on stations or relocated until their communities were supported/funded by the governments?forced to work ..., or relocated
– "relocated" links to Stolen Generations, which is about children. Were all adults "forced to work"? Were any adults relocated?
Surely we can do better than this? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- a source https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2008/451/who-are-indigenous-australians/ already used in other article about Indigenous history states all of the above yiu are calling factually wrong, it even notes "Western Australia and Queensland specifically excluded Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from the electoral rolls" Gnangarra 05:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence I am not happy with does not mention electoral rolls. As I mentioned (2nd bullet point under "Specific problems"), not being allowed to vote is not the same as "no rights".
- Could you please quote the the specific words from https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2008/451/who-are-indigenous-australians/ that support the parts of the sentence that I dispute. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a reference that says "At Federation in 1901 no legal category of Australian citizenship existed", but between then and the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 "a de facto administrative Australian citizenship operated..." and that "There were three administrative civic categories of non-Aboriginal people" (my emphasis) only the first (British subjects with permanent residence) were considered citizens. This references notes that "the Nationality and Citizenship Act did not discriminate against Indigenous people, implicitly including them through the more logical use of the term 'natural-born'." Mitch Ames (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yellonga and Gnangara camps were where IA people around Perth were forced. Then theres the Moore River Settlement, Rottnest Island in pinjarrah they were just shot, same too down busselton way. Half-Caste_Act#Western_Australia Half Caste act 1886, and aboriginal protection act 1886, then the 1907 act which took away lands owned by Aboriginal people... The link inst causal but rather responsive they gained rights then they got Governmnet assistance, then the communities were developed. Gnangarra 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that indigenous Australians were badly treated, but I still think that the sentence (everything after the semi-colon) in its current form misleadingly implies causation. (ie that funding of the communities lead to citizenship, rights, not having to work for sustenance etc) Also its still not referenced. ([3] does not appear to support the sentence.)
- I think we should simply just drop everything after the semi-colon, ie
The governments of Australia and Western Australia have supported and funded these communities in a number of ways for over 40 years
; prior to that Indigenous people were non citizens with no rights, forced to work for sustenance on stations as European settlers divided up the areas, or relocated under various Government acts.
- However if you can come up with some specific references that link (to avoid WP:SYN) the concepts of citizenship, lack of rights, forced to work on stations, relocated - preferably with (approximate) dates, to establish a time line - I'll have a go at re-writing the sentence so that it explains the connection. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly, this needs some expansion and some better referencing, but I dare say my idea of what is appropriate here looks a lot more like Gnangarra's than Mitch's. I'm specifically not in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- There is confusion over similar but distinct terms. Yes, Aboriginal people may have been citizens but they didn't always have citizenship rights. According to the Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act 1944, Aboriginal people in Western Australia had to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship which granted them certain rights. These rights included, for example, being able to be in central Perth after 6pm.[4][5] I'm not really sure if it's so vital to this article that it needs to be in the lead. Hack (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly, this needs some expansion and some better referencing, but I dare say my idea of what is appropriate here looks a lot more like Gnangarra's than Mitch's. I'm specifically not in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- However if you can come up with some specific references that link (to avoid WP:SYN) the concepts of citizenship, lack of rights, forced to work on stations, relocated - preferably with (approximate) dates, to establish a time line - I'll have a go at re-writing the sentence so that it explains the connection. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"I'm specifically not in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced."
I disagree that it would "wildly unbalanced" - this is an article about Aboriginal communities, not Aboriginal rights. As I previously mentioned, the sentence as it stands implies a causal link between the communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, but provides no references to support that implied link, and fails to explain the link. In the absence of any reliably sourced link between communities, govt funding, and citizenship/rights, the last half of the sentence is simply irrelevant in the context of this article. Possibly Hack's reference [6] can provide the missing link. Eg perhaps Aborginal communities arose because they were not allowed into Perth or towns because they did not have the same rights as the whites? If that's the case, we need to say so explicitly. But if that is the case, we might need to explain why the communities continued after the were given rights those rights. And how/where does funding fit into it all? This might help. I'll have look through those refs and see if I can come up with something better. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How about Gnangarra 11:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The governments of Australia and Western Australia have supported and funded these communities in a number of ways for the last 40-50 years; prior to that Indigenous people had limited rights with many forced to work for sustenance on stations as European settlers divided up the areas, or relocated under various Government acts.
Remote?
Are there any Aboriginal communities that are not remote?
The media statement of 7 May 2015 (The reference for my recent addition to the article) includes both:
There are about 12,000 Aboriginal people currently living in 274 communities in Western Australia ...
and
There are about 12,000 people living in 274 remote communities in WA
The first sentence says "274 communities" but the second says "274 remote communities". Does this mean that all communities are remote?
Should the Wikipedia article mention remote communities explicitly?
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs 2013-2014 Annual Report refers in various places to "regional and remote communities" and (page 51) "urban, regional and remote communities", implying that there are Aboriginal communities other than remote.
Page 39 of that report says that there are "approximately 330 communities identified as remote within Western Australia", but then further down says "there are now 205 permanently occupied remote Aboriginal communities". Does this mean that (at the time) about 125 of those remote communities were not permanently occupied? Have some of those communities since closed, leaving only the 274 mentioned in the media statement?
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)