This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aboriginal communities in Western Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
My recent edit remove a few words from the definition / lead sentence, including.
However the resultant sentence is perhaps a bit terse. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Ideas:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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
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 reference
governments ... 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)
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)
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.
"I'm specifically not in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced."
How about Gnan garra 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.
Aboriginal communities have their origins in church missions or state government welfare settlements. [1] In the first half of the 20th century, Aborigines' movements were restricted, [2] and they were largely excluded from towns, and segregated under the authority of the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA) [3] After a 1967 change to the Australian Constitution allowed it to legislate for Aborigines [4] [5] the federal government also funded the communities. [6]
References
- ^ "History of Remote Communities". Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ "Aboriginal Western Australia and Federation". Library and Information Service of Western Australia. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ "Impacts of Law Post 1905". Kaartdijin Noongar. South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Council. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ Scott Brodie (1999). Our Constitution. Franklin Watts Australia. p. 19.
- ^ Australia Through Time. Random House Australia. 2004. p. 412.
- ^ "History of Remote Communities". Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
Could somebody please provide a reference for the second paragraph of the lead (as it is currently worded, and/or Gnangarra's proposed new version). Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
Gnan garra 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)There are between 330-270 communities in WA with population estimates of 12,000 people some communities have been identified as seasonal or vacant
I've updated the article to state that 99% of the community population is remote or very remote (or was, in 2006). Given that many of the reference cited explicitly say "remote communities" and the article is about "communities" I think it important to state explicitly that the vast majority (by population) of "communities" are, in fact, remote. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There are approximately 274 Aboriginal communities in WA, comprising about 12,000 people "Reform to improve lives of Aboriginal people". Government of Western Australia. 7 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2015. 69 of the communities are seasonal, with no permanent residents. "What is a Remote Community?". State of Western Australia – Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
This is not what should be in a lead para.
It is not a 'conclusive' element of truth in the assertions or supposed sources. What a community is not what a source in a government department claims in a report.
Please do not re-insert. The article was created to specifically be an encyclopediac article with a good understanding of the historical context. It is turning into a grab bagh of half thought out ideas that are totally irrelevent. User:JarrahTree 02:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
this article is not about numbers, it was not created for numbers. To answer why the number of communities is totally irrelevent - it is the game that the federal and state public servants politicians are playing against the broader aboriginal community, to place any one set of numbers into this article - to not be undue - you would need 100 years of detailed complex stats - to put one assessment from one government source is wp:undue.
The number game in this instance does not belong in the lead or the article. that is the point. User:JarrahTree 03:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"even the second para in the lead could go"– That, at least, is something we agree on. Deleting the 2nd paragraph of the lead as at at the time you made you posted your comment or now would resolve the disagreement about the #Lead section. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to play with numbers (for the second time) - please go and play with it at the List article. User:JarrahTree 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents? ( example) Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does not given any indication of how many such communities there are in Western Australia, or how many people live in these communities. That information is relevant, and a reader could reasonably want to know, and expect it to be there.
The information is publicly available from Department of Aboriginal Affairs, state government media release, Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006 figures, number of residents, not number of communities). Concern has been raised that a government media release may not be neutral (given the current controversy over funding), but:
The ABS figures are from 2006, so they are not current, but:
To make it absolutely clear, I do not propose to mention how many communities the government may be planning to close. This is about how many communities there are now. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"... numbers on this article - the 'list' - that is fine, this article no."– Please explain why any of my or your arguments would be any different if the same information was presented in List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia? It seems to me that a reader could be interested in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia in general, so read the main article, but not interested in the name of every community. Why should that reader have to go the list article to find out such basic information as how many there are, and how many people are involved?
"the lead is the last place to put such things"– I'm quite happy to put the statement in a section instead of the lead. I don't think it suits any of the existing sections, but one could add an new appropriately-named section.
"you cannot do one [state how many communities there are now] without implying the other [many communities the government may be planning to close]"– Nonsense. How many closures does "There are approximately 274 Aboriginal communities in WA" imply? Answer: it makes no such implications at all. Does "69 of the communities are seasonal, with no permanent residents" imply that those communities will be closed? Answer: no. Both are simple statements with no connotations. Does my proposed article text mention closures at all? No. (The only reason I mentioned it in the RFC was because other editors brought up the current political debate.)
"it beggars beleief we have to have such complex discusssions about something so simple"– It does beggar belief that an editor can present a well-referenced neutral statement of fact and have it disputed by other editors who present no references to indicate that the proposed statement is wrong or disputed by anyone other than those editors. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas? ( example) Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does not given any indication of where in Western Australia the communities are. In particular it does not tell the reader whether the communities are within or close to cities and towns, or in remote areas. This information is generally relevant to an understanding of the communities; Western Australia is a large state and some parts of it (including some of the Aboriginal communities) are very remote and isolated. It is particularly relevant for the following reasons:
The 99% figure can be obtained by routine calculation from data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (see example for details).
The figures are from 2006, so the article would state "as at 2006". (Later figures - or any indication that these figures are no longer relevant - are of course welcome.) The communities have existed for several decades, so (in the absence of more recent figures) 2006 figures are not completely meaningless, and (in the absence of any indication of major changes) are better than nothing. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"can't back this up with references or anything ...– I can and have backed up my proposed additions with references. If we can't believe the Australian Bureau of Statistics who can we believe? Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"This article is about the general political issues..."– If you want the article to be limited to "political issues", perhaps the article needs to be renamed (eg "Political issues of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia"). Currently there is nothing in the article title that limits its scope in such a way. Although renaming the article to "Political issues ..." would probably not change my opinion about including relevant numbers, such as how many communities, residents and some indication of how many are remote (unless there was also a {{ main}} article to hold the numbers). Number of communities/residents is relevant to set the context of the article. An indication of how many are remote is important for the reasons I stated at the top of the RFC. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"So which context are you using to describe remote, on what basis."– The context is that most of the current media stories, including those used as references in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Politicisation of funding issues, talk about "remote communities" not "communities". The word "remote" has a fairly common meaning of "distant", so its use by numerous media outlets as a qualifier of "communities" strongly suggests to the reader that there might be some communities that are not remote. A reader of both the news stories (about "remote communities") and the Wikipedia article (about "communities") might reasonable ask whether there are non-remote communities that are not affected by the current political controversy or not covered by the Wikipedia article statements that talk about "communities" but provide references that talk about "remote communities".
... indigenous people belong to the land of their ancestors .. most would rather stay there and loose the services than leave– I'm not disputing that, but it's not relevant to the problem at hand - which is whether there are non-remote communities, or whether "remote communities" and "communities" are synonymous. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The 2012 links to every article found in the category re communities are now redundant
The whole category of communities requires updating: -
Every article that includes material about layout plans is deficient in WP:MOS, and has lost links, and is now discernable on the new DPH layout plans: -
Town-based Aboriginal community layout plans
For historical reasons, in some instances, Layout Plans have been prepared for localities within towns. These places are generally referred to as 'town-based Aboriginal communities'. for -
sources:
SPP 3.2 Aboriginal settlements
Within the remote regions of WA there are up to 280 places that may be characterised as being Aboriginal communities in accordance with the definition of Aboriginal community in the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979.
The term is very broad; ranging from seasonal camps to small towns, and including areas within gazetted towns that have certain characteristics.
State Planning Policy 3.2 Planning for Aboriginal Communities was initially published in the Government Gazette on 11 August 2000. The WAPC commenced reviewing the Policy in October 2009. During the course of the review it became apparent that not all Aboriginal communities needed a land-use plan. Therefore, the term Aboriginal settlement was defined to clarify which Aboriginal communities would benefit from the preparation of a land-use plan.
State Planning Policy 3.2 Aboriginal Settlements was published in the Government Gazette on 11 May 2011, revoking the first published version. The Policy defines Aboriginal settlement as being: 'a discrete place that is not contiguous with a gazetted town, is inhabited or intended to be inhabited wholly or principally by persons of Aboriginal descent, as defined under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972, and which has no less than 5 domestic dwellings and/or is supported by essential services that are provided by one or more state agency(s)'. It is estimated that of the 280 Aboriginal communities in WA that up to 150 may be characterised as Aboriginal settlements.
The objectives of the Policy are to:
provide for the recognition of Aboriginal settlements through local planning schemes and strategies collaboratively plan for the orderly and coordinated development of Aboriginal settlements.
to an updated version - see Yandeyarra_Community#Town_planning for a possible modification
JarrahTree 05:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aboriginal communities in Western Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
My recent edit remove a few words from the definition / lead sentence, including.
However the resultant sentence is perhaps a bit terse. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Ideas:
Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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
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 reference
governments ... 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)
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)
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.
"I'm specifically not in favour of dropping the second half of that as it renders it wildly unbalanced."
How about Gnan garra 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.
Aboriginal communities have their origins in church missions or state government welfare settlements. [1] In the first half of the 20th century, Aborigines' movements were restricted, [2] and they were largely excluded from towns, and segregated under the authority of the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA) [3] After a 1967 change to the Australian Constitution allowed it to legislate for Aborigines [4] [5] the federal government also funded the communities. [6]
References
- ^ "History of Remote Communities". Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ "Aboriginal Western Australia and Federation". Library and Information Service of Western Australia. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ "Impacts of Law Post 1905". Kaartdijin Noongar. South West Aboriginal Land & Sea Council. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
- ^ Scott Brodie (1999). Our Constitution. Franklin Watts Australia. p. 19.
- ^ Australia Through Time. Random House Australia. 2004. p. 412.
- ^ "History of Remote Communities". Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
Could somebody please provide a reference for the second paragraph of the lead (as it is currently worded, and/or Gnangarra's proposed new version). Mitch Ames ( talk) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
Gnan garra 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)There are between 330-270 communities in WA with population estimates of 12,000 people some communities have been identified as seasonal or vacant
I've updated the article to state that 99% of the community population is remote or very remote (or was, in 2006). Given that many of the reference cited explicitly say "remote communities" and the article is about "communities" I think it important to state explicitly that the vast majority (by population) of "communities" are, in fact, remote. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There are approximately 274 Aboriginal communities in WA, comprising about 12,000 people "Reform to improve lives of Aboriginal people". Government of Western Australia. 7 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2015. 69 of the communities are seasonal, with no permanent residents. "What is a Remote Community?". State of Western Australia – Department of Aboriginal Affairs. 12 May 2015. Retrieved 30 May 2015.
This is not what should be in a lead para.
It is not a 'conclusive' element of truth in the assertions or supposed sources. What a community is not what a source in a government department claims in a report.
Please do not re-insert. The article was created to specifically be an encyclopediac article with a good understanding of the historical context. It is turning into a grab bagh of half thought out ideas that are totally irrelevent. User:JarrahTree 02:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
this article is not about numbers, it was not created for numbers. To answer why the number of communities is totally irrelevent - it is the game that the federal and state public servants politicians are playing against the broader aboriginal community, to place any one set of numbers into this article - to not be undue - you would need 100 years of detailed complex stats - to put one assessment from one government source is wp:undue.
The number game in this instance does not belong in the lead or the article. that is the point. User:JarrahTree 03:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
"even the second para in the lead could go"– That, at least, is something we agree on. Deleting the 2nd paragraph of the lead as at at the time you made you posted your comment or now would resolve the disagreement about the #Lead section. Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to play with numbers (for the second time) - please go and play with it at the List article. User:JarrahTree 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents? ( example) Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does not given any indication of how many such communities there are in Western Australia, or how many people live in these communities. That information is relevant, and a reader could reasonably want to know, and expect it to be there.
The information is publicly available from Department of Aboriginal Affairs, state government media release, Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006 figures, number of residents, not number of communities). Concern has been raised that a government media release may not be neutral (given the current controversy over funding), but:
The ABS figures are from 2006, so they are not current, but:
To make it absolutely clear, I do not propose to mention how many communities the government may be planning to close. This is about how many communities there are now. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"... numbers on this article - the 'list' - that is fine, this article no."– Please explain why any of my or your arguments would be any different if the same information was presented in List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia? It seems to me that a reader could be interested in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia in general, so read the main article, but not interested in the name of every community. Why should that reader have to go the list article to find out such basic information as how many there are, and how many people are involved?
"the lead is the last place to put such things"– I'm quite happy to put the statement in a section instead of the lead. I don't think it suits any of the existing sections, but one could add an new appropriately-named section.
"you cannot do one [state how many communities there are now] without implying the other [many communities the government may be planning to close]"– Nonsense. How many closures does "There are approximately 274 Aboriginal communities in WA" imply? Answer: it makes no such implications at all. Does "69 of the communities are seasonal, with no permanent residents" imply that those communities will be closed? Answer: no. Both are simple statements with no connotations. Does my proposed article text mention closures at all? No. (The only reason I mentioned it in the RFC was because other editors brought up the current political debate.)
"it beggars beleief we have to have such complex discusssions about something so simple"– It does beggar belief that an editor can present a well-referenced neutral statement of fact and have it disputed by other editors who present no references to indicate that the proposed statement is wrong or disputed by anyone other than those editors. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas? ( example) Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article currently does not given any indication of where in Western Australia the communities are. In particular it does not tell the reader whether the communities are within or close to cities and towns, or in remote areas. This information is generally relevant to an understanding of the communities; Western Australia is a large state and some parts of it (including some of the Aboriginal communities) are very remote and isolated. It is particularly relevant for the following reasons:
The 99% figure can be obtained by routine calculation from data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (see example for details).
The figures are from 2006, so the article would state "as at 2006". (Later figures - or any indication that these figures are no longer relevant - are of course welcome.) The communities have existed for several decades, so (in the absence of more recent figures) 2006 figures are not completely meaningless, and (in the absence of any indication of major changes) are better than nothing. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"can't back this up with references or anything ...– I can and have backed up my proposed additions with references. If we can't believe the Australian Bureau of Statistics who can we believe? Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"This article is about the general political issues..."– If you want the article to be limited to "political issues", perhaps the article needs to be renamed (eg "Political issues of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia"). Currently there is nothing in the article title that limits its scope in such a way. Although renaming the article to "Political issues ..." would probably not change my opinion about including relevant numbers, such as how many communities, residents and some indication of how many are remote (unless there was also a {{ main}} article to hold the numbers). Number of communities/residents is relevant to set the context of the article. An indication of how many are remote is important for the reasons I stated at the top of the RFC. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"So which context are you using to describe remote, on what basis."– The context is that most of the current media stories, including those used as references in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia#Politicisation of funding issues, talk about "remote communities" not "communities". The word "remote" has a fairly common meaning of "distant", so its use by numerous media outlets as a qualifier of "communities" strongly suggests to the reader that there might be some communities that are not remote. A reader of both the news stories (about "remote communities") and the Wikipedia article (about "communities") might reasonable ask whether there are non-remote communities that are not affected by the current political controversy or not covered by the Wikipedia article statements that talk about "communities" but provide references that talk about "remote communities".
... indigenous people belong to the land of their ancestors .. most would rather stay there and loose the services than leave– I'm not disputing that, but it's not relevant to the problem at hand - which is whether there are non-remote communities, or whether "remote communities" and "communities" are synonymous. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The 2012 links to every article found in the category re communities are now redundant
The whole category of communities requires updating: -
Every article that includes material about layout plans is deficient in WP:MOS, and has lost links, and is now discernable on the new DPH layout plans: -
Town-based Aboriginal community layout plans
For historical reasons, in some instances, Layout Plans have been prepared for localities within towns. These places are generally referred to as 'town-based Aboriginal communities'. for -
sources:
SPP 3.2 Aboriginal settlements
Within the remote regions of WA there are up to 280 places that may be characterised as being Aboriginal communities in accordance with the definition of Aboriginal community in the Aboriginal Communities Act 1979.
The term is very broad; ranging from seasonal camps to small towns, and including areas within gazetted towns that have certain characteristics.
State Planning Policy 3.2 Planning for Aboriginal Communities was initially published in the Government Gazette on 11 August 2000. The WAPC commenced reviewing the Policy in October 2009. During the course of the review it became apparent that not all Aboriginal communities needed a land-use plan. Therefore, the term Aboriginal settlement was defined to clarify which Aboriginal communities would benefit from the preparation of a land-use plan.
State Planning Policy 3.2 Aboriginal Settlements was published in the Government Gazette on 11 May 2011, revoking the first published version. The Policy defines Aboriginal settlement as being: 'a discrete place that is not contiguous with a gazetted town, is inhabited or intended to be inhabited wholly or principally by persons of Aboriginal descent, as defined under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act 1972, and which has no less than 5 domestic dwellings and/or is supported by essential services that are provided by one or more state agency(s)'. It is estimated that of the 280 Aboriginal communities in WA that up to 150 may be characterised as Aboriginal settlements.
The objectives of the Policy are to:
provide for the recognition of Aboriginal settlements through local planning schemes and strategies collaboratively plan for the orderly and coordinated development of Aboriginal settlements.
to an updated version - see Yandeyarra_Community#Town_planning for a possible modification
JarrahTree 05:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)