Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

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

Resolved

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

Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)#Amendments_to_the_Constitution

Australian_nationality_law#History_of_Australian_citizenship

British_subject#Prior_to_1949

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 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)

• 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)

"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)

Mitch, I mean this in the nicest possible way because you're not a bad guy, but this is an incredibly sensitive subject and it really worries me that the conversation seems to being driven by someone without even a baseline understanding of it. That you're asking all that last paragraph because you genuinely don't seem to know suggests that maybe this mightn't be the best topic for you to take the lead on. Like, how can someone who doesn't seem to understand the concept of Aboriginal connection to country be writing an article about the issues associated with Aboriginal communities? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you (and/or other editors) could help by addressing the major points that I raised:

• Do you agree or disagree with my assertion that the sentence "The governments ... funded ... for over 40 years; prior to that Indigenous people [had limited rights], ..." - in particular the words "prior to that" implies a connection between the funding and lack of rights, forced to work for sustenance etc?
• Do you agree or disagree that any such connection should be stated explicitly rather than implied (either here or in the article body where this significant information should be covered, per MOS:LEAD)?
• Do you agree or disagree that the statements in that sentence should be supported by references (either here or in the article body where this significant information should be covered, per MOS:LEAD)?

As several people have suggested - and I agree - this is a controversial topic. Surely then the article should have clear, unamabiguous and verifiable facts, and not make implications that are not supported by any source - as suggested by the {{Controversial}} recently added to this talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:57, 31 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.

This looks good to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that changing "non citizens with no rights" to "had limited rights" is a minor improvement (in that it removes the issue of whether they were citizens) but it doesn't address the problem of the ill-defined correlation between rights/funding/communities or the lack of references.

I propose instead:

Aboriginal communities have their origins in church missions or state government welfare settlements. In the first half of the 20th century, Aborigines' movements were restricted, and they were largely excluded from towns, and segregated under the authority of the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA) After a 1967 change to the Australian Constitution allowed it to legislate for Aborigines the federal government also funded the communities.

References

Probably this should be in the body text, not the lead section - but I still think it should replace the current 2nd lead paragraph. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Gnangarra's was considerably better and more accurate. The first sentence is woefully incorrect, and the rest of it is whitewashing, particularly in the context of what happened in this state. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

many communities dont have their origin in missions nor welfare settlements... Swan Valler Finge Dwellers community was establish by the group on land obtained by an elder... many of the communities brought out failing stations, or pastoral leases on which they previously been working, some communties were the result of ATSIC assistance so no that is a gross inaccuracy. Gnangarra 10:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

• • would be careful using political statements from the Premiers department in preference use http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Remote-Communities-Reform/What-is-a-Community/ .. for the statement just drop the term "remote" and use that source as well as Department of Aboriginal Affairs 2013-2014 Annual Report to say

    There are between 330-270 communities in WA with population estimates of 12,000 people some communities have been identified as seasonal or vacant

    Gnangarra 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.daa.wa.gov.au/en/Remote-Communities-Reform/What-is-a-Community/ is current (12 May 2015) and specific, whereas the Department of Aboriginal Affairs 2013-2014 Annual Report is older - "for the financial year ended 30 June 2014", so potentially out of date. I don't see any reason not to use the specific figures of the current DAA page.

What does bother me is whether there are any communities other than "remote" ones. Most of the the DAA websites and the news reports talk about "remote communities", but our are article is "communities". Potentially there could be a significant number of non-remote communities which ought to be included in the article's figures. I've e-mailed the DAA explicitly asking them for a breakdown of the numbers of urban, regional and remote communities, preferably with a definition of what constitutes "urban", "regional" and "remote" (ideally with an online ref that I can cite). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldnt call Cullacabardee, Western Australia remote Gnangarra 14:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

an email is useless as its unverifiable, technically DAA could be a primary source or worse a POV source Gnangarra 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any better ideas as to how we might resolve the discrepancy between the use of the terms "communities" and "remote communities"? As has been previously suggested, this is a controversial topic, so we need to be precise. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your own sources as cited above say that there are "urban, regional and remote" communities, but the current political controversy is over the status of the remote communities. This article, however, is about "Aboriginal communities in Western Australia". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Table 3.2 of this ABS report the vast majority (> 98%) were in "remote" or "very remote" areas. Is there any reason to believe that this has changed since? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

removed lead section

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)

Agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Would someone explain to me why the number of Aboriginal communities, and how many people there are in them, is "totally irrelevent" to an article about Aboriginal communities. Does it belong somewhere other than the lead?

Free free to add a reference to what you consider to be a reliable source for what an Aboriginal community is. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Another reference that says "274 remote Aboriginal communities in WA" - although this one says 15,000 residents (not 12,000). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You are fiddling with numbers - this article is not where such a game occurs, if you really want to deconstruct the numbers that are part of the game - go to the list of communitiies article - find the various lists and play with them there.

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)

Surely someone reading the article could reasonably ask the question - and expect the article to provide an answer - "how many of these communities are there?" (2, a dozen , 100, 1000?) and "how big are these communities; how many people live in them?" (a dozen, 100, 1000, 10000?) If the number is unknown, we should say so (with a reference). If the numbers are approximate, or a range, say so (with a reference). If the numbers are disputed, say so (with a reference). If the concept of "Aboriginal communities" is so nebulous that it is impossible to put a figure on number and population, say so (with a reference).

While I agree that the number don't need to be in the lead, they should get a mention in the article.

Here's another reference with numbers. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2006 there were 13 838 people living in "discrete Indigenous communities" in WA. Of these, the vast majority were in "remote" (1 148) or "very remote" (12 521) areas. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• When you read the article now it makes more sense without this, even the second para in the lead could go. The numbers can be addressed with in but this is about what the communities are not about justifications for or against any political argument Gnangarra 04:01, 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)

its how Wikipedia discussions work, different thoughts are put forward you consider them both in isolation and within the context of the whole article, what started as balancing contentious content is now not needed as that contentious content has gone. Building consensus works because its more effective at getting to a resolution over other editing methods. Gnangarra 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So are you going to delete the paragraph? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mitch Ames - what has to be done with your dogged insistence on putting numbers in an article where it is both a political game to actually identify the numbers as part of a larger issue? Pleaase do not re-insert, regardless - this is not a numbers article - there is a separate list which that can be played with for your hearts content.

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)

Rfc: Should the article include a statement about the number of communities and the number of residents?

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:

• We are looking at a simple statement (number of communities and residents), not an opinion
• The number of communities, and in some cases the number of residents, has also been reported by the The Australian, The West Australian, the ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, SBS, and others [7][8][9]. In at least some cases, those others are explicitly citing the government statements; if multiple news sources think the information is reliable enough to report, we can probably accept them also.

The ABS figures are from 2006, so they are not current, but:

• Any use of those figures citing only that reference would include "as at 2006"
• 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.

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)

• Yes, include the numbers - as nominator. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• No. JarrahTree has already articulately pointed out why it isn't that simple, and why it would be a political statement of the kind that Wikipedia doesn't do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but carefully – Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, nor are we here to include or exclude what editors believe to true or untrue. See also WP:YESPOV (part of WP:NPOV policy) "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight". If there are other relevant POVs as to what constitutes a community, then by all means the article should explain those POVs, and clarify that the numbers refers to the government POV in the current/2006 time context – and/or put in a relevant cleanup banner showing the article needs works and isn't complete – but don't just exclude reliably sourced content. The placement also needs some consideration – the lead may not be the best place at the moment, especially as it is a stubby article with only "history" type content after the lead, and no "description" or "definition" section or content after the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• No - I have repeatedly asked Mitch to not play with numbers on this article - the 'list' - that is fine, this article no. (a) all numbers are arbitrary as in most cases they reflect POV from a particular perspective (b) the numbers are ahistorical and anthropologically rubbish as 'constructs' - unless a deeply complex adequate historical explanation arises (c) the lead is the last place to put such things as they reflect a total misunderstanding of the subject and where 'communities' come from (d) to state 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 , shows that the understanding of the politics about numbers on the part of the editor reflects a complete misunderstanding, and why numbers should not be mentioned in this article in any way at all - you cannot do one without implying the other (d) it beggars beleief we have to have such complex discusssions about something so simple that the editor has been asked to stop doing User:JarrahTree 23:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• oppose I thought this was resolved just 3 days ago, only need that edit to take place Gnangarra 00:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the article include a statement to the effect that 99% of the population of the communities are in remote areas?

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:

• There is currently some controversy over funding of these communities - much of the current media coverage, and many of the article's references, refer to "remote communities". It would help the readers' understanding of the article (and the current funding/closure controversy) if they had some idea of whether the "remote communities" comprised a small minority of all the communities, or some of them, or most/all of them.
• Stating explicitly that 99% of the community population is "remote" would strengthen the article references where a reference that describes "remote communities" is used to support a statement about "communities", by clearly indicating that for 99% of the residents, the terms are synonymous. Without the 99% statement, someone verifying a reference could assert that a statement about "communities" is not fully supported by a reference that only talks about "remote communities", because that reference does not mention non-remote communities.

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)

• Yes, including the statement - as nominator. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• No. The ABS census districts at a locality-level can't even be unequivocally used as a source for population figures in non-Aboriginal localities, because they draw completely random boundaries that pay absolutely no heed to the actual gazetted boundaries of places. Again, this is a fraught area, and I am uncomfortable with them being used as an authority in this way. We have no methodology over how they define an Aboriginal community. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment - can't back this up with references or anything, but I would be reluctant to rely on census figures, particularly for the more transient communities. Hack (Talk) 14:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a really important point that I hadn't thought to bring up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

NO - the separate list article exists, this is so much time wasting, space wasting drivel. This article is about the general political issues, part of the politics is playing with numbers, there is a separate list article - where numbers, places and locations can be played with. The editor has been repeatedly asked to stop playing with numbers in this article and proceeds to ask questions about numbers. User:JarrahTree 23:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• comment I thought this was resolved just 3 days ago Gnangarra 00:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)