Talk:Aboriginal history of Western Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Aboriginal history of Western Australia 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aboriginal history of Western Australia article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 earlier comments 2 Daisy Bates as a source 3 Comment 4 Supposed violation of policy? 5 where is Five 6 Periods in Western Australian Aboriginal history 7 Creating a separate Timeline of aboriginal history of Western Australia 8 Please note 9 Problems of recent edits

[edit] earlier comments

Great work (see more comments on the article author's talk page). I'd like to hear more about

• activism and the development of semi-commercial bodies like say the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and pastoral lease enterprises (ie attempts at some level of self determination).
• specifics on some notable land claims
• recent events like say the Gordon Report and events leading up to that
• specifics about aboriginal internment at Moore River and Carrolup and the Moseley Royal Commission and A. O. Neville

Cheers. —Moondyne 08:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daisy Bates as a source

While she provided alot the known information about aboriginal people please treat her writings with some skepticism as she was known to not let facts stand in the way of a good story

I have removed these two as Grey had already left the area and the Beagle sailed directly to Mauritius. Gnangarra 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• March 1838 Some 40 km (20 miles) south of the Worora-Ngarinjin tribal border, Grey's party of 9 were attacked by a Worora party led by a light skinned man. Grey, wounded in the leg by four spears, shot the leader forcing others to withdraw.

• April 1838 The Beagle returned to Fremantle where Maigo, dressed in a Lieutenant's uniform, spent all of his wages buying bread for all of his people.

[edit] Comment

A number of the current period entries here are starting to make this sound a bit like a treatise on all of the rotten things done to aboriginals and losing sight that the article is supposed to be a "history of the indigenous inhabitants of the western third of the Australian continent".

For example:

* 25 July 2007 The Federal Government Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Mal Brough announces his intention to abolish the Community Development Employment Program, a "work for the dole scheme" which enabled Aboriginal people in many remote areas to obtain work working in not-for-profit Aboriginal-run organisations providing subsidised services to remote Aboriginal communities, not provided by conventional government or industry. As this is the major source of employment for these areas, unemployment in remote Aboriginal communities is likely to rise from 30% to over 50%, and the quality of life experienced by people living in such centres is expected to fall.

This is clearly crystal balling and is more of a criticism of Government policies that a history entry. Similarly

* 14 May, 2007 ABC Lateline program reports graphic details of rampant sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, following from the Roger's report on “Child Sexual Assault and Some Cultural Issues in the Northern Territory.”

If there is sexual abuse, we can talk about that, with proper citations, but this reads like we're reporting what a news source said. I'm not trying to sanitise the article, but would like to see it up to an encyclopaedic (read WP:NPOV/WP:V) standard. The reality doesn't need embellishment. —Moondyne 05:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Moondyne, as much of the source material on Aboriginal history comes from the media, to find non-media sources for this is often difficult. Could you have a bash at editing the offending material and making it NPOV? Regards John D. Croft (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed violation of policy?

I was just browsing for some homework and noticed that the section "The importance of Aboriginal history in Western Australia" seems rather inconsistent with Wiki policy. The last sentence, in particular, appears to be a bit biased (read "...of great cultural significance to our children and grandchildren.") I am not being racist - in fact, I am against the practice - but it would be good if someone changed the whole section to read like an encyclopedia article and not an essay arguing a point. That is not what an encyclopedia should do - let alone Wikipedia. Stealthman (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are absolutely right. The whole article needs some major pruning for encyclopaedic content and style. It also needs to become neutral and irrelevant entries removed (eg. "1787 The USA passes the "Northwest Ordinance" establishing Land Rights for indigenous Americans." (huh?)) The periods are POV. I've commented above previously. In the next week or so I will try to do so if someone doesn't before me. —Moondyne click! 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Stealthman and Moondyne. I think this is a very important subject and so we really need to have a quality article here, but the way this reads currently is like a personal essay, not an encyclopedic article. There's too much editorialising and point of view. I think someone with more knowledge than me on this subject needs to go in and slash the editorial commentary and POV. Sarah 03:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where is Five

Western Australian Aboriginal Peoples section say there are five main groups but the section only covers four, obviously its the people from Kimberley region that isnt covered. Gnangarra 14:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Periods in Western Australian Aboriginal history

Well over half the content of this section could be removed from this article as not directly related to the article, or an encyclopedia article: (1) criteria for inclusion in a reduced list - directly tied to either another article or a named person directly involved in aboriginal-european contact (2) possibility of it all out to a separate 'timeline of aboriginal history of w.a.' list/article - and no longer a burden to the article

just a suggestion - SatuSuro 05:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a separate Timeline of aboriginal history of Western Australia

Rationale is that a large number of articles can be linked to the timeline - and that reduandant info that does not link to an article can be cleanedup, giving the main article more chance of being adequately presented as a normal wikipedia article. SatuSuro 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please note

Part of this article has been removed and placed in Timeline of Aboriginal history of Western Australia - and certain elements of this article will be moved to the list . In effect in process - thanks for your co-operation SatuSuro 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems of recent edits

This article is no longer a history of Aboriginal Western Australia. It is now worthless and should be deleted. John D. Croft (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It was left in its current state under the hope that others would join in to help re-build.

As to worth - I would argue against that for the following reasons -

1. wa is the largest state of australia - no other state project has attempted to create a history of aboriginals in their state.
2. most of the article was in need of cleanup due to POV, lack of inline cites, and non encylopdiac context
3. there are now three articles - the tribe outline (groupings) in itself was excellent - but not wikified or sourced
4. considerable portions of the timeline were in need of drastic cleanup for reasons of WP:NOT, WP:POV, WP:N, WP:V
5. once started - it is a valid subject, and a valid article - there is a large amount of work to do

It has gone back to in effect being a stub like article - and that alone is not reason for deletion but looking at why the previous form was not acceptable as an article I would be only too happy to go through the old article on a sub page of my user page to explain piece by piece why it was not a valid wikipedia article as it stood SatuSuro 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SatuSuro, this article is significant and doesnt warrant deletion. While some of information needed to be removed as the article read more like an essay, many of the points raised do need to be covered either directly in this article or as part daughter articles where detailed information from multiple sources can be throughly presented within the various policies. Maybe this is one subject where a collaborative meetup(s) at somewhere like the Battye to examine and source available references could also be an option. Gnangarra 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)