Talk:Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

Definition
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)
 * 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?
 * ".. 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 ..."


 * 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 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: . 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:

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.
 * Government support and funding for Aboriginal communities
 * Indigenous citizenship
 * rights
 * forced to work ...
 * Europeans taking the land
 * relocation

Specific problems:
 * – According to
 * Australian_referendum,_1967_(Aboriginals)
 * Australian_nationality_law
 * British_subject
 * neither Europeans nor indigenes were "citizens" prior to 1949, both were British subjects, and after 1949 both were Australian citizens.


 * – 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
 * – 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?
 * – "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 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. ( does not appear to support the sentence.)
 * I think we should simply just drop everything after the semi-colon, ie


 * 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&#39;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. 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 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 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&#39;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)


 * This looks good to me. The Drover&#39;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:


 * 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&#39;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)

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)
 * Its being discussed in the RFCs you started, that ties everything up in the one discussion where it'll be resolved. Until then its inappropriate to have multiple discussions or to make changes to the points be discussed Gnangarra 01:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The RFCs are about the number of communities and residents, and the proportion of those residents who are in remote areas  . The topic of this talk page section  is the 2nd paragraph of the lead section (originally the second sentence, about conflating government support/funding and rights etc) which does not mention the number of communities or residents, or remoteness. None of the points that I raised about that paragraph/sentence mentioned the number of communities or residents, or remoteness.
 * I stated explicitly that "my objections to the second paragraph of the ... article (conflating funding, rights etc ...) are independent of my request to include '274 communities...' and '99% remote'." I made that statement in response to your and The Drover's Wife's comments that appeared to link the issues, apparently as a consequence of your saying (for reasons that I don't understand) that "even the second para in the lead could go" in response to a discussion under the ambiguously-named talk page section "" created by after he removed the "274 communities... 12,000 people" from the lead section of the article. Note that "" (primarily about number of communities/residents) is not the same as "" (about the sentence that conflates government support/funding with rights etc).
 * I can't find any mention in the discussions in the RFC sections thus far of my disagreement with the second paragraph of the lead (conflating government support/funding with rights etc). Could please link to the specific posts.
 * However, in the spirit of co-operation I will defer further discussion here until the RFCs are resolved (or someone indicates that they want to continue this discussion, about conflating government support/funding with rights etc, in this section.) Mitch Ames (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if there wasnt 5 discussion including 2 rfcs discussing the lead the whole thing is each is dependent on the other as I explained the 2nd para is a balance to the bias of the first which is the figures so no figures/political sourcing/50 definitions of remote being conflagrated into one problem solved these are complicated subjects understanding the issues is the key, word sleuthing every  word isnt Gnangarra 02:25, 6 June 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:

and

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)

Gnangarra 11:58, 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"


 * 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&#39;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 69 of the communities are seasonal, with no permanent residents.

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&#39;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 . 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: 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)
 * 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 . 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.
 * 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.


 * 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&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a political statement; it is a statement of fact (the kind of statement we put in an encyclopaedia) citing references, including multiple news outlets (the types of sources that we generally accept as reliable). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 3 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 &#91;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)
 * "... 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?
 * Please provide some references from reliable sources that support your assertion that the numbers are "arbitrary" or "POV" or "rubbish". I have provided multiple references supporting the statement that I want to add; you keep repeating your assertion that the numbers are meaningless or POV, but you don't provide any reference to support your assertion.
 * "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)
 * Mitch, it is not a "neutral statement of fact" to cite an extremely controversial, heavily partisan report on the closure of Aboriginal communities as an authoritative source on their number and nature. This is contested territory and the "simple" take on this you so desperately want to add is a whitewashed, questionable one that raises NPOV issues to boot. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have any alternative sources that we can use to give the reader an indication of how many such communities there are, and how many people? It doesn't have to be an exact number, an approximation will do. The reality is that there are communities - which apparently are enumerable - and residents. The numbers of communities and residents might not be fixed, they might vary at any given time, but there is at least an approximate number or range that those numbers fall into. If we don't trust a particular source for an exact number, do we have an alternative source for an approximate number? Having an article about these communities without giving the reader any idea at all as to how many there are or how many residents live in them when we DO know at least approximately is nothing short of censorship.
 * Why don't we just say "according to the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs, there are 274 ... but that number is disputed" (with a ref for "is disputed") - if that is what the reality is? Mitch Ames (talk) 15:05, 3 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: The 99% figure can be obtained by routine calculation from data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (see example for details).
 * 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 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&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that their boundaries don't need to match the boundaries of the 274 communities enumerated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. For the purposes of this exercise we are only interested in the percentage of residents (not communities) that are "(very) remote". We could qualify the statement appropriately, eg "According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as of 2006, 99% of residents living in discrete communities were in "remote" or "very remote" areas of WA." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are trying to drastically oversimplify an issue that you don't understand by using data that you don't understand the flaws of. We have no methodology for how they are defining an incredibly nuanced and controversial subject, and cannot tell us a simple answer to questions like "how many people live in Wyndham?" or "how many people live in Fitzroy Crossing?" You want this to be simple, but it isn't. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 669 (in 2006, citing ABS) and 928 (in 2006, citing ABS) respectively. But feel free to delete those unreliable figures from the Wikipedia articles.
 * Except those aren't the population figures for the actual gazetted town of Wyndham, or the actual gazetted town of Fitzroy Crossing, which our articles are based on. The ABS doesn't collect that data. They're the figures for the census districts of Wyndham and Fitzroy Crossing, which are significantly different to the gazetted boundaries. They shouldn't be in those articles in the first place without qualification that it's actually a figure for bits of Wyndham and bits of other places, and that they lack that is a case of people not realising the limitations of ABS data. I picked those examples because if the ABS can't provide us with the sort of specific figures you're after for remote towns that aren't Aboriginal communities, it's pretty bizarre to cite without qualification figures that we have far less data about. At least in those cases I can tell you which bits of Wyndham and Fitzroy Crossing and which bits of other places that figure was actually for. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:22, 3 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)
 * "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)
 * I am trying to be polite here, but it is difficult when you don't pay any attention to any of the points raised. Census data for more transient communities is obviously questionable. Separately, but in this very section, I have raised the point that locality-level census data can't be unproblematically used even in non-Aboriginal localities, because of the way the ABS defines communities. We say these things and it's like I can hear the whoosh noises as it goes over your head. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a really important point that I hadn't thought to bring up. The Drover&#39;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)
 * "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)
 * You are being obtuse. The exact number of communities and residents is a political statement, a point which JarrahTree has illustrated perfectly clearly. Please take a step back here: it is incredibly frustrating to see the conversation continually being driven by someone who draws a blank at 101-level stuff. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * comment I thought this was resolved just 3 days ago Gnangarra 00:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we misread Mitch's statements at that time - just because you agreed to take out the context paragraph (which I was ok with if you were) didn't mean he'd dropped his desire to add these in. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that we're all talking about the same thing here, but my objections to the second paragraph of the current article (conflating funding, rights etc, as described in ) are independent of my request to include "274 communities..." and "99% remote".
 * In that case, I am staunchly opposed to the removal of that paragraph. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - For the reasons listed in the bullet points at the top of the RFC, I think it quite important that the article somehow note that most of communities/residents are remote. A number (eg 99%) is quantitative, and so better than the more general "most" or "vast majority" etc, but I'm not absolutely committed to that number or even any number, if someone can come up with an alternative description (with suitable reference) that assures the reader that when the references say "remote communities" (as most of them do) the reader can be satisfied that they don't need to worry about all of the non-remote communities that might not be covered by the reference. The reason I added that 99% at all was because I noticed that our article and the references treated "communities" and "remote communities" as synonymous, which raised the question "what about the non-remote communities?" (the answer to which is apparently - there's so few of them, 1% of residents, that we don't need to worry about them) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is based on locality data that we don't consider sufficiently reliable to use for non-Aboriginal localities, contains no methodology, and doesn't address issues such as populations that are transient. We shouldn't be "assuring" readers that they don't need to worry about something you're self-admittedly in the dark about yourself. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that the ABS has some methodology, and that they do count transients. Do you have a reference for this "we" that doesn't believe the ABS?
 * However I'd welcome any other way of resolving the discrepancy between "communities" and "remote communities". That's the root problem I'm trying to solve. I think the reader is entitled to some idea of whether all, most, some, a few, or hardly any communities/residents are remote. If we really don't have any idea at all, and think it impossible to find out, I'd settle for the article saying "we don't know how many communities/residents are 'remote' " (in a suitable encyclopaedic tone)! Mitch Ames (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, you can't ask the ABS "How many people live in Wyndham?" because the ABS has random census districts that don't align with gazetted locality boundaries. This is many levels more complex than that; at least in the case of Wyndham I can explain to readers what the closest thing the ABS has to a population figure for Wyndham actually means. These things are not as simple as you want them to be. I feel like your fixation on defining the exact number of remote communities is just WP:RECENTism. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So how can we resolve the discrepancy between "communities" and "remote communities"? Simply ignoring it leaves a hole in the reader's knowledge. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is this a significant distinction, outside of a section about the communities targeted for closure? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's not significant other in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia (which is the largest section after the lead), but surely it is of general interest whether these communities are in/near towns, or "remote", ie a long way from the bulk of the general population of WA. (I'm sure you've got some idea of how big WA is, and how far away "remote" can be from everything else.) Instead of asking why we should mention the "degree of remoteness", one should ask why we shouldn't.
 * In any case, there apparently is a lot interest in funding issues at the moment, so perhaps the article - and "Politicisation of funding issues" in particular - will attract readers because of that. The bulk of the media reports (including those used as references in that section) refer to "remote communities", so:
 * The reader (wanting to learn more about what the current controversy is about) might well want to know if there any non-remote communities - ie is the government planning on closing any communities in or near towns, or only remote ones?
 * Someone trying to verify that section of the article could legitimately question whether the article's statements about "communities" are fully supported by references that talk only about "remote communities", and don't mention the communities that are not remote.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the thing is "remote" is utilized politically to describe these communities as a way of saying, hey there is nothing there for the people who live there so they are just there to mooch off the governemnt, when the reality is indigenous people belong to the land of their ancestors and the land is as much a part of their being as a leg, an arm or their heart to be disconnected from that is just a harrowing. If you read the reports you'll see that most would rather stay there and loose the services than leave. So what we end up with is one word having differing meanings while some use remote to describe something as isolated, others use remote to describe something as disconnected, while the political references now use remote to describe the communities as a burden leaching off civilized(european type) society. So which context are you using to describe remote, on what basis. Gnangarra 01:41, 5 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, 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".
 * Even aside from the current political controversy, WA is a big state - I still think it is relevant general knowledge whether the communities are in/near towns or far away more the bulk of the general population.
 * If you think that all of the media stories (including the Wikipedia article references) use the term "remote" to mean something other than one of the common dictionary definitions then perhaps the article should say so explicitly (with a reference) to help clarify things for the reader. Add a statement to the article that " 'remote' is utilized politically to describe these communities, ie as an emotive or derogatory term rather than a restrictive modifier" (with a reference). Without such a statement the reader might just think that all of those media reports are using the word "remote" in its normal plain-English usage, and is left asking "what about the non-remote communities?" My original proposal to add the "99% remote" statement was to tell the reader that "remote communities" (as described by numerous media stories) comprise the vast majority (by population) of "communities" so the terms can be considered synonymous. However the "99%" was only a means to an end - perhaps there are other ways to resolve the discrepancy between the terms "remote communities" and "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)
 * Yes, they're synonymous, and it's only relevant in the terms of that they're the communities being closed for closure, for the reasons Gnangarra noted. You can stop playing clueless-white-person-caricature and avoid this whole problem by talking about the communities being targeted for closure in terms of the specific communities being targeted for closure rather than insisting on trying to make ill-informed, badly-sourced generalisations. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about "Aboriginal Communities" not "Remote Aboriginal Communities", 70K indigenous people in wa(abs 2011) -- my WP:OR that means only 1/6 of people in that survey actually live in those locations or about 16% not the 99% being quoted.... the inconvenient truth of political spin, the politics of these numbers the shifting definitions why focus on them they dont add any understanding. The article hasnt started on the historical communities where people were pushed to the fringes of society to those which abutted nearly every town until 1970-80's like Gnangara, Swan Valley, Cullacabardee Gnangarra 13:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130203125223/http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Information/Maps/ to http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Information/Maps/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

2021 update
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: -

https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/state-planning/aboriginal-communities/aboriginal-community-maps/layout-plans

Town based plans

 * see - https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/state-planning/aboriginal-communities/aboriginal-community-maps/town-based-aboriginal-community-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 -


 * Wiluna


 * Meekatharra


 * Laverton


 * Halls Creek


 * Fitzroy Crossing

policy 3.2
sources:


 * https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/spp3-2


 * https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/79903fc7-6e74-4339-ab9a-6aa29f731d6a/SPP_3-2-govGaz_11-May-2011

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.

the current problems with articles that are identified
to an updated version - see Yandeyarra_Community for a possible modification
 * Town Planning sections link to a dead link - it and the explanation from 2012 needs replacing
 * In many cases there are no other references - the articles need more Trove references where at all possible about the localities (it does need lateral thinking) and the communities and aboriginal groupings - making allowances for a wide range of spelling and name variants.

JarrahTree 05:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)