Talk:List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia

Lead section and community types
According to WP:STANDALONE, "Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that ... makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected", but currently List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia's lead sentence gives us nothing more specific that "some".

Conveniently List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia looks like it might have the necessary information in its first paragraph (but see below). Thus I propose that the first paragraph of List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia be moved out of that section and into the lead. However, the above-mentioned paragraph says "This list relates to ...", which is a bit vague for an encyclopaedia. So, I propose that the lead sentence should be :

... assuming that to be a correct statement of the facts.

I've deliberately removed the clause "which categorised 192 of 287 remote settlements as unsustainable" because I don't think it is relevant for this list article, unless:
 * the intent is to distinguish in this article those communities categorised as unsustainable (which I don't think is a good idea), or
 * the clause was intended (in the current version of the article) to be restrictive, ie that the government prepared more than one report, only one of which categorised 192 of 287 remote settlements as unsustainable, and that one is the one we are referring to.

I further suggest that the remainder of List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia (all except the aforementioned first paragraph) does not belong in this list article, but should be moved to the Aboriginal communities in Western Australia article - unless we intend to have this article list the communities split into separate subsections by Town Based Communities, Category A, B, C and/or ranked by development and planning indicators. (Such separation is probably a bad idea - I'm not advocating it, merely pointing out that that would be the only reason for keeping the bulk of the List of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia text.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am very uncomfortable with using as an authoritative basis for a list of Aboriginal communities an extremely controversial (and unpublished) report currently being used to try to shut many of them down. I am very, very against separating them on the basis of those categories. The entire "community types" section absolutely does not belong in this article, and only belongs in the Aboriginal communities in Western Australia article if it is given some serious context considering that it is a very current and very contentious political issue.


 * Simply having "This is a list of Aboriginal communities in Western Australia", the incomplete list template, and a references section citing all relevant references would be far superior to what is there now. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with Mitch having extracted the list from the original article as a stand alone list -


 * the list should not and can not claim to be specifically an authoritative list - it could have been simply the list of communities that have already had articles written about them - not relating to any aspect of the abc report of the 2010 federal government document and the different categories

whatever happens to the list - and the problem with wikipedia is that we do not have disclaimers - but the wording could be something that simply lists names, without any claims of notability, or any other context that might distinguish between the communities.


 * the usage of any distinction between communities, is in its own way something which makes Drovers Wife and Mitch Ames uncomfortable, and is in itself something reported from the ABC that has not been refuted (if it had been refuted publicly and specifically that would be another matter), and which as a consequence makes this list something which can be seen as potentially very undesirable item of what can be used by detractors of the communities, and the specific criterion used by the housing department as to the viability of communities. The point of listing the full range of names from the 2010 report is the undisclosed in general political discourse 'full range of identfied communities' by federal bureaucrats, and as a list within the categories, is likely to be the most thorough, as the West Australian DAA website does not have lists, it only identifies communities on maps that do not necessarily tie in with the 2010 federal list.


 * probably the least controversial solution to the discomfort of the other two editors here, is to remove the 'context' of community types, and other comments regarding the health department list, and for some brave soul to try to properly explain the issues in the main article. User:JarrahTree 14:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for helping sort that out... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"Country"
I don't dispute this revert of my edit but I think we need to somehow qualify or define "country". Options that spring to mind - none of which I think are very good - are: Mitch Ames (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Put the word in quotation marks? But "scare quotes" may imply that we think that the Indigenous concept of country is not valid.
 * Italicise the word? Not very clear to the reader why.
 * Link the word to an article that explains the concept? But which article? Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty (which I found by following Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country) might be misleading - it's a political movement rather than (what I think we mean...) a concept of land. Aboriginal title - a legal concept rather than traditional indigenous concept?

Built communities
Is there a difference between "built communities" and "communities"? Do we need to define/link "built communities"? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)