Talk:Australian Indigenous advisory bodies
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Indigenous advisory bodies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Guideline for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples terminology Be conscious of the unique, diverse and distinct identities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and understand the use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is as a collective name. Collective names used to describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:
Although "Indigenous Australians" is in common use, and is used to encompass both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people, many First Nations Australians feel the term diminishes their identity and should be avoided; however, where the word "Indigenous" forms part of an acronym to describe entities, organisations, or government departments the use is acceptable. When used, the words Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Nations, First Peoples, and First Australians are capitalised. Note: Never use the collective name "Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander" peoples as it misrepresents the identity of Torres Strait Islander peoples as not being the original inhabitants of islands in the Torres Strait. Self-identifying terms:
This is not an exhaustive list Language that can be discriminatory or offensive and should be avoided:
This is not an exhaustive list Note: It is acceptable to use abbreviations in your communications when they form part of an acronym, a web address or an organisation (e.g. AIATSIS, NAIDOC, www.atsi.org.au). Using an acronym or abbreviation to describe a race of people can be offensive and discriminatory. For further information, please refer to: Terminology can change over time and, where possible, it is best practice to find out what the preferred term is from the respective Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander group or individual you are referring to. For further guidance, please see the Australian Government Style Guide |
Scope and existence of this page edit
I'm not sure this page should exist in its current form scope. Only SA and the ACT have elected Indigenous consultative bodies, with bodies in other states a part of the treaty processes. The page could be about Voice, Treaty and Truth progress in the states, but a page on treaties already exists. Otherwise, the page seems merely speculative and just a page of two topics. Perhaps something like Indignenous policy in the states or something like that? Safes007 (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Originally created when it was assumed that after the Australian Voice to Parliament was passed, that the states would follow. I figured that it was a reasonable assumption at the time. Many states at the time stated that they were following the Uluru Statement from the Heart, ergo a state based Voice. Many Premiers were in the process of setting it up. Considering that it was a Labor Party position, and the majority of the states and territories had a Labor government, it was assumed that this would be non-controversial.
- The article was also created as a spin off to narrow the scope of other articles related to the National Indigenous Voice to Parliament. It was also created to avoid confusion between what was being discussed.
- Maybe something along the lines of proposed legislation inspired by the Uluru Statement from the Heart? Proposed legislation on Voice, Treaty and Truth progress?
- To me, I wouldn't mind this article being renamed as opposed to its content moved. I do think that a Voice, or an Indigenous advisory body is different than a treaty. With it being implied that a Voice will lead to or assist with the process of a treaty.
- Are there any rules about speculative articles? Maybe a notability argument could be made?
- Let me know if this makes any sense. AverageFraud (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No this all makes sense and the article was definitly a good idea at the time it was made. There is WP:FUTURE, but it basically just says pages has to be verifiable and notable, and not mere speculation. How about "State and territory Indigenous advisory bodies" as a new name? This would allow inclusion of appointed bodies, the treaty advisory bodies, as well as the voice bodies. Also removing voice from the name might be needed as any future bodies are probably not going to be called "Voices" for political reasons. Safes007 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. AverageFraud (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- Should this page become more general and include Cth bodies? I don't there's a page specifically for them. I was thinking mostly a short summary of the previous ones like the NAC and ATSIC. Does this sound like a good idea, or does it make the page too broad? Safes007 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well it has to go somewhere, I'm not opposed to this. AverageFraud (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Should this page become more general and include Cth bodies? I don't there's a page specifically for them. I was thinking mostly a short summary of the previous ones like the NAC and ATSIC. Does this sound like a good idea, or does it make the page too broad? Safes007 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. AverageFraud (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No this all makes sense and the article was definitly a good idea at the time it was made. There is WP:FUTURE, but it basically just says pages has to be verifiable and notable, and not mere speculation. How about "State and territory Indigenous advisory bodies" as a new name? This would allow inclusion of appointed bodies, the treaty advisory bodies, as well as the voice bodies. Also removing voice from the name might be needed as any future bodies are probably not going to be called "Voices" for political reasons. Safes007 (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)