Talk:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)

903:

no power to overrule them. The '67 Ref fixed that. The '67 referendum effectively made it compulsory for individual Aboriginals to answer the Census, and that total numbers be counted for seats and cutoff quotas in the Senate. The colonial Censes, starting in 1841, did attempt to estimate the numbers of Aboriginals in each district by asking farmers to estimate the numbers on their property. In 1901 most natives were still living nomadic lives and thus the electoral commision was alleviated of the chore of tracking them down at census time. Other conspiracy theories naming QLD and WA as the reason for exclusion from the Census, are just humbug. If that was the case, Tasmania would not have been given 10 senators, as it was and still is the most inequitable part of the Constitution.

1853:

referendum, the only section that had "any present operational importance" to section 127 was section 24. Indigenous Australians were already represented in the census information prior to the referendum as the second source which can be accessed details. Whilst not specifically referring to section 51(xi), it details the census information collected on Aborigines from 1925-1944 under 51(xi). From Arcioni "Section 127 meant that 'full-blood aborigines' were excluded when determining the number of 'the people' for specific constitutional calculations" but it "did not impose a limitation on the census power of the Commonwealth in the sense of prohibiting an enumeration of Indigenous Australians".

752:

which allowed for special legislation to be made for Aboriginal People and excluded them from the Census. It is true that many people (including Ms Burney) will refer to a Flora and Fauna Act that was repealed in 1967. In fact, these are two different things. The Flora and Fauna Act was not Australia-wide, but is the name of state of New South Wales (NSW) legislation. In fact, this particular piece of legislation, Aboriginal culture and heritage was managed by the same branches of government that dealt with National Parks, flora, fauna, etc. In fact, this particular governing practice was only recently repealed!

1654:, then surely that should be the title of this article instead then instead of this one? If not, then surely the title should reflect today's terminology and linguistics since it's not a proper noun then? And in terms of the cultural and social material generated, well, over 50 years ago, that doesn't necessarily mean that the terminology used in them is reflective of today's terminology. While I understand the importance of historical context, that's what we detail in the article's content, not the article's title - otherwise you'd be calling the article on 255: 325: 134: 2528:", so using the former is pointless - the article is already titled "... Aboriginal ..." (with "Australian" implied by Australian referendum), not "particular Aboriginal racial sub-group". A reference that defines "Aboriginal" to mean "... Aboriginal ..." without mentioning Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander people tells us nothing in the context of the original question of "does 'Aboriginal' in the Constitution / referendum question include other Indigenous or Torres Strait Islander people?" 2602:

Menzies era. Changing the name away from the historical terms used in the legislation would be a mistake. Given appropriate wording in the article, none of our readers are going to be confused or misled. Reframing historical events in modern language loses some of the flavour and impact of the times. This was a big deal at the time, and diluting the impact as if those Australians of 1967 held the views and hindsight of those of us in 2020 and (hopefully) beyond, diminishes the significance.

1823:

Representatives doesn't have any evidence. Of the two references in the paragraph, the first one makes no mention of the referendum being a mechanism for the sole purpose of increasing seats in the House, and the second source can't be accessed, so I'll be removing that claim. Anyways, I don't see how my apparent oversight of the fact that the referendum repealed parts of the Constitution plays into this RM - the outcome, Indigenous representation in the Census, is the same.

231: 2623:. As far as I can see, the principal argument for the status quo, is that the term "Aboriginals" was used in the official name of the document from the 1960s. What a load of cobblers. We don't form our disambiguators by cherry picking dated terms from the official name. Either use the official name in its entirety, or choose a disambiguator which reflects modern usage. In this case it's appropriate to do the latter which also brings 383: 365: 1658:. "the final solution" because that was its historical cultural context (excuse the rather extreme example, but I think it's the most effective in what I'm saying). On a secondary note, and as exemplified by my discussion above, "Aboriginals" isn't really appropriate here in describing the population groups subject to the change, since Aboriginal Australians are those with familial heritage to mainland Australia, while 148: 99: 759:

to deny a great deal of Australia's more negative colonizing history. Having said that, when people make these errors, the spirit of what they are attempting to convey is, in my view, essential accurate: ie, that Aboriginal people were treated as subhuman under Australian legislation and that 1967's referendum was a key step in overcoming that constitutional, and therefore, policy discrimination.

158: 21: 303: 127: 68: 2486:, so I don't really see where the issue is. The Chief Justice's deliverance was still presented in 1983, meaning that the cultural assumptions and assumptions of the time are still represented in his linguistics, which is why the modern interpretation is included as corroboratory evidence for the claim. Anyways, what I would imagine to be the crux element is 1625:". Aboriginal Australians is called that to disambiguate it from the indigenous people of other places. In what way will it improve wikipedia by duplicating Australian? If we were looking to reflect appropriate language I would be supporting a reference to first people or first nations, but that would separate the referendum from its historical context. -- 344: 725:

Indigenous people and they were not to be counted in the census for fear of distorting numbers. Just because they were 'British subjects' does not mean they were 'citizens of Australia'. You also have the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 which specifically excluded Indigenous people from the vote. Then there's these comments by Linda Burney -

279: 2217:— Is there any reliable source that calls it the "Indigenous referendum"? Everything I've seen refers to it as "Aboriginal", because that's what it called at the time. Yes I know the terminology has changed, but we are talking about a specific historical event that - so far as I can tell - is generally referred to its historical name. 763:

paternalistic language that depicted them as in need of care or protection, or filed this special legislation alongside parks, wildlife, natural resources type legislation, implying that Aboriginal people were subhuman and merely a part of the natural landscape (Aborigines and Fisheries Department (WA, till mid 1920s).

976:

uniformly or federally. In New South Wales, for instance, Indigenous Australian hunting and land use rights, as well as their material culture, were managed under a wider National Parks portfolio; this practice only gained attention in 2009 and a process for its reversal was initiated the following year.

758:

It is becoming a truism, then, to say there was a national "Flora and Fauna Act" and this statement is often followed by the statement that this "Act" was revealed in 1967. This is a bit confused. I do think people need to get their facts straight, as when we don't it allows the right wing historians

724:

This relates to the above discussion as well, but according to this source Indigenous people were considered Flora and Fauna. The argument is that the citizenship of Indigenous people made them no different to Flora and Fauna, as the government had no power under s 51 to pass legislation relating to

683:

I've noticed that pro-settler Australians visiting Hebron seem to be particularly racist and aggressive, even relative to the high pro-settler norms in those areas. I've wondered whether this is due to Australian anti-aboriginal racism that translates easily to Palestinians, which theory came up in a

2542:

I'm starting to feel like we're just going in circles, so I'm going to step away from this discussion and let someone impartial close this discussion eventually, but I did want to just reply to this. Regardless of your or my interpretations of the Chief Justice's deliberation, we're not lawyers, and

2258:

is probably a better term, but I'll defer that judgement onto you for any other term that you think best represents this. And again, I'm not saying it has to be my exact wording - I'm just trying to find some version that you might be happy with; please do suggest some yourself too! And again, yeah,

2173:

I totally get your point, but if I understand the outcomes of the referendum correctly, didn't it end with Indigenous Australians being represented as part of the population in the Census of Population and Housing? If "representation" is the issue (which I can understand), what about something along

1749:

Well, the Act and the bill are the same - the bill is the text submitted to Parliament, the Act is the bill once passed. And if you really wanted to preserve consistency, you'll note that the only change is in the subject between the brackets. And on the Act, this article about the second element of

1593:

Both the Referendum question and the Act involved referred to "Aboriginals" and "People of the Aboriginal Race" (Not Aboriginal Australians). So it could be argued we should be retaining that language. However, in the half century since, language has definitely changed, so I would support the move.

902:

In WW1 and WW2 aboriginals did join the military, and citizenship was a requirement. The 1901 Constitution did define citizenship and Aboriginals always were citizens, despite the claims by Henry Reynolds and his idiot mate Looes. State govts were less charitable in native policies. The Fed govt had

785:

are: Native Animals Protection Act 1903, Birds and Animals Protection Act 1918-1930 and Fauna Protection Act 1948. Each of these defines its categories of subject matter, e.g. "fauna", and lists in a schedule what is to come into each such category. In every case, both the definition and the list

762:

Therefore, what your Kiwi friends were trying to say was essentially accurate in spirit: before 1967 (and arguably at certain moments afterward) Aboriginal people were regulated under special legislation that only applied to them. This was a means of controlling Aboriginal people and often contained

734:

Then came the 1967 referendum, when Australians voted to extend full citizenship to Aborigines. Now, just days before the 40th anniversary of that vote, Ms Burney has described the referendum as a high tide in both the nation's history and her own - the moment when her status was elevated from fauna

2740:. The vast majority of articles on national referendums combine questions asked on the same day in a single article, and the proposed article title would not be problematic. This would also fit with the proposal below to split out some text from this article, which reduced the amount left to merge. 1719:

and the subsequent Act. The alternate suggestion of Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 is not consistent with referendum titles "yyyy Australian referendum ()". The Act gave the Commonwealth power to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and separately to include Aboriginal

830:

Aboriginals were permitted the right to vote before the 1967 referendum, it was only under the condition that they "signed a piece of paper that said that they denied their Aboriginal decent and then they were permitted to vote". I think this is an important quantification that should be commented

1172:

PBA, thank you for Talking. 1. It is a fact that the 1967 referendum came about after and largely due to a long political campaign by (how else to characterise them?) activists. What may have happened on some other issue is irrelevant. 2. There was a campaign for land and other rights such as to

2601:

This is a historical article, and the importance is historical. The amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority - vanishingly rare in Australian constitutional amendments - and must be seen in the light of the reformist Holt Government making long overdue changes after the stagnation of the

2055:

to lead to this page, with a redirect template hatnote to the other one? Each article's intro already explains the two parts (just the links would need adjusting), and it would make it a lot easier for future users and editors, IMO. They could each have redirects from the "Constitution Alteration

1173:

vote and that is how it was termed. 3. Discussing history (merci, Layzner), one's own analysis has to use one's own terminology while, where appropriate, mentioning the terminology used by the actors. 4. The tactic of accusing someone of absolutism - by definition inadmissible - is inadmissible.

951:

On 29 March 2011, user 121.221.193.45 naughtily changed the two references to "1967" in the first para to, respectively, "1962" and "2011". On 4 April, user 122.148.82.204 rightly changed "2011" back to "1967". Today I have changed "1962" back to "1967". Before doing this, I noticed that WP was

805:

I don't see how it is exceptional and objectionable that Aboriginal heritage items have been dealt with under the National Parks Act in NSW when these items are in national parks. This seems to be a circular argument. If there was something like a "Flora and Fauna Act" that governed Aborigines,

582:

Ahh... I've corrected the name of the legislation to "Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967" and referenced it. I agree that the language of the article title is outdated, but to make it (say) "Aborigines" or "Aboriginal people" would create a question-begging inconsistency. We would also

532:

New Zealand Maori used to be called "Aborigine's" as well (as in "New Zealand Aborigines"). "Australian Aborigines" has been abbreviated to just "Aborigines" over time, just as "news media conference" has become "news conference" or "media conference". The abbreviations may be common, but in all

1066:

I agree with you on Helen Irving's academic standing. Nonetheless, this is only a blog. Has she or anyone else stated this view in a scholarly publication? I think we're on the same wavelength: why would a scholar bother to give oxygen to a myth? However: what do others think about citing a

975:

though it does reflect aspects of the way Aboriginal hunting, land use and heritage rights were managed.... A number of Australian states did indeed often manage Aboriginal cultural affairs through departments also concerned with flora, fauna, and wildlife. Such legislation did exist, though not

751:

Regarding the forerunning: The statement using the rather colorful language about the Flora and Fauna Act being "complete BS" is not accurate, but neither, strictly, is the statement of your Kiwi friends. The second part of the 1967 Referendum repealed section 127 of the Australian Constitution,

522:

Should the heading be Aboriginals or Australian Aborigines? Technically Aboriginal is an adjective, although it is used as a noun for the Australian people. These days it is probably preferable to use Indigenous People BUT we should probably use the terminology more appropriate to the time and I

1089:

The "Legacy" section seems rather long and remote in comparison to the actual topic of this article. I suggest that anything not directly relevant to the Constitutional amendment be removed to a more relevant article. For example, I cannot quite see how there is any firm connection between this

462:

I have no idea what that is refering to. The Citzenship Act (1947) contained no racial exclusions and indigenous Australians were therefore Australian citizens from that date. They had previously been, like all other Australians, British subjects. Until the 1960s, however, they continued to be

2263:

in the context of this specific amendment, and accuracy to today's audience is more important then matching exact linguistics from text that's 60 years old, that we're paraphrasing from. I haven't seen any sources that explicitly calls the referendum either the "Indigenous referendum" or the

2099:

the change to "Aboriginal Australians", on the grounds that the current title more accurately matches the referendum name, and that the duplication of "Australian(s)" is unnecessary in this context. However we should clearly state in the lead section – with appropriate references so it's not

2154:

I could support a change that accurately reflected the referendum's explicit name or purpose, eg to "... Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) ...", but "Indigenous representation" was not the explicit purpose of the referendum. Neither of the changes to the Constitution's wording mentioned

1852:

stated "...not to be counted for the purpose of determining the size and distribution of electorates for the federal Parliament." and goes on in reference to seats "... to gain extra seats in the Federal Parliament" with the evidence being "large Aboriginal populations". At the time of the

1822:

Regardless of the process in which the outcome was achieved, the end result of the second question was that Indigenous Australians are represented in the Census of Housing and Population. In fact, the claim in the article that it was done to modify the allocation of seats in the House of

533:

cases are wrong. I suggest that both words - "Australian Aborigines" -must be used together. Alternatively we could refer to "Australian Natives" (old-fashioned) or "Indigenous Australians" (which may offend the later arrivals, since all Australians were immigrants at some stage).

684:

discussion with a Kiwi couple a couple of nights ago. They thought my theory seemed pretty plausible, and told me that Australian aborigines were still classified under the Flora and Fauna Act(!), and could be legally hunted(!!), until passage of a 1967 Referendum(!!!).

1697:

I'm sympathetic to the oppose !vote above citing the official name, but in this case we do not seem to be using a this title based on the official name but rather with a parenthetical disambiguation. Given that, I think it's reasonable to use commonly used language

709:- particularly the last sentence. The constitutional amendment was purely to include Indigenous Australians in census figures and allow the Commonwealth to legislate on Aboriginal issues. FYI Abo is considered derogatory when used in reference to Aboriginal people. 2264:"Aboriginal referendum", but I don't think that was exactly what you meant since I'm not suggesting renaming this to "1967 Indigenous referendum" or something like that. In terms of reliable sources describing Aboriginal Australians vs Indigenous Australians, the 2823:. The two sections are moving off-topic discussing holding another referendum in relation to other Constitution sections and not the effect of amending section 51(xxvi) and repealing section 127 by the 1967 referendum. The new article could also incorporate the 1333:

Disqualification of coloured races. No aboriginal native of Australia Asia Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand shall be entitled to have his name placed on an Electoral Roll unless so entitled under section forty-one of the

1124:"indigenous Australians" was a term not in use in the 1960s and only came into wide use in the 1990s, less than 20 years ago. Not only is it an anachronism, for 1967, is it very left-wing POV to treat it as an eternal always-correct term. 1045:

by Professor Helen Irving at the University of Sydney which deals with myths surrounding the referendum. I think her post would count as a reliable source, even if it was published on self-proclaimed "blog", given her academic standing.

2039:(d) let's face it, in common parlance, and according to the NLA and many other reputable sources, the term "The 1967 Referendum" applies to the most significant one (most people either don't know about or don't care about the other)... 2452:

While it is unnecessary to express a concluded view on the matter, the reference in s. 8(2)(b) of the Act would appear to be a reference to the Australian Aboriginal people generally rather than a reference to any particular racial

463:

subject to various restrictions under state laws and (in the Northern Territory) under regulations made under Commonwealth law. Possibly Namatjira was released from these restrictions in 1957 but I am not an expert on his life.

1319:

I had missed your comment previously. I don't think you will find a definitive source because prior to 1967 there was no Commonwealth legislation nor High Court case on who was or wasn't an aboriginal person - there is a good

2563:

from representation. I'm going to unwatch this page since I think I've already given my spiel, but if you want to reengage me, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. Last thing, but another possible wording could be

781:, regarding New South Wales the legend of Aborigines being actually classified as "fauna" or some equivalent seems to be very far from the legislative history. The potentially relevant statutes that I have found in 926:

and good luck with the changing terminology. Aborigines who joined the military in WW1 or WW2 would presumably have done so as British subjects. If you have documentation, I expect that it would be welcomed by the

630:

While I am all for Reconciliation, I must admit I find the language of this section inflammatory and incredibly biased, not to mention the author's claims are unverified. I am not disputing whether or not it is

860:

I think the section explains this ok. There were always some Aborigines who could vote; the issue was to establish voting status equal with everyone else. I've added another Blackshield & Williams ref.

2974: 786:

are confined to non-human creatures. There is no mention of Aborigines. The 1948 list is: dingo, ferret, fox, fruit bat or flying fox, hare, rabbit and wombat; each with their Latin name - e.g. wombat,

293: 1144:

I'm not familiar with Australian dialogue on this topic, but I don't see a problem with using anachronistic terms if they are clear and descriptive to a modern reader. It would be strange if our lead for

503:

People may be citizens, but their rights can also be limited, based on race or otherwise. The idea that Aborigine's became citizens in 1967 is widespread and hard to erase, but is of course quite wrong.

729:"This is not ancient history," says the state's first Aboriginal minister. "I was a child. It still staggers me that for the first 10 years of my life, I existed under the Flora and Fauna Act of NSW." 2027:) because of the relationship to the Constitution naming, and the lack of a satisfactory renaming option. Having thought about this quite a bit though, I have a new suggestion. Based on the fact that 2979: 494:

academic source. I think this must be a reference to the various restrictions in indigenous Australians in the Territory at that time. But these had nothing to do with citizenship as such.

2969: 1368:

Great, thanks for doing that research! I think going forward we can interpret "Aboriginal" as meaning "Indigenous" (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians) in a modern context.

2994: 1321: 473:

He was allowed to purchase alcohol after this time, that was one of the restrictions. Also here: "This meant they could vote, enter a hotel and build a house anywhere they chose."

2547:

which explicitly supports the modern interpretation of the court findings in the article. In fact, I've also just added another source to support that claim - the ABS, which says

1113:

It is inaccurate to claim that "activists" were behind the changes in attitudes. If people want to stop "activists" from achieving something they can - look at the failure of the

2959: 288: 269: 117: 846:

Can you please provide a reference for the suggestion that Aboriginals were not allowed to vote? Incidentally if this was the case, the 1967 referendum would not have changed it

2875: 2989: 2288:

all synonymise "Aboriginal" and "Indigenous" in their discussions and references to the referendum. This is consolidated in Australian common law in High Court Chief Justice

2205:— only in the very general sense that a number represents the things it counts, but that's too abstract (and possibly misleading) for an article title, and in any case ... 1304:? I'm not particularly well-versed in constitutional interpretation, so it'd be great if there is a source (High Court? ComLaw? PEO?) that gives a definitives reference. 790:. However, the statutory offences concerning possession of protected species may have - carelessly or deliberately - conflicted with Aboriginal traditional practices. -- 2964: 2944: 2261:

non-technical audiences/the general public are unlikely (and don't need to) to arrive at a Knowledge article already understanding that "Aboriginal" means "Indigenous"

2259:

the referendum includes more than census inclusion, my bad. In terms of the wording, even though we are describing a historical event, we're not living in the 1960s -

245: 806:

then the National Parks Act could be a survival of this. But this rests on the assumption that there was something like the "Flora and Fauna Act", which is false.--

408: 390: 370: 1250: 588: 2954: 2265: 1487:

Since there are several options for alternative page names, I've updated the requested move tag to not define any specific destination. All replies from before

1341: 2949: 2525: 1328:

shows that Torres Strait Islanders were within his "protection" - see for example page 12. The colour of their skin was sufficient grounds for racism in the

1209: 1201: 1721: 1347:

lumped them together by the description "aboriginal native of Australia". Importantly I am not aware of a reliable source that deals with the question. --

2934: 2924: 2919: 2914: 2909: 2904: 221: 211: 1340:). In 1962 a parliamentary committee recommended that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be given the right to vote in Commonwealth elections 1212:. You are correct that the notion of rights changes over time, but it is not clear to me how the article treats them as "eternal and always correct". 610:

I read first two sections and was quite confused. I think it needs rewriting, eg reordering some information, beginning with constitutional excerpts

589:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalisation_of_Indigenous_when_referring_to_Australian_Aboriginal_and_Torres_Strait_Islander_peoples

264: 113: 2939: 2814: 2809: 2803: 2725: 2156: 1437: 1246: 1127:

the notion of what is "rights" is malleable and changes over time so, again, treating them as eternal and always-correct is an anachronism and POV.

547:

I agree. The heading should be either "Aborigines" or "Australian Aborigines" as "Aboriginals" is the adjective. Maybe someone should change this...

2402:

generally" (as opposed to "Indigenous" or "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders") is particularly helpful in defining "Aboriginal" in this case.

1751: 2984: 2729: 1010:

The myth of Aborigines being subject to a Flora and Fauna Act is discussed extensively, with contributions by several searchers, in the blogsite

980:

It is an attempt to justify the misinformation through weasel words. There was no Flora and Fauna Act. Aborigines were not counted as fauna.--

1324:

published by parliament. It would seem that Torres Strait Islanders were treated as falling within the description of Aboriginal - in 1899 the

2549:

This constitutional change meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were fully included in Census results for the first time...

1801:

in reckoning the population - the primary purpose of which was for deciding the size of a quota for seats in the House of Representatives. --

611: 2555:

with more compelling (both in quality, quantity and authority) reliable sources that the term, when used in 1967 (the referendum) and 1983 (

1337: 476:

Most biographies of Namatjira mention that he was the first citizen but I cant find what the official law or whatever was that made this so

687: 240: 109: 2819: 2056:(Parliament) 1967)" and "Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967" respectively, and any other redirects could be adjusted accordingly. 2620: 1442: 2929: 738: 133: 2211:— The referendum covered more than just the census inclusion; the changes to Section 51(xxvi) had nothing do with the the census count. 904: 2649: 2036:(c) this page is repeatedly linked to by editors who really intend to link to the 2nd question (I've just had to fix a few more), and 2842: 1724:(voting population) which is not encapsulated in the other alternate title 1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous representation).-- 1662:(which is what the referendum covered) is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I'm happy for an alternate wording such as 1617:& the current name reflects that & the historical context of the referendum - the campaign material was along the lines of " 753: 565: 1417:. After extended time for discussion, and with several options put forward, there is no clear consensus for any move at this time. 2696: 2281: 2155:"Indigenous" (although see my previous comments re adding something to the lead section about terminology) or "representation" or 2130:

What about any of the other possible options, or any other rewordings? As I said, the RM target is just an idea - you could have

32: 1754:? I'm happy with variations in the wording of the subject, as long as it reflects that this section of the referendum was about 922:", as you term it, unfortunately says nothing about citizenship. It assumes that all who are legally resident in Australia are 2751: 2737: 2681: 1865: 1242: 1192:

do you have any authorities for your statements? The reason I ask is that references to indigenous people date to at least the

187: 174: 104: 1564:

Please feel free to suggest your own, these are just a few alternatives already mentioned throughout the existing discussion.

1015: 2838: 2834: 2465: 1134: 2273: 677:

Obviously not an RS, but, if the following is true, it should be possible to source it, if only as an "urban myth". Seen in

649:

A lot of this article is very political and POV. Talk of recalcitrant state governments, for instance, is hardly objective.

126: 2833:

article. The sections from the two articles should be large enough to make their own article. There are related articles

1114: 1022:

and did not find such an act by the Commonwealth - but that is OR. I can't find a reputable published source - good on

928: 486:

This whole topic is so encrusted in mythology that I would very cautious in believing anything I read unless it is in a

79: 2790:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

447:

The article says that "Aboriginal people became Australian citizens in 1947" - just wondering why then it is said that

2061: 1409:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

702: 2285: 1193: 2733: 573: 2269: 1988:"Excluding Indigenous Australians from 'The People': A Reconsideration of Sections 25 and 127 of the Constitution" 1329: 2830: 2825: 2482:

The Parliament of Australia paper is a secondary source that in turn presents the modern legal interpretation of

1898: 1189: 1130: 1117:

to challenge the established order or spark a socialist revolution. Or, in more modern times, the failure of the

919: 2302:'s reply above provide a reasonably significant conclusion that "Aboriginal" in this context, does in fact mean 1254: 1054: 1049: 615: 584: 995:

And, if Aborigines had been treated as flora and fauna, they wouldn't have been subject to the criminal law.--

691: 2023:. This is a tricky one and I can see arguments for both, although lean slightly in favour of the status quo ( 742: 2568:- I actually prefer that over "Aboriginal Australians" considering the duplication of "Australia(ns)", too. 2560: 2493:. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and I assume neither are you, which is why the parliamentary paper is cited. 2374: 2294: 1474: 1091: 923: 908: 851: 678: 1965:"The Annual Censuses of Aborigines, 1925–1944: Technical Imperative, Social Demography, or Social Control?" 1042: 2887: 2869: 2854: 2770: 2766: 2756: 2712: 2708: 2686: 2661: 2657: 2636: 2611: 2583: 2537: 2521: 2508: 2411: 2393: 2362: 2321: 2303: 2277: 2245: 2197: 2168: 2149: 2121: 2105: 2086: 2065: 2057: 2044: 1869: 1810: 1781: 1759: 1755: 1733: 1705: 1685: 1659: 1634: 1603: 1579: 1510: 1488: 1477: 1447: 1432: 1383: 1356: 1313: 1301: 1297: 1283: 1266: 1221: 1182: 1166: 1138: 1103: 1076: 1061: 1035: 1004: 989: 961: 940: 912: 892: 870: 855: 840: 815: 799: 772: 746: 718: 695: 672: 658: 644: 619: 600: 577: 557: 542: 527: 512: 498: 480: 467: 457: 254: 1899:"A Guide to the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia" 1850:"A Guide to the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia" 1067:

blog, on a blogsite of a front-rank university, by a well reputed scholar of Australian law and history?

2624: 2516: 2048: 1121:

to achieve much of their agenda in the face of Labor and the Liberals routinely combining against them.

1000: 985: 847: 811: 569: 85: 826:

I browsed through this page with a person of Indigenous Australian descent who commented that although

768: 2865: 2533: 2407: 2358: 2241: 2164: 2117: 1806: 1630: 1352: 1262: 1217: 553: 1275: 1232: 737:-- smh.com.au/news/national/when-i-was-fauna-citizens-rallying-call/2007/05/22/1179601412706.html -- 324: 67: 2883: 2850: 2746: 2676: 2544: 1861: 1763: 1729: 1279: 1236: 880: 836: 640: 591:

and elsewhere. I'm in at least 2 minds here, but am generally inclined to leave this title alone.

1987: 53: 49: 45: 41: 37: 2349:– that "Aboriginals" at the time included all Indigenous Australians. The references that I used 2260: 1309: 778: 764: 754:

http://tracker.org.au/2012/11/no-longer-flora-and-fauna-nsw-govt-commits-to-heritage-legislation/

183: 1924: 1848:

The "Amendments to the Constitution" section was about the process. The source that you deleted

334: 2543:

more so, I think we're losing sight of the need for evidence. I feel as though I have provided

394:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to 2762: 2704: 2692: 2653: 2632: 2607: 2459: 1999: 1939: 1178: 1162: 1118: 1099: 1072: 1031: 957: 936: 888: 866: 795: 668: 596: 1793:

two passages from the constitution - the prohibition on the Commonwealth making laws for the

1622: 2667: 2552: 1702: 1618: 1599: 1427: 1253:

with the edit summary "The actual name of the act". I have reverted this move because every

996: 981: 807: 452: 448: 402: 163: 1325: 230: 2861: 2645: 2529: 2403: 2354: 2299: 2237: 2160: 2113: 2030:(a) the 1967 Australian referendum page really serves as no more than a de facto DAB page, 1817: 1802: 1645: 1626: 1363: 1348: 1258: 1213: 654: 538: 524: 508: 2845:

briefly mentions the subject, but no article specifically on Constitutional Recognition.

2879: 2846: 2741: 2671: 2436: 2223: 1857: 1744: 1725: 1205: 876: 832: 714: 636: 495: 464: 382: 364: 2898: 2576: 2569: 2501: 2494: 2386: 2379: 2346: 2314: 2307: 2190: 2183: 2142: 2135: 2101: 2079: 2072: 1843: 1831: 1824: 1786: 1774: 1767: 1678: 1671: 1655: 1614: 1572: 1565: 1503: 1496: 1458: 1451: 1376: 1369: 1344: 1305: 706: 477: 454: 1208:

spoke of the "indigenous people of Australia" in his maiden speech to the Senate on

2781: 2628: 2603: 2251: 1750:

the referendum about Indigenous representation in the Census. Would you agree with

1400: 1174: 1158: 1095: 1068: 1027: 953: 932: 884: 862: 831:

on by an authority closer to subject than I, and perhaps addressed in the article.

791: 664: 592: 1188:

I agree that the term "activists" is not limited by whether or not they suceeded.

1016:"Were Indigenous (Aboriginal) Australians regulated by the Flora & Fauna Act?" 474: 2254:

and its forms are probably not the best terms to use to describe the referendum.

2432: 2369: 2289: 1699: 1595: 1418: 1197: 548: 147: 98: 2033:(b) nobody goes there to look at both outcomes or has any need to compare them, 1964: 1336:

Torres Strait Islanders were covered by separate legislation in Qld from 1939 (

20: 1715:: Duplicating the word Australian. The current name reflects the title of the 650: 534: 504: 302: 153: 2652:

or similar? We seem to be quibbling about what is basically a disambiguator.

2002: 1942: 406:

and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit

2345:

clearly state in the lead section – with appropriate references so it's not

2227: 710: 179: 27: 1296:

Do we know if the term used in the amendment, "aboriginal", refers to just

875:

PS - can anyone find a citation (to confirm or deny) for the suggestion by

1146: 931:, which (last time I was there) displays a collection of such documents. 396: 2551:. If you want to contest that, I would absolutely support you, provided 1450:

and the conventionally accepted terminology used throughout Knowledge.

782: 315: 1556:- since this is the proper name/noun of the constitutional alteration 1200:

referred to "Indigenous Australians" in the Australian Parliament on

1019: 952:

attributing the change to "1962" to me, but I hadn't done that. --

2691:

I don't think so per IAR, but even a strict reading of point 1 of

2703:

referendum). Nonetheless, I think your proposal below is better.

2368:

Done. References Parliament of Australia paper and Chief Justice

2203:

didn't it end with Indigenous Australians being represented ...?

1720:

and Torres Strait Islanders populations in the determination of

1157:" rather than "police and fire-fighting services," for example. 635:, just the language used and the verifiability of what's said. - 523:

think 'Aboriginals' was not the preferred way to describe them.

278: 1257:

has a consistent name: "YEAR Australian referendum (SUBJECT)".

1026:

for that discussion, but I don't think WP relies on blogsites.

61: 15: 2488:

be a reference to the Australian Aboriginal people generally

2398:

I'm not sure that a reference that defines something as "the

1752:

1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous Census representation)

2233:

commonly referred to in modern literature as the Holocaust.)

1491:

are in support or objection to my initial suggested target,

1326:

report of the Northern Protector of Aborigines in Queensland

323: 301: 277: 253: 229: 1925:"The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigines" 2490:

rather than a reference to any particular racial sub-group

2975:

High-importance Indigenous peoples of Australia articles

2797:

Splitting recognition sections into new article proposal

1399:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

1194:

1957 ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations

2350: 2342: 2338: 2220: 2109: 1789:

you appear to have entirely missed that the referendum

2112:, but it should be in the body text, not a footnote.) 1938:(1). Canberra: Australian National University: 25–26. 1762:, and that it allowed for their representation in the 1668:

1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous representation)

2780:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

587:. I wouldn't like to echo here the noise going on at 451:

became Australia's first Aboriginal citizen in 1957.

26:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's

2980:

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia articles

2876:

Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians

2820:

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians

1527:

Here are some ideas for possible move destinations:

583:

have to consider whether to change "Aboriginals" in

2621:

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians)

1537:

1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous Australians)

1531:

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians)

1493:

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians)

1443:

1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginal Australians)

2520:people generally" is not necessarily the same as " 1446:– This move brings the article title in line with 883:) that Aborigines had to make such a declaration? 1560:1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous inclusion) 663:== Murder of Aboriginals first criminalised? ==-- 2970:B-Class Indigenous peoples of Australia articles 2209:what about ... count ... or census inclusion ... 1292:Aboriginal Australians vs Indigenous Australians 178:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 2761:That would be the best solution in my opinion. 2650:1967 referendum on Australian Aboriginal rights 2566:1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous matters) 2545:a reasonable and authoritative secondary source 1998:(3). Canberra: Australian National University. 1717:Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Bill 1542:1967 Australian referendum (Indigenous matters) 418:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 2995:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles 2104:– that "Aboriginals" at the time included all 1650:If the proper name for the referendum was the 1615:the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 1251:Constitution Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 Act 566:Australian referendum 1967 (Aboriginal people) 421:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 186:. If you would like to participate, visit the 443:I hate it when vandalism is blatantly obvious 8: 2960:High-importance Australian politics articles 2697:1967 Australian Aboriginal rights referendum 2526:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 1664:Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 1652:Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 1554:Constitutional Alteration (Aboriginals) 1967 289:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia 2990:B-Class Elections and Referendums articles 2627:with the main article on that subject. — 1515: 359: 93: 2738:1967 Australian constitutional referendum 2965:WikiProject Australian politics articles 2817:be split into a separate article titled 2815:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) 2726:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) 2134:if you wanted to avoid doubling up etc. 2071:I'm perfectly happy with this solution. 1670:, or something along the lines of that. 1438:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) 1247:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) 170:1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) 2945:High-importance Australian law articles 2730:1967 Australian referendum (Parliament) 2424: 1890: 564:Sounds good. I'll transfer the name to 361: 95: 65: 2810:Referendum Council and Uluru Statement 2565: 2548: 2487: 2457: 2255: 2214: 2208: 2202: 2179: 2175: 2131: 1667: 1663: 1492: 1332: 1520:Possible ideas for an alternate title 391:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 7: 2955:B-Class Australian politics articles 2804:Proposed new referendum in the 2010s 1623:right wrongs vote yes for Aborigines 388:This article is within the scope of 2950:WikiProject Australian law articles 1986:Arcioni, Elisa (1 September 2012). 1967:. Population Association of America 84:It is of interest to the following 1547: 424:Elections and Referendums articles 310:Need help improving this article? 14: 2935:Mid-importance Australia articles 2925:Selected anniversaries (May 2024) 2920:Selected anniversaries (May 2021) 2915:Selected anniversaries (May 2017) 2910:Selected anniversaries (May 2013) 2905:Selected anniversaries (May 2011) 2843:Australian Aboriginal sovereignty 2270:Australians Together organisation 2826:Indigenous recognition and voice 2666:That would be inconsistent with 2341:reinforce my statement that the 1923:Sawer, Geoffrey (1 March 1966). 1797:and the prohibition on counting 1795:the aboriginal race in any State 1764:Census of Population and Housing 777:Without seeking to dissent from 381: 363: 342: 156: 146: 132: 125: 97: 66: 19: 2940:B-Class Australian law articles 1495:. Apologies for any confusion! 1345:Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 1338:Torres Strait Islander Act 1939 1330:Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 265:WikiProject Australian politics 216:This article has been rated as 196:Knowledge:WikiProject Australia 2985:WikiProject Australia articles 2839:Indigenous voice to government 2835:Uluru Statement from the Heart 1619:vote yes for Aboriginal rights 1077:11:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 1062:05:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 1036:02:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 971:I have removed the following: 841:03:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC) 338:can be contacted via email to 199:Template:WikiProject Australia 1: 2888:07:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 2771:12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2757:12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2736:into a single article titled 2713:12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2687:12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2662:07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2637:17:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC) 2306:, on account of skin colour. 2176:(Indigenous population count) 1485:Edit to RM tag, 6 August 2020 1433:00:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 941:11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 913:03:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC) 719:01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 696:10:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 659:00:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 543:00:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 513:00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 350:for non-editorial assistance. 316:National Library of Australia 286:This article is supported by 262:This article is supported by 238:This article is supported by 2400:Australian Aboriginal people 2278:National Museum of Australia 2180:(Indigenous ensus inclusion) 1904:. Ready 4 Recognition. p. 11 1533:- initially suggested target 1392:Requested move 2 August 2020 1115:Communist Party of Australia 1104:21:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC) 929:National Museum of Australia 645:14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC) 499:10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 481:09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 468:09:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 458:09:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 2870:02:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 2860:I agree with the proposal. 2855:15:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC) 2612:08:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2215:what about ...Indigenous... 2132:(Indigenous representation) 1613:: the proposed law was the 1478:02:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1322:briefing paper on the issue 335:Wikimedia Australia chapter 3011: 2930:B-Class Australia articles 2734:1967 Australian referendum 2584:12:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC) 2538:14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2509:12:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2464:: CS1 maint: url-status ( 2412:12:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2394:11:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2363:10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2322:11:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2246:05:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2198:04:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2169:00:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2150:14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 2122:13:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 2087:14:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 2066:08:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 2053:1967 Australian referendum 1963:Ellen Percy Kraly (2007). 1870:15:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1811:07:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1782:06:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1734:21:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1706:16:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1686:08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1635:06:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1604:05:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1580:12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) 1548:1967 Australian referendum 1511:12:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) 1465:04:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1384:08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1357:07:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1222:08:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 1183:08:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 1167:05:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 1139:03:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC) 1018:. I myself have searched 990:01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 816:03:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) 626:POV of Sovereignty section 558:03:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 241:WikiProject Australian law 222:project's importance scale 2831:Constitution of Australia 2559:), purposefully excludes 2437:"Commonwealth v Tasmania" 2286:Reconcilliation Australia 2274:State Library of Victoria 1314:06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC) 1005:00:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 962:01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 893:04:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 871:01:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 856:08:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 800:13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 747:07:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 673:13:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 415:Elections and Referendums 376: 371:Elections and Referendums 343: 331: 309: 285: 261: 237: 215: 141: 92: 2801:I propose that sections 2787:Please do not modify it. 2557:Commonwealth v. Tasmania 2553:that you can demonstrate 2484:Commonwealth v. Tasmania 1406:Please do not modify it. 1284:00:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC) 1267:00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC) 773:02:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 620:08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 585:Referendums in Australia 528:08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) 184:Australia-related topics 2561:Torres Strait Islanders 2441:High Court of Australia 2375:Commonwealth v Tasmania 2295:Commonwealth v Tasmania 2266:Parliament of Australia 1255:referendum in Australia 1092:Aboriginal Tent Embassy 601:01:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) 578:08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC) 172:is within the scope of 2878:with split sections.-- 2522:Indigenous Australians 2514:My point is that "the 2304:Indigenous Australians 2106:Indigenous Australians 2021:Comment and suggestion 1760:Aboriginal Australians 1756:Indigenous Australians 1660:Indigenous Australians 1448:Aboriginal Australians 1302:Indigenous Australians 1298:Aboriginal Australians 947:Attribution of changes 328: 306: 282: 258: 234: 74:This article is rated 2617:Support original move 2517:Australian Aboriginal 1043:quite a good blogpost 327: 305: 281: 257: 233: 175:WikiProject Australia 2874:New article created 2353:may be appropriate. 2221:previously mentioned 1245:) moved the article 1190:Paul Benjamin Austin 1131:Paul Benjamin Austin 2644:Why don't we use a 2219:(By comparison the 2043:Why don't we apply 1274:Fair enough. Thanks 967:Flora and Fauna Act 606:Rewrite for clarity 2292:' deliberation in 1992:Federal Law Review 1932:Federal Law Review 1799:aboriginal natives 1090:amendment and the 924:"British subjects" 568:if no one objects 329: 307: 283: 259: 235: 202:Australia articles 118:Indigenous peoples 80:content assessment 2829:section from the 2732:and the DAB page 2728:, the very short 2701:year country type 2648:instead, such as 2646:descriptive title 2582: 2507: 2392: 2320: 2298:. The sources in 2234: 2196: 2148: 2085: 2058:Laterthanyouthink 1873: 1837: 1780: 1684: 1586: 1585: 1578: 1509: 1480: 1464: 1382: 1149:said he created " 1119:Australian Greens 1060: 920:1901 Constitution 788:vombatus hirsutus 440: 439: 436: 435: 432: 431: 358: 357: 354: 353: 60: 59: 3002: 2789: 2754: 2749: 2744: 2684: 2679: 2674: 2580: 2572: 2505: 2497: 2470: 2469: 2463: 2455: 2449: 2447: 2429: 2390: 2382: 2318: 2310: 2253: 2218: 2194: 2186: 2146: 2138: 2083: 2075: 2014: 2013: 2011: 2009: 1983: 1977: 1976: 1974: 1972: 1960: 1954: 1953: 1951: 1949: 1929: 1920: 1914: 1913: 1911: 1909: 1903: 1895: 1872: 1854: 1847: 1835: 1827: 1821: 1778: 1770: 1748: 1682: 1674: 1649: 1576: 1568: 1516: 1507: 1499: 1466: 1462: 1454: 1425: 1408: 1380: 1372: 1367: 1300:, or to broader 1210:8 September 1971 1151:cohortes urbanae 1057: 1052: 1047: 570:WotherspoonSmith 561: 449:Albert Namatjira 426: 425: 422: 419: 416: 409:our project page 403:electoral reform 385: 378: 377: 367: 360: 349: 348:wikimedia.org.au 347: 346: 345: 204: 203: 200: 197: 194: 166: 164:Australia portal 161: 160: 159: 150: 143: 142: 137: 136: 135: 130: 129: 128: 123: 120: 101: 94: 77: 71: 70: 62: 23: 16: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2895: 2894: 2799: 2794: 2785: 2752: 2747: 2742: 2682: 2677: 2672: 2574: 2499: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2456: 2445: 2443: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2384: 2312: 2188: 2140: 2077: 2045:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 2019: 2018: 2017: 2007: 2005: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1970: 1968: 1962: 1961: 1957: 1947: 1945: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1907: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1892: 1855: 1841: 1829: 1815: 1772: 1742: 1676: 1643: 1582: 1570: 1521: 1501: 1473:—usernamekiran 1456: 1419: 1404: 1394: 1374: 1361: 1294: 1230: 1202:16 October 1962 1111: 1087: 1055: 1050: 969: 949: 824: 628: 612:220.240.110.221 608: 551: 520: 492:well-referenced 445: 423: 420: 417: 414: 413: 341: 339: 312:Ask a Librarian 294:High-importance 270:High-importance 246:High-importance 201: 198: 195: 192: 191: 162: 157: 155: 131: 124: 121: 107: 78:on Knowledge's 75: 12: 11: 5: 3008: 3006: 2998: 2997: 2992: 2987: 2982: 2977: 2972: 2967: 2962: 2957: 2952: 2947: 2942: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2922: 2917: 2912: 2907: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2798: 2795: 2793: 2792: 2782:requested move 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2724:Why not merge 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2639: 2625:WP:CONSISTENCY 2614: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2472: 2471: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2252:representation 2250:You're right, 2235: 2224:Final Solution 2212: 2206: 2125: 2124: 2092: 2090: 2089: 2049:WP:2DABPRIMARY 2041: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2016: 2015: 1978: 1955: 1915: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1737: 1736: 1709: 1708: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1638: 1637: 1607: 1606: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1563: 1562: 1557: 1551: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1412: 1411: 1401:requested move 1395: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1206:Neville Bonner 1170: 1169: 1155:vigiles urbani 1110: 1107: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1051:IgnorantArmies 1041:There is also 1008: 1007: 978: 977: 968: 965: 948: 945: 944: 943: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 823: 820: 819: 818: 722: 721: 688:86.159.187.157 627: 624: 607: 604: 556:comment added 519: 516: 484: 483: 444: 441: 438: 437: 434: 433: 430: 429: 427: 386: 374: 373: 368: 356: 355: 352: 351: 330: 320: 319: 308: 298: 297: 284: 274: 273: 260: 250: 249: 236: 226: 225: 218:Mid-importance 214: 208: 207: 205: 168: 167: 151: 139: 138: 122:Mid‑importance 102: 90: 89: 83: 72: 58: 57: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3007: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2988: 2986: 2983: 2981: 2978: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2968: 2966: 2963: 2961: 2958: 2956: 2953: 2951: 2948: 2946: 2943: 2941: 2938: 2936: 2933: 2931: 2928: 2926: 2923: 2921: 2918: 2916: 2913: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2903: 2902: 2900: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2796: 2791: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2720: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2680: 2675: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2585: 2578: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2513: 2512: 2510: 2503: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2485: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2467: 2461: 2454: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2428: 2425: 2421: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2388: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2339:these changes 2337:I think that 2323: 2316: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2192: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2174:the lines of 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157:voting rights 2153: 2152: 2151: 2144: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2088: 2081: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2051:and just use 2050: 2046: 2038: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2028: 2026: 2022: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1982: 1979: 1966: 1959: 1956: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1926: 1919: 1916: 1900: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1851: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1833: 1826: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1776: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1687: 1680: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1656:the Holocaust 1653: 1647: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1581: 1574: 1567: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1552: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1535: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1518: 1517: 1512: 1505: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1479: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1460: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1424: 1423: 1416: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1385: 1378: 1371: 1365: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1291: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1108: 1106: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1084: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1053: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 974: 973: 972: 966: 964: 963: 959: 955: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 925: 921: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 848:Royalcourtier 845: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 829: 822:Right to Vote 821: 817: 813: 809: 804: 803: 802: 801: 797: 793: 789: 784: 780: 775: 774: 770: 766: 760: 756: 755: 749: 748: 744: 740: 739:58.169.227.36 736: 731: 730: 726: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 699: 698: 697: 693: 689: 685: 680: 675: 674: 670: 666: 661: 660: 656: 652: 647: 646: 642: 638: 634: 625: 623: 621: 617: 613: 605: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 580: 579: 575: 571: 567: 562: 559: 555: 550: 545: 544: 540: 536: 530: 529: 526: 517: 515: 514: 510: 506: 501: 500: 497: 493: 489: 482: 479: 475: 472: 471: 470: 469: 466: 460: 459: 456: 453: 450: 442: 428: 411: 410: 405: 404: 399: 398: 393: 392: 387: 384: 380: 379: 375: 372: 369: 366: 362: 337: 336: 326: 322: 321: 317: 313: 304: 300: 299: 295: 292:(assessed as 291: 290: 280: 276: 275: 271: 268:(assessed as 267: 266: 256: 252: 251: 247: 244:(assessed as 243: 242: 232: 228: 227: 223: 219: 213: 210: 209: 206: 189: 185: 181: 177: 176: 171: 165: 154: 152: 149: 145: 144: 140: 119: 115: 111: 106: 103: 100: 96: 91: 87: 81: 73: 69: 64: 63: 55: 51: 47: 43: 39: 35: 34: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2824: 2818: 2808: 2802: 2800: 2786: 2779: 2763:No such user 2721: 2705:No such user 2700: 2695:would yield 2654:No such user 2641: 2616: 2598: 2573:(please use 2556: 2515: 2498:(please use 2489: 2483: 2451: 2444:. Retrieved 2440: 2433:Gibbs, Harry 2427: 2419: 2399: 2383:(please use 2373: 2336: 2311:(please use 2293: 2230: 2187:(please use 2139:(please use 2096: 2091: 2076:(please use 2052: 2042: 2024: 2020: 2006:. Retrieved 1995: 1991: 1981: 1969:. Retrieved 1958: 1946:. Retrieved 1935: 1931: 1918: 1906:. Retrieved 1893: 1885: 1849: 1828:(please use 1798: 1794: 1790: 1771:(please use 1716: 1712: 1703:(let's chat) 1694: 1675:(please use 1651: 1610: 1590: 1569:(please use 1559: 1553: 1546: 1541: 1536: 1530: 1500:(please use 1484: 1469: 1468: 1455:(please use 1441: 1436: 1428: 1421: 1420: 1415:No consensus 1414: 1413: 1405: 1398: 1373:(please use 1334:Constitution 1295: 1239: 1231: 1228:Article name 1204:. Similarly 1171: 1154: 1150: 1129: 1126: 1123: 1112: 1088: 1048: 1023: 1011: 1009: 979: 970: 950: 905:61.68.161.48 901: 827: 825: 787: 776: 761: 757: 750: 733: 732: 728: 727: 723: 682: 676: 662: 648: 632: 629: 622:User:brh418 609: 581: 563: 546: 531: 521: 502: 491: 487: 485: 461: 446: 407: 401: 395: 389: 332: 311: 287: 263: 239: 217: 188:project page 173: 169: 86:WikiProjects 54:May 27, 2024 50:May 27, 2021 46:May 27, 2017 42:May 27, 2013 38:May 27, 2011 31: 2579:|ItsPugle}} 2504:|ItsPugle}} 2389:|ItsPugle}} 2370:Harry Gibbs 2317:|ItsPugle}} 2290:Harry Gibbs 2284:, and even 2193:|ItsPugle}} 2145:|ItsPugle}} 2082:|ItsPugle}} 1834:|ItsPugle}} 1777:|ItsPugle}} 1758:, not just 1681:|ItsPugle}} 1575:|ItsPugle}} 1506:|ItsPugle}} 1461:|ItsPugle}} 1379:|ItsPugle}} 1198:Les Johnson 1024:Club Troppo 1012:Club Troppo 997:Jack Upland 982:Jack Upland 828:technically 808:Jack Upland 735:to citizen. 552:—Preceding 36:section on 33:On this day 2899:Categories 2862:Mitch Ames 2693:WP:NCELECT 2530:Mitch Ames 2453:sub-group. 2420:References 2404:Mitch Ames 2355:Mitch Ames 2300:Find bruce 2238:Mitch Ames 2161:Mitch Ames 2114:Mitch Ames 1886:References 1818:Find bruce 1803:Find bruce 1722:Section 24 1646:Find bruce 1627:Find bruce 1489:this reply 1470:Relisting. 1364:Find bruce 1349:Find bruce 1259:Find bruce 1214:Find bruce 525:Sterry2607 2880:Melbguy05 2847:Melbguy05 2668:WP:NC-GAL 2581:on reply) 2506:on reply) 2391:on reply) 2343:we should 2319:on reply) 2256:inclusion 2228:Holocaust 2195:on reply) 2147:on reply) 2084:on reply) 2003:1444-6928 1943:1444-6928 1858:Melbguy05 1836:on reply) 1779:on reply) 1745:Melbguy05 1726:Melbguy05 1683:on reply) 1621:" & " 1577:on reply) 1508:on reply) 1463:on reply) 1381:on reply) 1276:Bacondrum 1233:Bacondrum 877:Jabrody24 833:Jabrody24 679:this blog 637:LichYoshi 397:elections 193:Australia 180:Australia 105:Australia 28:Main Page 2570:ItsPugle 2495:ItsPugle 2460:cite web 2446:5 August 2435:(1983). 2380:ItsPugle 2308:ItsPugle 2184:ItsPugle 2136:ItsPugle 2073:ItsPugle 2008:3 August 1971:3 August 1948:3 August 1866:contribs 1844:ItsPugle 1825:ItsPugle 1787:ItsPugle 1768:ItsPugle 1698:today.-- 1672:ItsPugle 1566:ItsPugle 1497:ItsPugle 1452:ItsPugle 1370:ItsPugle 1343:but the 1306:ItsPugle 1243:contribs 1147:Augustus 1109:My edits 478:Cfitzart 455:Cfitzart 114:Politics 2722:Comment 2642:Comment 2629:Amakuru 2604:Skyring 2110:Example 1791:removed 1695:Support 1591:Support 1175:Wikiain 1159:Layzner 1085:Balance 1069:Wikiain 1028:Wikiain 954:Wikiain 933:Wikiain 885:Wikiain 863:Wikiain 792:Wikiain 783:AustLII 701:That's 665:Wikiain 593:Wikiain 554:undated 518:Heading 314:at the 220:on the 76:B-class 30:in the 2841:, and 2743:Number 2673:Number 2599:Oppose 2524:" or " 2372:(from 2347:WP:SYN 2102:WP:SYN 2097:Oppose 2025:oppose 1908:23 May 1713:Oppose 1700:Yaksar 1611:Oppose 1596:HiLo48 1475:(talk) 1422:BD2412 1196:while 1056:(talk) 1020:ComLaw 779:Mg3349 765:Mg3349 549:Jaw123 488:recent 82:scale. 52:, and 2813:from 2619:, to 1928:(PDF) 1902:(PDF) 918:The " 651:JohnC 633:wrong 535:JohnC 505:JohnC 2884:talk 2866:talk 2851:talk 2837:and 2807:and 2767:talk 2709:talk 2658:talk 2633:talk 2608:talk 2577:ping 2534:talk 2502:ping 2466:link 2448:2020 2408:talk 2387:ping 2359:talk 2351:here 2315:ping 2242:talk 2191:ping 2165:talk 2143:ping 2118:talk 2080:ping 2062:talk 2047:and 2010:2020 2000:ISSN 1973:2020 1950:2020 1940:ISSN 1910:2017 1862:talk 1832:ping 1807:talk 1775:ping 1730:talk 1679:ping 1631:talk 1600:talk 1573:ping 1504:ping 1459:ping 1440:→ ? 1377:ping 1353:talk 1310:talk 1280:talk 1263:talk 1237:talk 1218:talk 1179:talk 1163:Talk 1153:and 1135:talk 1100:talk 1096:Pete 1094:. -- 1073:talk 1032:talk 1001:talk 986:talk 958:talk 937:talk 909:talk 889:talk 881:talk 867:talk 852:talk 837:talk 812:talk 796:talk 769:talk 743:talk 715:talk 711:Hack 705:and 692:talk 669:talk 655:talk 641:talk 616:talk 597:talk 574:talk 539:talk 509:talk 496:Adam 490:and 465:Adam 340:help 333:The 182:and 2784:. 2378:). 2282:ABC 2178:or 2108:. ( 1666:or 1249:to 707:POV 212:Mid 110:Law 2901:: 2886:) 2868:) 2853:) 2769:) 2711:) 2670:. 2660:) 2635:) 2610:) 2575:{{ 2536:) 2511:. 2500:{{ 2462:}} 2458:{{ 2450:. 2439:. 2410:) 2385:{{ 2361:) 2313:{{ 2280:, 2276:, 2272:, 2268:, 2244:) 2231:is 2226:/ 2189:{{ 2182:? 2167:) 2159:. 2141:{{ 2120:) 2078:{{ 2064:) 1996:40 1994:. 1990:. 1934:. 1930:. 1868:) 1864:• 1838:` 1830:{{ 1809:) 1773:{{ 1766:. 1732:) 1677:{{ 1633:) 1602:) 1571:{{ 1502:{{ 1457:{{ 1403:. 1375:{{ 1355:) 1312:) 1282:) 1265:) 1220:) 1181:) 1165:) 1137:) 1102:) 1075:) 1034:) 1014:, 1003:) 988:) 960:) 939:) 911:) 891:) 869:) 854:) 839:) 814:) 798:) 771:) 745:) 717:) 703:bs 694:) 686:" 671:) 657:) 643:) 618:) 599:) 576:) 541:) 511:) 400:, 296:). 272:). 248:). 116:/ 112:/ 108:: 48:, 44:, 40:, 2882:( 2864:( 2849:( 2765:( 2753:7 2748:5 2707:( 2699:( 2683:7 2678:5 2656:( 2631:( 2606:( 2532:( 2468:) 2406:( 2357:( 2240:( 2163:( 2116:( 2060:( 2012:. 1975:. 1952:. 1936:2 1912:. 1860:( 1856:— 1846:: 1842:@ 1820:: 1816:@ 1805:( 1747:: 1743:@ 1728:( 1648:: 1644:@ 1629:( 1598:( 1467:— 1429:T 1366:: 1362:@ 1351:( 1308:( 1278:( 1261:( 1240:· 1235:( 1216:( 1177:( 1161:( 1133:( 1098:( 1071:( 1030:( 999:( 984:( 956:( 935:( 907:( 887:( 879:( 865:( 850:( 835:( 810:( 794:( 767:( 741:( 713:( 690:( 681:" 667:( 653:( 639:( 614:( 595:( 572:( 560:. 537:( 507:( 412:. 318:. 224:. 190:. 88:: 56:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index