Talk:Aboriginal Tent Embassy

Australia: Canberra / Politics / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Aboriginal Tent Embassy is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Squatting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text removed[edit]

I removed the following from the article (by 203.10.231.231) as I could not work out whether it was an unattributed quotation or an emphasised opinion of the contributor. --Zigger 13:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)

The right to free speech on political matters trumps the letter of the law, because it is is precisely this right that gives law its legitimacy as the expression of the will of the people. I think Australians, and Canberrans in particular, instinctively understand this.

The article refers to Aboriginals wanting control of "the Northwest Territory" but this Australian has never heard of such a place. I didn't want to remove it because, hey, I could be mistaken but if no one else has heard of it I'd suggest cutting it. --Roisterer 02:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It may refer to the Nor'West (of Western Australia). Capt. Cyril Longmore, Croix de Guerre, Order of Leopold etc who led the last Battle of Hindenberg attack, and who established the WestAustralian and was Editor of the Western Mail newspapers plus a War Correspondent in the Nor'West in WW11 lobbied his good friend, PM John Curtin to have the Nor'West declared an Aboriginal State after spending ages at Liveringa Station, WA, under ADF supervision, training an Aboriginal guerilla force to defend the Nor'West when it was feared that area was to be invaded. The Second Divison AIF returned back home in time though plus the Americans turned up and the guerilla force became the NAOUs (nackeroos) that evolved into Norforce who received their offical military colours recently. Recorded in the archives of the West Australian newspaper plus the "black guerillas" and nackeroos are online.

Moran, Rod 1991 'The West Australian' Big Weekend: BLACK STATE, 23 November, 1991, page numbers not clear on photocopy

A couple of things: I have also never heard of the Northwest Territory, probably because it doesn't exist. Does it mean nor'west WA? Anyway, what most strikes me about this article is the use of the word 'aborigines' -- it smacks of colonialism to my mind, and I would suggest 'indeginous people' or somesuch...

The "northwest territories" would be arnhem land, I imagine.

Arnhem Land is Arnhem Land, not the Nor'west. Its Dhuwa and Yirritja land not the Nor'West. Its traditional land.

The article Australian Aboriginies has more on nomclementure.

And yes, that "quote" is my personal opinion. But I live here in Canberra.

Sadly, this article repeats a common myth about the tent embassy - that it has been on its present site since 1972.

This is incorrect - the current embassy was only established in 1992 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the original.

Between 1972 and 1992 there was NO embassy on this site. My reference for this is the Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the fact I worked at parliament house during the 80s and there was no embassy on this site during this entire decade.

Further source - http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/chron/1999-2000/2000chr03.htm The Australian Parliamentary Library

It might be worthwhile point out that australian aboriginals were recognised as citizens via a refurendum in ... '73? '72? Also, a bit of point/counterpoint might be reasonable. It's controversial, after all. Pmurray bigpond.com 23:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}}. Oh, and the referendum was in '67. --cj | talk 11:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt local Indigneous people set the tent embassy up. I used to live with one of the founders. That person certainly wasn't from southern NSW nor were many who were on the Freedom Ride that then resulted in the embassy being established. I hope the tent embassy stays. As a non Indigenous person it represents true aussie democracy to me. I know Matidla and she is a lovely person but her calling for the removal of the embassy is about local politics rather than allowing a national voice and presence in Canberra via the embassy. Some think that just because one Indigenous person wants such and such, then that is how it is. There is a national Indigenous movement - then local politics come in to try and upsurp that. Same as in the mainstream. Many non Indigenous people support the tent embassy and hope it remains and continue on in the background lobbying where they can in support of justice for all indigenous people in Australia, not just for some. If local Indigenous people want no one in Canberra who isnt from the Canberra area, maybe if they only let ngarriralwkpina be used in dhuwa country and this region stick to local Indigenous music makers? Pan aboriginality happens and will continue to happen and because of that the national significance of the tent embassy is inspiring for all Australians who are preapred to let its very Australian message be heard.

Australia day 2012[edit]

Currently reads "The protesters were angry at comments Abbott had made that morning in which he said that the Embassy may no longer be relevant". Not sure if that quite conveys the events or Abbott's comments. The protesters were misinformed about Abbott's comments and it seems that the instigators of the protest are suggesting the reaction was to the misinformation but the reaction would have been different if correctly informed. Appreciate Wikipedia notnews but being brief in this case is misleading. 60.230.148.111 (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

A vast majority of this article needs sources/reference. There are sections that have no sources at all. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not obliterate the evidence please; commentary on the evidence is a separate issue[edit]

I am leaving the links below (to video clips from the events of January 2012) on this 'Talk Page', as a record from eye-witnesses. These were originally inserted as footnotes in the article but were edited out. The videos are 'facts' , even though the text that accompanied them on WP may have been open to criticism on the grounds of WP:POV. For such a political and politicised event, the mainstream Australian media may not themselves be giving an NPOV account. In WP we are obliged to have all viewpoints, and especially all evidence, represented:

[1]

In the interests of free speech. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really needs to be taken down but I'll leave that for someone else. All I see are protestors inciting violence, blocking public roads, man-handling police, throwing objects, Shame! CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Also, the second video, at the beginning, shows a protestor man-handling and spitting on an officer! CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second link I've removed per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to begin getting some consensus on the facts[edit]

This is an extract from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's website. It is taken from a transcription of a television broadcast [2]. This is a fair use of the ABC's copyright material for the purpose of study. (and not part of the 'Tent Embassy' article)

"DEBORAH CORNWALL: Yesterday's flashpoint appears to have been sparked by comments made by Tony Abbott about the future relevance of the Tent Embassy given the gains made by indigenous Australians in recent decades.

[cut to an earlier interview]

JOURNALIST: Mr Abbott today is also the 40th anniversary of the Tent Embassy in Canberra. Do you think it is still relevant or should it move?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, I can understand why the Tent Embassy was established all those years ago. I think a lot has changed for the better since then. We had the historic apology just a few years ago, one of the genuine achievements of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister.
We had the proposal which is currently for national consideration to recognise Indigenous people in the Constitution. I think the Indigenous people of Australia can be very proud of the respect in which they are held by every Australian and yes, I think a lot has changed since then and I think it probably is time to move on from that.

[cut back to present interview]

DEBORAH CORNWALL: Protesters who had been celebrating the 40 year anniversary of the Tent Embassy widely interpreted the comments as a call to demolish the symbolic site.

TONY ABBOTT: I never, never, said what was attributed to me by some of the people at that protest yesterday and I just ask you, please, I ask you very respectfully, judge me by what I said.
My understanding is that at least some of the protest leaders now accept that they had grievously misinterpreted what I said."

Whether or not you agree with what editor's put on this Talk Page, I ask you not to edit out what is placed here. An honest discussion is impossible if people edit out others contributions. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of soapboxing here. Cheers CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Fire text[edit]

Sorry... Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this text even noteworthy enough to be included in this article, at all? I also have a problem with the source used, which seems to me to be a self published source on the part of the Tent Embassy.

The whole paragraph seems trivial to me, when put alongside the more important political objectives of the Tent Embassy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

theres long term recognition of the scared fire, its been a component of incidents [3][4] and even outside of Australia[5] it seems there enough reason to include a mention of it. Gnan garra 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of the Sacred Fire in those articles seems trivial relative to the greater purpose of the Embassy. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in each either extinguishing it or appraoching it carelessly has prevoked an incident making it a sigificant feature of the embassy grounds. Gnan garra 05:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major issue at the time Wilson Tuckey was the relevant federal minister - he had several goes at trying to shut the Tent Embassy down on the pretext that the fire was breaching fire bans on hot days. The fire brigade was even called in at one point, from memory (also from memory, they refused to get involved once they arrived). Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dramas with the sacred fire being in there but the source is not reliable, is self published source it is 6 years old and is factually incorrect. The sacred fire has been 'out' and 'started' again many, many times. The information is incorrect... the sacred fire has not be constantly alight since 1998 or since 2006 - it's just plain wrong and that part should be removed. The sacred fire is important, that fact is correct!!! The sacred fire part must stay BUT that it has been constantly alight is factually incorrect and must be removed CanberraBulldog (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be possible dig up some Canberra Times stories about incidents where the fire was put out. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aboriginal Tent Embassy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The only survivor of the four men who founded the embassy is Michael Anderson, yet you don't even mention him. Contact him at email address removed for the four names.

You shouldn't place email addresses on Wikipedia pages - it is an invitation for spambots Astronaut (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 06:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aboriginal Tent Embassy. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the names of the first protesters are right[edit]

From the Canberra Times at the time - "Aboriginal women gather for conference". The Canberra Times. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 28 January 1972. p. 3. Retrieved 26 January 2020 – via Trove. - "At the "Aboriginal Embassy" outside Parliament House yesterday Mr Mike Anderson (left) Mr Bill Cragie and Mr Kevin Johnston demonstrate in favour of -land rights for Aborigines." A fourth man had gone back to Brisbane. --Matilda ^talk 23:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The four names in the article are taken from the parliamentary document cited so it would seem there is a discrepancy in the sources. Mujinga (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ningla A-Na" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ningla A-Na and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Ningla A-Na until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]