Talk:Northern Territory Aboriginals Act 1910

Australia: Northern Territory / Law / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Northern Territory Aboriginals Act 1910 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Apparent NPOV issues with the article.

I'm reading the acts in question and they are in stark opposite to what this article claims. But I know given the content matter this would be a highly politicized issue and given that I mostly fix typographical errors and don't login / use an account I don't feel it's appropriate to make any changes to the article. But there's absolutely huge NPOV issues, even with just the way things are worded to sound more ominous.

Another example would be the claim the article said that all half castes are to be "raised to be a white", however the acts all say any half cast is considered aboriginal unless it would be a threat to the full blooded aboriginals community and blood line. The acts predominantly are about the dispensation of large sums of money to the care and welfare of aboriginal people. But the article presents it as if somehow it's an apparatus to dehumanize them when it's quite clearly a huge progressive break through in human rights.

As I am not of Australian heritage (I am Chinese) but live here I tend to be skeptical of anything Australians tell me about their history and prefer to read primary sources that are contemporaneous. I know we're all quite a bit left of centre here, but even by our standards this is far too biased.

Maybe someone with an account who edits articles in more detail than fixing errors like I do could take this one up.

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/num_act/tntaa1024o1910436/ The acts are all available on Austlii btw. 2001:8003:2953:1900:5CDF:6EF1:F077:BE90 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are errors go ahead and fix them! For articles on legislation it's fully appropriate to cite the legislation itself as a source. Secondary sources should be used for the impact of the legislation and/or how it actually operated - possibly some of the effects described in the article derived from regulations made under the legislation rather than the act itself. Have you considered creating an account? You can still maintain anonymity, in fact that way your IP address won't be revealed. ITBF (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]