Talk:Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians

Australia: Law / Politics / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (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.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Failed verification

In seeking to verify the opening statement "Constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians has been campaigned for since 1910...", I immediately encountered a dead link. Further exploration revealed that the referred site is that of ANTAR (Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation), an activist organisation campaigning for change in matters affecting Indigenous people. Since WP requires verification by a neutral point of view, it has been necessary to remove the failed citation and start looking for a reliable alternative. Bjenks (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the dead link. Section 1.7 of the report says "From as early as 1910, there were calls to amend the Constitution to provide the Commonwealth with power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal affairs", which may or may not be the same as "Constitutional recognition" - in fact I think it's almost the reverse, given that the outcome was to remove the "recognition" (by exclusion) from s51(xxvi) and s127 in 1967. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's agreed that the reference fails to verify any of the present lede's content. But surely we need stress only that there has been increasing demand for constitutional change since the successful 1967 referendum, as part of a 'History' subsection. The lede should simply state that demand for recognition (and further matters) has led to legislation for a referendum to be held this year; and that there is controversy over the issue and the manner of its implementation. Bjenks (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now redrafted the lede and should note that the whole article needs a lot of work. Plus it's apparent that there are several articles on the Voice and related subjects which closely overlap in many details! Bjenks (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

I note that the latest listed poll is dated July 2021 and therefore the listings have little or no bearing on the current constitutional amendment wording. In the lead-up to the October 14 referendum there has been a succession of reliable published polls which present a consistent majority of respondents who do not approve the terms of the referendum question. I will undertake some media searches to update the content. Bjenks (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Voice referendum polls be added?

I notice only Indigenous recognition opinion polls are linked in this article. I am wondering if it is necessary to add opinion polls on the 2023 Voice to Parliament referendum. I feel this would be a worthy addition as the Voice referendum in part contained constitutional recognition. The Voice referendum is about a bit more than just constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples which is why I want to gain an insight onto whether Voice referendum opinion polls are necessary to be cited and added to the Polls section table.

If this community does decide these Voice referendum opinion polls are necessary to add and summarise the final result of the Referendum should also be added when counting has completed. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the referendum polls not be included here, because they could be misleading. A "no" in a poll about the referendum does not necessarily mean "no to constitutional recognition". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. AverageFraud (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]