Talk:Aboriginal Protection Act 1869

When enacted?

When was this act passed? RJFJR 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it in the external link: 1869

Also, it's referred to as a 'document'. Is that accurate? Should it say 'act' or 'law' instead? RJFJR 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Aust B-class review

article re assessed as start, limited information Gnangarra 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aboriginal Protection Act 1869/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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

on the aboriginal protection act it says that the european's shouldn't of taken the stolen generations away to learn australian ways. i believe that if you were to learn australian way's it would be the aboriginal way

Substituted at 18:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased

It clearly has an critical and negative bias on the Protection Act 1869, words like "'forced' to assimilate in white society" has a strong opinative stance. The society in those times was incredibly racist, they actually did the opposed to what was done in Apartheid a century later, they believed that people should be able to live with the same benefits that whites had. Clearly they were trying to "empower" those people, but the text has the opposed bias and never contemplates a positive stance, only the negative bias. Even "'Stolen' Genaration" are too strong words, and if you want write a biased article, make sure you exposed the opposing opinion. The article makes sure you will never forget that those were bad things when you are reading the text, cause the words used are clearly chosen in order to mainting a negative stance about the acts, but even if those acts were bad, you have to respect the contradictory and search for other scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:BAD7:4699:A157:D5BD:334E:602A (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Revisions of article

Hello all, I have removed some information which was either unsourced or did not have a NPOV and replaced it with sourced information. The article is still unbalanced because it is just as much about the 1886 Act as the 1869 Act. Happy to discuss.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)