Talk:Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Litigation

How does the following link fit into the 2001 civil case? Or is it a different matter? I'm looking for references/citations for the article. [1] Ozdaren 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the link to the FCA case, they are quite separate. The ABC report is about libel. Paul foord (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal Women

As indicated before it was not just Aboriginal women who objected to the bridge. However, this keeps on being asserted in the article. Can we have a discussion about this? Refer to Margaret Simons, "The Meeting of the Waters".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming Names

In this article Tom and Wendy Chapman are named as the original proponents of the bridge. The article then goes on to refer to Ted Chapman's connection to Vicki Chapman of the Liberal party and his place in SA politics. Although there is no factual error in this, the article does not explain what connection there is between Tom and Wendy Chapman and Ted Chapman and his daughter Vicki. In fact the way the article is constructed, readers could get the impression that Tom and Ted are the same person, which is untrue. If these people are going to be named in the article, their role in the matter and their connection if any should be clarified. --Rudy22 (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2001 Federal Court case

The lead paragraph currently states (this diff) that the federal court case "found against the developers and claims of fabrication". In my opinion this sentence is designed to make it sound as if the Secret Women's Business were found to be true. I suggest a minor toning down of the wording, something to the effect that the Federal court cast doubt on the findings. WLRoss, you've suggested I read paragraph 441 of the case - I did so, but I do not see any specific reference to the claims of fabrication being false. I think a quote from the middle of paragraph 444 may be more apt: "...I am not satisfied that the applicants have established the non-existence of the tradition." Failure to prove a negative does not prove the positive. At any rate, it's a bit close to OR to cite it to the entire judgement transcript. Here's a report from Kerry O'Brien: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s350217.htm. In my opinion, this would verify the following statement, to be inserted after the bit about the Royal Commission: "The Chapmans sued for damages, but Justice von Doussa found against their claim, adding that he was not satisfied they had proved that Secret Women's Business was a fabrication. The Ngarrindjeri took this a vindication of their position." How about that?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's more than just para 441...relevant comments continue from there to the end of the page and it is clear that the evidence supporting claims of fabrication were rejected in total. This does not imply that the womens bussiness was true. The judge found only that none of the claims supporting it could be refuted by the dissidents and that on the ballance of probabilities the claims should be accepted. That he was not more specific is due to his finding that even if the claim was not true it was irrelevant as there was enough evidence to justify blocking the bridge construction. Your suggestion implies that the claims of fabrication had merit which is ambiguous at best. Wayne (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I read down to para 460, and then snippets until the end. This ruling was about whether or not the Chapmans were entitled to compensation - he found that they had suffered no loss, and therefore were not. I'm no law student, but I don't think a federal court opinion can overrule a royal commission. I could post all sorts of published works demolishing the von Doussa decison, but it wouldn't really be relevant: It comes down to the fact that the lead paragraph's sentence seems to be saying that the Federal Court found the SWB claims to be true, which it did not. I'm sure we can work out some suitably NPOV wording. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a think about better wording. There is no doubt that the court did find against the claims of fabrication so we just need to find wording to indicate that despite this it didn't neccessarily prove the proponents claim. As for those cite tags you added.... That para came from the Chris Kenny book so I will have to look up the specific page. That the Chapmans had spent years doing environmental impact reports and consulting with aboriginal elders is not disputed and the 1989 Lucas report for example had already raised concerns that there could be problems, but the paragraph itself is in regards to doing so after 1990 when these problems began to be realised. I now have the Margaret Simons book which is obviously very pro dissident (judging by the language of the cover notes) so will do some more work on the article from that once I've read it.Wayne (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the wording that I cite tagged implies that there had been no consultation. The recent change is an improvement, but the claim of insufficiency still needs a specific inline reference. I thought that both Henry Rankin and George Trevorrow were mentioned as having been consulted, although they both later denied this. Regarding the von Doussa decision, I will have a go at expanding the aftermath section. There is a lot of criticism of the J. v. D. decision from both sympathisers and opponents (as well as a lot of praise), and this could certainly be better reflected in that section.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret Womens business

In this section some of the claims are detailed. I had spoken to elders in regards to what I could write and it was requested that no mention be made of what the island looked like or of the action mentioned in bullet five. When I mentioned them in the artical I used ----- to replace those words while leaving enough detail for a reader to infer what they could be. As this is a sensitive religious issue is it neccessary for the reader to see those words? If so then is there a tag that can be added to the artical warning readers of content that may offend? Wayne (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that Wikipedia is not censored. I had a bit of a look around for a policy on disclaimers, and apparently they are not used in just about any instance (see WP:NDA). It is certainly not my intention here to insult anybody, but frankly I was amazed that such an otherwise detailed article had just the barest mentions of the content of the claims. Without at least explaining what the claims were, this article is just one side claiming fabrication and the other denying it - the reader's basically got to pick one side or the other with no information to decide if they're right or not. I was just a child when all this happened, but I distinctly remember the resemblance of the islands being widely reported - it's not like this has been dug up from the depths of the inquiry. If the facts can be verified by reliable sources (and they can), then the article just isn't complete without them. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Although come to think of it, I see no harm in making the first paragraph of the section a bit more obvious in saying that the claims are about to be listed, as something of a warning to anyone who might be offended.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious disclaimer

With all due respect, I'm dead against the inclusion of that banner disclaimer at the top of the article (this diff). Aside from the issues regarding disclaimers generally which are detailed at WP:NDA, this particular one goes beyond merely warning a reader about the content within - it explicitly admonishes certain readers not to proceed! If certain publishing houses wish to include similar warnings on their books then they are free to do so, but that in no way compells Wikipedia to follow their lead.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the section above I have spoken to people about this and it has caused offense that this secret knowledge has been detailed. It was mentioned to me recently that if it has to be included that the warning be added. The disclaimer is not just certain publishing houses, it is now becoming the standard practice on any publication that can be read in Australia that mentions secret knowledge. As far as Wikipedia is concerned this is the only page such a disclaimer should be on but I could be wrong and I doubt that more than a handful of pages would require one if I am wrong. Nothing in WP:NDA is applicable in this specific case. It does not duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages and is not covered in why disclaimers should not be used. WP:NDA states disclaimers are negotiable subject to consensus. I have also read the Wikipedia disclaimers and none cover restricted religious knowledge and even if they did the practice of hiding them as a clickable link at the bottom of the page negates their use in this specific situation. I have no problem with the disclaimer box being smaller as I just used one I already had.Wayne (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

These are the relevant Australian government guidelines on disclaimers for sacred and secret knowledge.Wayne (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I grant that yours is a valid argument and there may well be a case for an exception. So I think it would be best if this went to a breif RfC. If a consensus does emerge that a disclaimer would be appropriate, I'd strongly suggest using a generic and fairly bland warning along the lines of "Readers of Australian Aboriginal heritage are advised that this article contains details of Aboriginal beliefs that may be considered secret", similar to the warning on many government TV programs that feature deceased aboriginal people. I'm not saying I would necessarily support such a move, but if a disclaimer must be had it certainly shouldn't tell people what they may or may not read.--192.43.227.18 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(sorry, this is Yeti Hunter by the way - editing from Uni and forgot to log in)--192.43.227.18 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer is the one for books so may be too clunky for a single page article. I had a talk with some people last night and it was suggested to use something shorter such as you suggest with proper cites.Wayne (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Should a disclaimer be added to warn of sacred beliefs written in the article?

This article contains details of Australian Aboriginal beliefs which were central to a significant political and legal controversy several years ago. Some of the beliefs are considered "secret". Is it appropriate to include a disclaimer warning of the inclusion of such potentially offensive material? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Current Australian Government policy regarding published confidential and/or sensitive Indigenous materials.Wayne (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. In a form that receives consensus and is located at the top of the page. As an editor on several indigenous articles I sometimes consult with Indigenous elders for views. In this capacity I was requested to add a disclaimer for this particular article as the inclusion of knowledge forbidden to uninitiated women and all men who hold traditional beliefs caused some concern. As an example of the importance of a disclaimer, I point out that an important legal challenge was withdrawn to avoid revealing this knowledge. The number of pages requiring such a disclaimer would be very limited and quite possibly only this article at the present time. WP:NDA does not exclude disclaimers and states that such are negotiable subject to consensus.
  

The disclaimer example I chose was that provided for books and scientific papers. A shorter version has been suggested to me along the lines of In areas where traditional Aboriginal religion is still significant, exposure to this material by uninitiated people may cause offence and a smaller box to lessen the visual impact on the page is not a problem.Wayne (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• No - flatly violates WP:No disclaimers in articles. This goes against long-established Wikipedia practice. I've removed it.[2] Robofish (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: While it does go against established Wikipedia practice, it does not violate any part of the WP:No disclaimers in articles policy.Wayne (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The arguments at WP:NDA which are in favour of disclaimers centre around the idea that people should be protected from inadvertently accessing offensive material. Anyone looking up the "Hindmarsh Island Bridge controversy" would reasonably expect to see some discussion of what the controversy was about - it's very unlikely that it could catch someone off-guard.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As the article stood on July 14, a reader would understand exactly what the controversy was about without needing to see the actual secret material itself which is, as was found in numerous court cases, irrelevant to that understanding. Now that the material has been detailed, this is no longer the case. The community accepted the article as it was but the addition of (unneccessary?) detail has caused concern although they feel they can live with a disclaimer if the detail has to be there. This is not a matter of protecting people from offensive material as the knowledge is not offensive to anyone. What is considered offensive is the lack of respect to the owners of that knowledge. Wikipedia has strong copyright policies yet in this area, where Indigenous sacred/secret knowledge has copyright status in practice if not law in Australia, we have editors who are happy to dismiss Indigenous concerns entirely. Wayne (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing some research and found the following. The Supreme court case Foster v Mountford (1976) 29 FLR 233 covers Aboriginal intellectual property and concluded that the Australian Government recognises that the protection of Aboriginal knowledge transcends copyright. In this particular case an injunction restraining further publication was granted for breach of confidence based on the concept that 'revelation of secrets to the uninitiated may undermine the social and religious stability of the community'. I also note that there have been cases recently where traditional Aboriginal readers have been subjected to tribal punishment for inadvertantly reading/accessing secret knowledge in published books and that this is why disclaimers are now common practice in Australia where such sensitive information is discussed (see Photography's other histories Objects/histories : critical perspectives on art, material culture, and representation ISBN 0822331136). After further consultation I have added a sample disclaimer to the page for comment. Wayne (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia has a general content disclaimer which accounts for all material that could possibly be offensive for a range of reasons. On the same basis, we would have to add disclaimers to all articles about Freemasonry and its rituals, most of which are considered (by practitioners) as secret to all but initiated Freemasons. Likewise, there are a number of articles about Scientology which detail some of the knowledge of that belief system which practitioners consider secret. None of those articles include disclaimers warning uninitiated practitioners not to access the information contained therein. I understand there are cultural sensitivities but unfortunately, none of the exceptions in WP:No disclaimers in articles apply in this instance. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DOES NOT account for all material that could possibly be offensive. Your examples are not even remotely similar to this case. In Aboriginal belief systems traditional Aborigines earn the right to certain types of knowledge with actual physical punishments, usually spearing but up to and including death sentences, for the uninitiated viewing secret knowledge which is why Australia considers this material "copyrighted". Please do not use irrelevant examples but provide similar examples of Wikipedia refusing disclaimers. Wikipedia does not even consider or address this possibility in their disclaimers. WP:NDA states it is not policy because of possible exceptions and I argue that this is one. So far everyone comes back with "violation of WP:NDA" (which it is not) rather than give specific objections. Wayne (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As much as possible I try to stay out of RFCs which I have called, but I think the examples given by Stalwart above are entirely appropriate, despite the lack of spearing involved. I'm pretty sure that the illegality of the death penalty in Australia extends to Aboriginal customary law, too. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually ambigious, in the 1970s there was a case where a traditional woman read a book with secret material and the government intervened to prevent the death penalty. Spearing is tolerated although that can lead to death itself. I would dissagree that the examples are appropriate as no one is hurt by the material being printed. A closer example could be printing the blueprints of a bomb where you have issues of safety? Wayne (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, so you're telling me that in an Aboriginal community a bit over an hour's drive from Adelaide, someone might get the death penalty because they read a Wikipedia article? "Spearing is tolerated"?? Are you serious, this sort of thing still goes on? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it still goes on. Such punishments are taken into account when judges set jail terms in Australian courts, ie: "The Queen v Wilson Jagamara Walker SCC No. 46 of 1993" where Walker was given a suspended sentence for manslaughter on the condition that evidence of spearing be provided when the punishment was inflicted after his release. Quote from court transcript page 6: Chief Justice Martin- when you return to Yuendumu, you will be called upon to face tribal punishment ... by getting speared in each of your legs a couple of times in such a way that you will be pained for at least a couple of weeks ... A hunting spear would be used. The punishment would be administered by the brother of the dead man, that is by Kevin Fry. It would be done publicly; people will know that it has been done. Medical attention will be available if required.

It should be noted that the australian legal system recognises traditional punishments without condoning them and that prosecutors use their discretionary powers to decline charging anybody for inflicting the punishments even when death results. Spearing is also legal under Australian law as long as the victim volunteers and "grevious harm" (ie: permanent injury) is not intended. A study of Alice Springs hospital stab admissions in 2005 revealed that between 1998 and 2005 there were an estimated 620 people speared in the thigh as traditional punishment. Injuries were of three types, to the medial thigh (designed to kill the victim), posterior thigh (designed to permanently disable) and to the lateral thigh (to punish). In 2004 Jeremy Anthony was arrested for causing death by drunk driving in Katherine. He was speared once before his arrest but was also sentenced by his elders to be speared in the thigh four more times which they stated in the Supreme court during Anthony's trial. Although the judge said the spearing would be illegal because it was intended to cripple, Anthony volunteered to undergo the additional spearing to avoid being cursed. Death is far less common now because of Australian law but it does still happen. In 2000, three men were speared to death in Central Australia (American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology: March 2001 Volume 22 pp 92-95) one was deliberate but the other two were due to accidental severing of arteries. This might be of interest: Traditional Aboriginal Law and Punishment pdf Wayne (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Heres another very interesting case to further illustrate the importance of tribal customs. R v Charlie Limbiari Jagamara 1984. Jagamara was a Warlpiri and his wife (a Willowra) was suspected of having an affair. Jagamara speared the man and he died. He was later arrested for murder and the Willowra tribe subsequently inflicted punishments on Jagamara while he was out on bail. In the Supreme Court trial he was found guilty and sentenced to the rising of the court (immediate release), Justice Muirhead stated: There are cases where I consider complete regard should be had for Aboriginal custom and tribal law. This is one of them. The sentence of this court is that the prisoner will be sentenced to the rising of the court. Wayne (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So people are getting speared to death, and it's Wikipedia that has to change its ways?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not such a clear cut problem. All I'm saying is that Wikipedia should follow community norms for this type of content and treat the material with respect.Wayne (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't. The practice was a ritualistic penalty which could, but did not always, result in death (ritualistic in the same way as hanging someone as a death penalty is supposed to recall the story told of Judas who hung himself - there are many ways to kills someone but this was chosen because of symbolism). I'm not about to guess why spearing was chosen but it is inconsequential anyway. Examples like Freemasonry (where you can be expelled, which for a believer might be akin to death) or Scientology (when you can be excommunicated and therefore unable to access the information that might free your soul) are entirely appropriate. The issue of a potential disclaimer isn't about the degree to which the information is secret, it is that the information is secret at all. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia that would be considered secret to some and none of them have disclaimers. Wikipedia does not keep secrets - Wikipedia is not censored.

Secondly, your request to [please] provide similar examples of Wikipedia refusing disclaimers. Wikipedia does not even consider or address this possibility in their disclaimers. WP:NDA states it is not policy because of possible exceptions and I argue that this is one... The guidelines are so because of possible exceptions and it lists some of the possible exceptions. This article does not fit into any of those categories. Wikipedia does not "refuse" disclaimers; the guideline says that the consensus is that they should not be used. I respect your right to try and change people's minds and gather a consensus against the norm but because the assumption is against disclaimer statements they are quite simply never applied except in a very limited number of instances, most of them related to technical information. The argument that this article is so unique that it transcends Wiki guidelines and policy so as to require it's own unique policy, does not hold a lot of water.

Finally, please assume good faith - comment was requested and comment was given. Please don't refer to people's contributions as irrelevant because they state a view you happen not to share. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say your contributions were irrelevant. I said the consequences of the examples themselves were irrelevant when compared to the consequences of Aboriginal law. Australian law accepts that traditional law "transcends copyright" (the governments words not mine) so to state that Wiki guidelines are a superior standard is POV. I also fail to see why a disclaimer is equated with censorship as nothing is being removed or hidden, in fact it makes the Wiki disclaimers that are actually hidden visable, albeit they dont cover this situation.Wayne (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not so-called "ritual punishment" still goes on, there's no indication that such punishment has ever been sentenced for knowledge of the secret women's business at Hindmarsh Island. That would indeed be an interesting twist in the ongoing affair. And even if it was, I don't think it's the ethos of Wikipedia to encourage people to self-censor. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting punishments would be inflicted in this case, its the principle. Why is censorship brought up again? Who apart from WP is trying to censor something? Wayne (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is being mentioned because the article section WP:NOTCENSORED deals with this issue: Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms. and says further, Nor will Wikipedia remove content because the internal bylaws of some organizations forbid that information from being displayed online. The section is premised by a See also list which includes WP:NDA. Describing Aboriginal law as "organizational bylaws" might be cold but the premise is the same.

Many will see any attempt to discourage (by disclaimer) someone from accessing a portion of Wikipedia as an attempt to prevent someone from accessing a portion of Wikipedia, though there are obvious differences between the two. But censorship is not just about banning something or preventing access by removing content, it can also be about preventing access by discouraging access. Including a disclaimer that discourages a certain portion of the community from accessing a certain portion of Wikipedia is going to struggle to find consensus, irrespective of the noble reasons for proposing it in the first place.

To your statement: "Australian law accepts that traditional law "transcends copyright" (the governments words not mine) so to state that Wiki guidelines are a superior standard is POV" - It's not about superiority or a "point of view"; Wikipedia is not subject to Australian laws, and thus is not subject to laws that transcend Australian laws. Wikipedia is subject to it's own policies and guidelines, general U.S. copyright laws and some of the laws of Florida "where Wikipedia is hosted". (And as such has been accused of being a law unto itself.) Though the copyrights policy says that, "Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations", the consensus you are trying to build is that "foreign" copyright should override WP guidelines. That's not likely to be a popular view but, again, you are more than welcome to try. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations" and here we have the dilemna as it is not being respected. The Indigenous community is actually opposed to copyright as they are worried copyrighting would block anthropological research that would benefit them and also limit their own access, as it has in regards to much of Mountfords work that is restricted as it contains secret material. They do want control of the material though and as a compromise to exclusion, the community is willing to accept disclaimers so there is no attempt to enforce Australian copyright. The disclaimers specifically say they do not discourage or limit access so there is no censorship issue either. Wayne (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is being respected; at least four editors respect it enough to give it due consideration and discussion. But, again, you are trying to build a concensus in favour of your proposal which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Unfortunately, what you are trying to argue is already opposed by long-standing concensus. Even if you managed to convince those already involved in this discussion (which seems unlikely given you are the only person who has argued for your point of view), the change you are proposing calls for a fundamental change to be made to Wikipedia; that is, the inclusion of another exception to WP:NDA not already listed there. Again, you are more than welcome to do this, but I suggest you leave this RFC on hold and start a new one at the Talk Page for WP:NDA asking if concensus can be found for the inclusion of an exception to NDA for an Aboriginal law disclaimer. Arguments like the ones you are making are better made at the talk page of the guideline, rather than at the talk page of a specific article, given the widespread nature of the change if consensus is found. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a hard one. Two important principles clashing: freedom to write whatever we like, provided it's within policy vs caring about the feelings of the indigenous community. Since the story can be told without disclosing the secrets, I'm in favour of behaving humanely. Arguing "I want to. I can. So I will." doesn't convince me. Hurting people gratuitously is being a knob. Anthony (talk)

Understand where you're coming from Anthony. I understand the issue of whether or not the information should be included was decided during previous discussions. This RFC is aimed at finding consensus for a disclaimer to warn people that the information appears in the article, despite WP:NDA. Any thoughts? Stalwart111 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I mostly agree with you, Anthony, I don't believe this article can be complete without the secrets. The story is the secrets. A bridge was banned on account of them, a royal commission was called to determine whether they were fabricated, legislation was enacted in response to them, and they were exceedingly influential in the wider debate about race relations in Australia. So it's certainly not a case of "I want to, I can, so I will." Leaving them out robs the reader of any possible way to analyse the claims and counter-claims. One side says they're fabricated, the other says they're true. Who's right? Or does the truth, as is so often the case, lie somewhere in the middle? It's not for Wikipedia to decide unless it's reporting a reliable third-party sourced decision. Put all the facts out there, and the reader decide.

That said, you're certainly right that we shouldn't hurt people gratuitously. I don't think we need to go against policy by including explicit disclaimers or excluding verifiable material to achieve that. See my proposal below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Searching for compromise

I believe we have a consensus for including the material, and also an emerging consensus against a disclaimer, but also consensus to include the information in such a way as to minimise the chance of it being seen by those who might be upset by it. A previous suggestion that I made was to confine the revealed secrets to a single paragraph, titled and phrased in such a way that it would be obvious that secret material was about to be revealed, thus warning the reader without disclaiming. But this has the disadvantage of not allowing discussion of the secrets elsewhere in the article where it might be necessary (the "isn't it obvious?" meeting springs to mind). My suggestion is: given that for whatever reason, many indigenous people do believe that this information should be "respected" and may still consider it secret, that fact actually adds to our understanding of the still-ongoing controversy. If a reliable source can be found specific to the Ngarrindjeri and this issue rather than Aboriginal secrets generally, a sentence could be included in the lead along the lines of:

"Despite the public scrutiny that "secret women's business" received as a result of the controversy, many Ngarrindjeri people still consider the information to be secret, and believe that it should still be treated as such."

That achieves everything that a disclaimer would, but rephrased from a statement of opinion into a reliably sourced statemebnt of fact, and the full weight of Wikipedia policy would enforce its inclusion. I would argue that a self-published source by the Ngarrindjeri may be sufficient in this case, since it is being used only to verify facts about the Ngarrindjeri themselves. Wayne may be able to help on that one. Thoughts?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it resolves 90% of the issues. I acknowledge it doesn't have equivalency with the current Australian Government standards but this issue has been canvassed extensively. I think a self-published source, given the context, would be adequate and appropriate. Would be interested to get Wayne's opinion. It also leaves the door open for future provisions should Wayne decide to push for a new exemption at WP:NDA as suggested. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a good compromise but I'll get further direction from the Ngarrindjeri and get back to you on the most relevant source to use. Wayne (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian McLachlan

I have made a correction about Ian McLachlan. He was the Shadow Minister for the Environment not Aboriginal Affairs when he resigned from the Opposition frontbench over the secret women's business. The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)