 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
"Belonged to" edit
This area in Northeast Arnhem Land has belonged to Yolngu Aboriginal people for over 40,000 years. I don't think this is NPOV. In pre-colonial Australia, land wasn't something that could be owned. I think 'has been occupied by ' is more correct, or better still the passive voice could be eliminated altogether. Grassynoel (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. I've changed to "home to" though I'm sure this could be improved upon. This article, like the one on Arnhem Land, has enormous potential. Needs plenty of work on verification though! I'll do what I can in the next week or so--Glen Dillon (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- one more thing...you're right about passive voice, and of course my tiny edit didn't fix that problem. I think that "occupied by" would certainly have been an improvement upon "ownership" but it still has a euro-centric ring to it - in the sense of occupation = possession/rights/entitlement, which is at odds with the entire "relationship with country" thing that the traditional owners have going with their land.--Glen Dillon (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that "home to" is better than "belonged to" but that "has been the homeland" would be better still, as it gives a better sense that while the land was 'owned' their use/life with the land was exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeditor86 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)