Australian Aboriginal sacred site 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
For any with the time and inclination .. I note that the term 'Aboriginal sacred sites' has a long history, particularly promoted and/or popularized by inquirines conducted by the Commowealth Government during the Gough Whitlam years .. ultimately resulting in the establishment of the Sacred Sites Authority in the Northern Territory.
Ultimately this article could easily be expanded in an absolutely massive list .. and someone working on the article might be better seeking to representatively sample some 'sacred sites' from difference parts/ bioregions of Australia .. rather than start a list that could ultimately grow into the 10's of thousands!!
Also, I note that while Aboriginal Australia in particular commonly share understanding and regularly express the idea of "mens' business" and "womens' business" .. these real phenomena are not yet fully explained within the English language Wikipedia .. and a proper expansion of this article might provide useful opportunity to do so (there will be plenty of references to draw upon!)
This is a very small article, and seems adequately sourced. I am dropping the flag. Easily restored if someone disagrees, but the reasoning should probably be shared here. :)- sinneed (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have moved the article to "Australian Aboriginal sacred sites" rather than to "Aboriginal sacred sites in Australia" because the latter title would imply a list article. It would also imply that there are Australian aboriginal sacred sites in other countries, which is not the case. This article is about the concept of sites sacred to Aboriginals in Australia, with examples. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, from the text of the article the present name seems appropriate, and the "sacred sites" have been its topic since its 2007 creation. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's quite a lot more that could be added under a more inclusive title, and there's a spotlight on mining companies' intentions regarding a variety of types of sites at the moment. Because of the overlap, I think that it would be more useful all in one article than separated into two, or scattered across several. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic seems important enough to have its own article, and to keep its original (with the later addition of "Australian") and now long-term title. The proposed name also would confuse by its similarity to articles referring to World Heritage Sites. An expansion seems fine while using this title, and the additional information that you envision could probably be worded to fit the article's topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What has/will happen to the site after the blast? Even if destroyed, the remains of the cave (and surrounding landscape) could still qualify as an important heritage site. I hope that Rio Tinto won't go on bulldozing everything.--2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Others and I have been adding bits to this article, the section on Juukan Gorge in the Hammersley Ranges (the redirect target at the moment), and at Rio Tinto (corporation)#Juukan Gorge. As this incident and its ramifications are likely to continue for a while, I'm thinking that maybe it needs its own article where one main source of the detail can be maintained, with just a brief summary paragraph from each of the other articles. What do people think? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]