|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
|WikiProject Australia / Western Australia||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|This article is written in Australian English [colour, labour (but Labor Party), realise]. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in other dialects of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|To-do list for Western Australia:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
Is not an offensive nick name for citizens of Perth-please do not modify - note the varying usage at state reference library entries here: - http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search/X?SEARCH=sandgroper&searchscope=1&Da=&Db=&p=&SORT=A it has been usage for at least a 100 years and is not inoffensive SatuSuro 13:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not inoffensive? ;) - Mark 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - not offensive in its earlier usage as found in names of magazines and groups of people - however shift in context of words is such, a good linguist might well find a change in usage at some point - there are many words that have complete 180 degree shifts in 100 years SatuSuro 06:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The nickname "sandgroper" is simply a colloquial term that refers to a person from Western Australia. It is not inherently an offensive or an inoffensive nickname. It depends upon who is using the word and the context in which it is used. Generally it is inoffensive and Western Australians use it in reference to themselves. (Lanyon (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC))
Who? I've been living here for almost a decade and never heard it, ever. It's stupid coming to Wikipedia and hearing that West Australians refer to themselves by something that we simply don't (with citation from old museum webpage about sandgropers), and if other people (again, who?) refer to us by that name why should it be on the Wikipedia page about us? I don't care if it's offensive or inoffensive, it's just stupid. Like having on the Australia page, right at the top of the article, "Australians are often referred to as Kangaroos" or something equally stupid, based on what they happen to call us in Denmark or some random webpage on Kangaroos that makes passing reference to it. Kestasjk (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Two things the first is that it doesnt matter that you've lived here for 10 years editing to what you've have or havent heard is original resaerch. Sandgroppers has been a long established term hence the use of the museum link, its use has been link with the biggest charity event in Western Australia in the form of a stuffed toy called Sunny Sandgropper. The second you term your are referring to is "Skippy", "Skips" both of which are derogatory terms used to refer to Australians by migrants, for better comparison suggest you look up Croweaters, Eastern Staters, Banana benders, Mexicans.... Gnangarra 01:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
And incidentally you get 9 results searching the state reference library for sandgroper via the link SatuSuro posted, and at least one of them doesn't use the term to refer to west-australians but rather to refer to a tunnel boring machine.. If it's a colloquial thing in country areas, or a historical thing, it shouldn't be put up that it's "often" used, and shouldn't be in the article header/summary. Feel free to put it under trivia. Kestasjk (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the line and had the change reverted by SatuSuro
- I tried to write a more reasonable version that stuck more closely with what the citation said, while trying to discuss the problem with SatuSuro, but it was also reverted by SatuSuro and he hasn't continued the discussion here or via the talk page
- I've called for a third opinion on this. SatuSuro recommended getting it from the WA project page but I think it'd be more appropriate to get it from an outsider. It seems there are Northern rural area folks trying to keep this in, but the vast majority of us aren't rural and (more importantly) the citations provided give no evidence that it's a ubiquitous colloquial nickname. (I doubt they refer to themselves as sandgropers in Margaret River, for example)
History of the different versions of the line:
- The people of Western Australia are often colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- Occasionally the people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- The people of Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- People born and raised in Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- People born and raised in rural Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- The people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
- People born and raised in Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth. [dubious ]
I think that the use of "rural" wasn't in the cited source so I agree I shouldn't have added that in, but "born and raised" is directly from the cited source. I've also left in "are" rather than change it back to "have been" as I entered before. Now that it sticks as closely as possible with the cited source it should be easier for a third party to determine whether it should be in such a prominent position. I've also added a "dubious" marker to it, so people won't change it without seeing the talk page first (If there's a more appropriate flag than "dubious" feel free to change it)
Also it should be remembered that the cited source isn't about what people in WA call themselves, it's about an West Australian insect, and the relevant part is only a passing reference.
I understand it's not an offensive nickname, and I don't want to completely remove it, I simply don't think it's appropriate to give it such a prominent position or to imply that it ubiquitous.
Also the fact this section exists before I came across this shows I'm not the only one who feels this way. Also let's not make this personal; I don't have any animosity to people living in rural WA, and loved North (and South) WA whenever I've gone up/down there, and know people who regularly fly out to these towns for IT/health training. I don't like being called "geographically challenged" or anything though, let's keep that attitude out of this and resolve this reasonably. Kestasjk (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|Response to Third Opinion Request:|
|Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Western Australia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.|
Opinion: Let me also note in passing that I'm a Native Texan and have no ties to Australia. I think that the controversial, source can be found here, and uses the term in passing to refer to Western Australians without explanation, which suggests that the author presumes that Australians, at least, will know what it means. Quite a few other current and historic examples of use can be found in this search. I dislike "often" because it seems to suggest frequent current everyday use, which the sources do not support, but the contemporary uses and listing in current–slang lists show that there is plenty of support for the term not being entirely archaic or unused. As for the linking and second clause, I do have some doubt about the tie between the insect and the term. The current formulation suggests that the use of the term for the people comes from the name of the insect, but I find no support for that in the sources. Indeed, one of the sources given (Angelo) and this (high–quality, I think) source suggest that the term means "one who walks through soft sand." I'd suggest keeping the first clause, as is, eliminating the second one, and relinking the term to the disambiguation page, not to the insect.is the preferable form, except perhaps for the linking and second clause tying the term to the insect (discussed below). As for the first clause, the sources presented seem a little iffy from a Wikipedia–reliable–source point of view, but certainly seem to give cumulative support to the actual existence of the term. A high-quality late-20th century, if
Thanks for the well thought out opinion. Given the extra sources that have recently been added I can see it is used colloquially and at least is referred to in tourism books about slang, and I agree that "often" wasn't appropriate but that's now gone.
I wouldn't mind seeing it moved under the culture section or something though; I don't think it's something that belongs in the short summary section. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Thanks again, and thanks to Hesperian for adding the extra citations (you have an impressive collection of aussie slang books, you must be quite incomprehensible to talk to ;-) ).
- Ribuck. :-) Hesperian 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's one of those dated things - it was used heavily until the 1980s (when I was a child in Perth, and I remember it well) but I never hear it now except in tourism type things - it's kinda sad actually, I even owned a Sunny the Sandgroper (I probably still do, if so, he's in a box somewhere.). I'm guessing the massive amounts of mining related internal and external immigration are a key factor - Perth's doubled in population since my arrival here. Orderinchaos 07:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually that is a very salient point - many recent immigrants either internal from other states or from overseas will no doubt give a very different flavour to west australian demographics and culture now and in the near future - for instance I would hazard a guess that the steady influx of white south africans from post apartheid south africa have in most cases done interesting things to our political climate SatuSuro 07:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The image which is off to the left showing the major highways and roadhouses of WA seems to be incorrect, where it shows Pannawonica, i think that it is actually Tom Price. I dont know how to change it. Can someone assist. Five Years 08:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Gallipoli and Rabbit-Proof Fence
I was wondering if the movies Gallipoli and Rabbit-Proof Fence should be mentioned among the movies and TV shows? I'm not sure if they were filmed in Western Australia but they were certainly set in it; I think Gallipoli was filmed at Port Lincoln in South Australia. Both films, I believe, are culturally significant and well-known works in Australia and I was thinking that they should perhaps be included in a short list among the movies and TV shows saying that they were set in WA. Does anyone have any thoughts, objections or endorsements of this idea? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just took a look at IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0252444/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt) and it says that Rabbit-Proof Fence was partially filmed in WA, in Perth, the Pilbara and the Gisbon Desert. Also, while I think of it, should Red Dog also be included? According to IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803061/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt) Red Dog was filmed Roebourne, Dampier, Karratha and the Pilbara in WA. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Desert and uninhabited - in lead para
Unless a really good qualifications with reliable sources/cites is made in the text - I do not consider that mostly desert and uninhabited for the lead paragraph should be re-inserted at all. I am not denying that here are desert and uninhabited portions of the state - but what is needed is adequate flagging of the fact that most desert identifications on maps of wa - are actually vegetated areas - with quite significant plant groups and wildlife present. As for uninhabited - there are significant stretches of sparsely populated areas - but I would suggest that the term uninhabited can have a lot of associations that are inadequate for the reality of areas with either floating population, or areas which are regularly traversed but do not have permamnent settled habitation. sats 00:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. I made the edit that added that sentence but looking but looking back the language was extremely poorly chosen. Current version reflects what I was trying to say. Sometimes words just fall out of my fingers before they spend enough time in my brain.Rikeus (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)