Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia: Difference between revisions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_shot_in_Western_Australia Greetings oh silent lurkers and watchers - this recent list might tickle the memory cells as to whether you can remember any of these being made !!! cheers Satu Suro 06:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo the movie not Dingo was in 1991 not 1981, Gnan garra 08:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National Heritage List

Hi all. Looking for relevant photographs for this list to represent the following Western Australian places on the Australian National Heritage List:

Batavia Shipwreck Site
Dampier Archipelago
Dirk Hartog Landing Site
Ningaloo Coast

Of course if you have a relevant photo for the places elsewhere in Australia, that would be gratefully accepted too. :) Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All rather a long drive - and out of the way - if not impossible - thanks for the task!! :) cheers as well Satu Suro 12:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest River Massacre

Would interested editors please visit the Forrest River Massacre article ([1]). There are two books on this particular historical event. One that argues that the massacre was probable (although the article portrays it as certain) and a second that argues that it was a myth. Certain editors are attempting to cut out virtually all information from the second book while flooding the article with highly questionable claims from the first. It is pretty obvious that they only want one perspective reflected in the article and want all evidence that there are problems with that point of view erased.

From the reliable sources noticeboard see ([2])

My question is: Is it really appropriate for an Western Australian Project article to be this heavily biased?Webley442 (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the above characterisation isnt quite correct. The major work (Neville Green, The Forrest River massacres) most certainly agrees the massacre happened, but he acknowledges somewhere that the evidence doesn't meet a judicial standard of proof, which is irrelevant. Every other academic historian whose studied the incident agrees it took place, but there is disagreement on the numbers killed. Moran is a journalist with no relevant qualifications and his work is self-published. The only other academic we can find who agrees with Moran is Josephine Flood, an archaeologist, who is generally sceptical about similar massacres. Main discussion at Talk:Forrest_River_massacre#Moran, where there is a consensus on the above. No-one was interested at RSN except one SPA. Misarxist (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Is_Rod_Moran.E2.80.99s_book_Massacre_Myth_citable_as_a_reliable_resource.3F

could have come to this project page before the actual location - there are probably editors in the WA project who may actually know either of the authors.

also WP state projects do not necessarily police any articles that come under their ambit - it is up to complainer to decide where best to state the case - as the editor has been around other massacre articles - I would have thought the Australian page to be a better place to check ideas/attitudes,

the answer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_history is in particular pertinent - why take issue with sub projects as if they are purveyors of bias? that shows a low understanding of how wikipedia works btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_history is a waste of time due to very low traffic at that project

In relation to the specific authors - there is as yet not an article about Moran (he has a publication list that spans many pages at the LISWA website that includes oral history and poetry) however he is actually a very complicated issue vis a vis BLP as he has in his lifetime been an active and vocal participant on both sides of politics, and a google search leaves any intrepid Bio stub creator in some a cleft stick with issues of balance and what may be concerned about bias will be even more so at whoever tackles moran as a bio subject - let alone the massacre in question.

As for Green - like many West Australian authors who have contributed extensively to Aboriginal history in Western Australia there is no article either...

I would suggest too much information at the sources noticeboard - and the comment I apologize that this is going to be a rather long post but too much information is better than too little. I hope that people will have the patience to read through this as it raises an important issue for Wikipedia regarding academic vs non-academic historians. - I would say that the response by Peregrine Fisher and Nick D is very salient - too much info.

Simple answer if you dont like it - do some more editing so that the moran and green views are balanced - and when you start putting someones academic qualifications out like Flood's - some editors will smell a rat immediately (spelling out qualifications is a particular style of stating a case that has certain indications of which way the text is being related) - we are not here to adjudicate the green moran debate - we are here to edit and provide an outline of it - this is an online encyclopedia :) Satu Suro 11:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Flood's and some others academic qualifications was a direct response to claims by those on the 'other side' that academic qualifications were a large part of what justified inclusion or exclusion of the material. Seems to be a no-win situation, can't include the material if it's not supported by some with the right letters next to their name, but can't mention the supporters' qualifications because someone "will smell a rat".Webley442 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB there's an Rfc on above issue at the article talk page, probably best to centralise discussion there. Misarxist (talk)

This article is a joke. It's now a classic example of why Wikipedia can't be relied upon. A small group taking ownership of an article and keeping a source they don't like out of it by twisting the 'rules' out of shape. Only 1 editor who appears to have read the Moran book, the others clearly never did203.202.43.54 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:33, 1 September 2010 edit 203.202.43.54 (talk) →‎Forrest River Massacre ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:50, 1 September 2010 edit undo 203.202.43.54 (talk) →‎Forrest River Massacre Next edit →
Line 101:		Line 101:
	'''NB''' there's an [[Talk:Forrest_River_massacre#Should_Rod_Moran.27s_arguement_that_the_massacre_did_not_occur_be_reduced_from_28.25_of_the_article_content_to_a_summary_of_his_views\|Rfc]] on above issue at the article talk page, probably best to centralise discussion there. [[User:Misarxist\|Misarxist]] ([[User talk:Misarxist\|talk]])		'''NB''' there's an [[Talk:Forrest_River_massacre#Should_Rod_Moran.27s_arguement_that_the_massacre_did_not_occur_be_reduced_from_28.25_of_the_article_content_to_a_summary_of_his_views\|Rfc]] on above issue at the article talk page, probably best to centralise discussion there. [[User:Misarxist\|Misarxist]] ([[User talk:Misarxist\|talk]])

	This article is a joke. It's now a classic example of why Wikipedia can't be relied upon. A small group taking ownership of an article and keeping ~~material~~ they don't like out of it by twisting the 'rules' out of shape. [[Special:Contributions/203.202.43.54\|203.202.43.54]] ([[User talk:203.202.43.54\|talk]]) 07:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)		This article is a joke. It's now a classic example of why Wikipedia can't be relied upon. A small group taking ownership of an article and keeping a source they don't like out of it by twisting the 'rules' out of shape. Only 1 editor who appears to have read the Moran book, the others clearly never did[[Special:Contributions/203.202.43.54\|203.202.43.54]] ([[User talk:203.202.43.54\|talk]]) 07:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)