Talk:Great Walk Networking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Flag
Portal
 Great Walk Networking 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Walk Networking article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Removal of prod template for the second time

I have removed the "{{prod}}" template once before, and added comment to the edit summary. At the same time, I added a "{{stub}} tag to indicate the article is still under construction. I have followed Wiki's guidelines, and although this organisation (GWN) is of notable historical interest in Western Australia primarily, I am sure there are companion organisations throughout the world.

Great Walk Networking is coming up to its 20th anniversary...the first Great Walk was the subject of a documentary film that is now being digitalised. I hope to include captures and a full description. In addition, the Battye Library of Western Australia also has record of this organisation.

I have not written for Wiki before, but I understand the need to quote sources and I believe I have a grasp of Wiki's notability guidelines. I remind those who regard this article, well before its completion as it is, that "Notability... is not synonymous with fame or importance," but "means 'worthy of being noted.'"

Please allow this article to be completed. Please do not remove indicators that the article is under construction. Great Walk Networking has been the subject of a documentary, extensive photo essays, recordings and, as an organisation, has published early environmental charters and magazines in Western Australia...all over the course of the past 20 years. It, and this article, does meet Wiki's notability guidelines.

Kind regards, Greatwalk 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Joanna Hofmann (greatwalk) 05-01-07, Western AustraliaGreatwalk 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI and primary sources notifications

I have no conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Great Walk Networking is a non-profit grassroots environmental movement in Western Australia that is unique because it's focus is not on protest or lobbying, but rather on education and community. The language used in this article, so far, is neutral.

The previous entry clearly states that I am in the process of gaining sources now...I have no reason to promote GWN on Wikipedia other than I feel that this group is of interest, especially as it approaches it's 20th anniversary. GWN meets Wiki's notability guidelines. It does not seek new members, financial contribution, nor does it seek to self-promote: This is not a "non-notable autobiography or advertising/promotional page."

To a certain extent, I would prefer to remove the article and complete it at a later date than see it 'trashed up' with persistent warning notices, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greatwalk (talk • contribs) 08:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The "warning notices" are there to assist you, the editor, in editing the article to conform to Wikipedia policies. The article does not cite any secondary sources and relies on a link to the organisation alone. This falls far short of article referencing standards . I still don't think this organisation meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability, however I'm happy to be convinced. Has this organisation been mentioned in any third party media sources you can cite to show notability exists? -- Longhair\talk 09:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the conflict of interest template, as the point has been made, and it was uglifying the article. Besides, the point has been made. Greatwalk has seen the tag, and has responded to it. She says there is no conflict of interest, and clearly it is the case that there is no financial COI. Sure, there may be a COI in the sense that Greatwalk is motivated by a desire to promote the event as well as a desire to make a great Wikipedia article. But I don't see that as a particularly compelling reason to uglify the article with a COI template. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Hesperian 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The range of groups relative to environmental issues in western australia from the 1970s to the present is non-existent on wikipedia - and I have privately signalled to a number of other editors that articles that are needed - however this group is one of about up to 10 that are notable - but they all lack a good overview history (although there might be one completed phd at murdoch that might cover aspects of the issues) and also the groups themselves tend to hand over their records to the state ref library (battye) and few if any members ever have either the interest to write reviews of their decades or attempt to provide adequate summaried of activities within the western australian political and social context... the w.a. conservation council even has had a professional historian as an office bearer - but I am unaware of any of the groups being sufficiently resourced or reflexive of their place in wa society.... I'd only hope that it was otherwise - but knowing the range of knowledge of most of fellow wa editors on their history of environmental issues here- I will not hold my breath waiting for someone to come up with any good seccondary sources that would give good overviews of the member groups of the wa conservation council over the last thirty years, sigh... SatuSuro 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh - the great walk is part of a heritage and never stood alone in the way that the writer suggests - things like that usually owe to all the other groups that came before - even acknowledgement of them would make the difference to the article... SatuSuro 09:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Have added paragraph mentioning key organisations co-existent with GWN when it started - CSNF, SWFDF, ENV C and Cons Council - no mention of them is a bit like denying parentage... SatuSuro 13:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Satu...I found a reference to the two organisations you mention, both formed in 1975 and changed the position of the paragraph you added to allow for the inclusion of a paragraph about what distinguishes GWN from other conservation organisations. I would like to add a reference to the connection between songlines and what GWN envisages itself to be actively doing: in particular a connection fostered by Roe family of the Kullari people. I think the Great Walk would prefer to respect the prohibition on mentioning the names of deceased indigenous people, but need to check what is appropriate now. thanks again. --202.168.98.228 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly where the conflict of interest is relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if someone was central to the formation of an organisation - and it is verifiable and notable - then their wishes are irrelevant to them being mentioned in the article. If you are going to be selectivly mentioning people based not on how central they were in the organisation, but based on their cultural beliefs that if they are dead we shouldn't mention their name - then you are going to paint a false picture of who was important in this organisation.

Garrie 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point Garrie - and I agree - but I think the levels of misunderstanding are relevant here - the specific issue that the editor who forgot to sign in - is that the organisation GWN had in its later stages attempted to see a connection with noongar aboriginal traditions - the actual problem with the article - not the issues around it - was that it has not mentioned individuals here in WA who were important movers who actually deserve articles of their own - here in provincial old perth (see the afd discussion re my consideration of notability of issues between states of australia - all to do with degrees of separation and provincialism) - basil schur and beth schultz - both who are notable and verifiable movers in the environmental movements here in perth in the 1980's - into the 1990's - should have been mentioned - however the editor who didnt sign in - didnt think to mention them. Probably would never got to afd - if articles linking them and the other groups mentioned had all been done in sandbox and checked with other eds first... oh well thats life... SatuSuro 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Garrie and Satu...I am the editor who forgot to sign in. I am afraid both of you have missed the point of my post, though: I gave a link to an Australian Broadcasting Commission paper on how the indigenous population of Australia, on the whole, culturally believes references to deceased persons should be handled. If some editor at Wikipedia prefers to name a deceased person, there are other ways to handle the situation. I would prefer to look for an acceptable way forward, and I am sure most others involved with the Great Walk and the conservation movement in Western Australia would also choose to respect the culture of the traditional owners of the Land. The paragraph I refer to needs to be added (eventually) to distinguish GWN as unique from other conservation organisations, I feel, in the introductory paragraph. Enough said for now, though: I won't add more to this article until the AfD Discussion is closed.--Greatwalk 08:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Satu...Basil Schur and Beth Schultz would make good entries to Wiki, I agree. I feel that reference to them on the Great Walk page needs to list their contributions to the Great Walk specifically though. For instance, Basil S. is a significant figure in today's conservation movement (link to his own page if you want to write it), He was a founding member of GWN, he has organised 15 Walks over 20 years with an emphasis on .....etc. I don't think the intent of this article has ever been to deny or ignore kinship, philisophical parentage or otherwise, with any other conservation organisation or individual in WA. I believe the point is to create a page on Great Walk Networking, and say why it is unique. Feel free to add what you feel is important, though...I'm grateful for your contributions. --Greatwalk 08:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Satu...I disagree with some of the other points you make. The article doesn't mention more info, because it an introduction only and it is a stub! I started the article, received a prod within the first 24 hours...So, I went and read the guidelines for deletion (administrators' and users' versions) and correctly deemed it to be fine to continue developing the article. It falls well within the guidelines...no one mentioned the need to use a sandbox (WP even states this practice is optional, depending on where you look). I posted to the talk page as requested, and checked there regularly for feedback...I wasn't aware my user talk page had a few comments until later. Frankly, I expected that other editors and administrators would follow guidelines and allow the article to develop. To anyone reading the guidelines, this was a reasonable assumption to make: In all fairness, I think there is a large discrepancy between WP guidelines and how Wikipedians actually conduct themselves. To me, it's a point worth noting and I hope, too, that the article doesn't suffer because it was introduced by a newbie. It will be a good contribution. --Greatwalk 08:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Satu...I only just read your email. Sorry I didn't see it before commenting earlier. I get 'sandbox' now (and why) and I'd like to nominate you to update the WP policy pages! Very clear now. :-) --Greatwalk 09:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
90% of this talk page and all the afd would be rendered pointless if some clever bunny had cottoned on you were a newbie - and told you to take it back to your sandbox and play with it there first :) SatuSuro 09:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Name change

Most of the article, and all of the decent references, are about the Great Walk, i.e. the event, not Great Walk Networking the community. I suggest that this article would be better off moved to Great Walk, and the text (slightly) refocussed. Hesperian 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name/focus change from the group to the event would be beneficial, it would also open up future opportunities for the network to seperately addressed providing that sourcing becomes available. Gnangarra 15:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There have been two 650km+ Great Walks across the south-western part of the state, one in 1988 and the other in 1998. Both events have been billed under the name "The Great Walk." The titles "Great Walk" and "The Great Walk" are also used by a Canadian Lions Club for a 63.5 km annual event that is billed as 'North America's Toughest Pledge Walk.' I chose Great Walk Networking, the name the organisation incorporated under in 1988) as title because it unambiguously refers to the event in 1988 and all subsequent activities. I'm happy to see a name change, since the main gist of the article is clearly this group's activities in 1988 and 1998, but I believe the name of the new article would have to be The Great Walk (Western Australia) or perhaps simply 'Australia'. --Greatwalk Talk 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)