Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/100 Most Influential Western Australians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	WikiProject Western Australia/100 Most Influential Western Australians 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.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
	This non-article page is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.

Contents 1 earlier comments 2 Statistics 3 Comment 4 Way 1979 5 Article importance assesment

[edit] earlier comments

Can the image be deleted now? It seems to have fulfilled its purpose and overstayed its welcome. Hesperian 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Image:100 most influential western australians.jpg now deleted. —Moondyne 04:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

To keep a rough guide of how the quality development of this set of articles is going, below is a summary of the numbers of articles in each class. These figures should be updated every 6 or 12 months.

Note that there's 102 names as Barry Marshall and Robin Warren as well as the two Gregory's were each nominated as one.

Date	Needed	Stub	Start	B	GA	A	FA	Total
11 April 2007	31	21	37	12	0	0	1	102
11 March 2008	22	16	51	11	1	0	1	102

—Moondyne 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Although the list has been created by some persons described as 'eminent historians' - the fact that there was the local newspaper raconteur involvement , (and other issues regarding such lists) - one should probably compare the list of names that are found on the pavement of St Georges Terrace - and similar lists created in earlier decades - by the very process of selection there are excluded candidates whose names will no doubt last a lot longer in popular memory compared to some of those above who will no doubt drop off such lists in decades to come (as long as the water lasts...) . As sceptical as ever on such arbitrary constructs... SatuSuro 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are potential names excluded - by definition its limited to 100 names and if You and I each made our own lists of 100 we'd have different names from this. There's no suggestion that this is the list, just a list. They've deliberately not made it exclusively historical figures (which would have been tempting I'd presume). I don't have a problem with it. We should just accept it for what it is and nothing more. —Moondyne 12:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I resisted the urge to start a thread on this, but now that someone else has started it, I must say that the scientific and historical significance of Dampier's visit was far greater than Vlamingh's. He should be on this list. I can only assume a latter-day bias against state-sponsored piracy. Hesperian 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea. It also prompted we to have another go at Bessie, but it is a mess. If anyone has an interest in Rischbieth, they are welcome to add to or untangle the draft at the link above. "I can't believe" I haven't finished it yet! Does anyone have a link to the other list mentioned by Satusoro. Fred 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want a POV laugh, have a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles. They're trying to establish a list of 1000 articles across the whole encyclopaedia. But seriously, this does beg the question of how are we going to compile our list of "vital" articles - which was Hesperian's original question a few months back. —Moondyne 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: If you want a POV laugh, I like the way blue, green, red and yellow are Vital, but white, black, orange and purple don't cut the mustard. Hesperian 13:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses - it is indeed only a 'a' list - and we are only human, despite the sense of grandeur (or otherwise) that working on wikipedia might give some - we should be pleased that some others had to sweat it out over the 100 - at least it is something we can work with - we should be grateful for that - and no doubt someone will laugh at us with hindsight somewhere down the track - maybe we will laugh with them (if we still have the water... ) SatuSuro 14:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading today's West about more West Aussies than in any other state get their power cut off, and a nother article about power tarrifs going up, I must wade in with a wise crack, to say we'd better get typing before we don't have the juice to power these computer contraptions. petedavo 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way 1979

Way back then (ok some eds werent born, ok i realise that) they put commemorative slabs on st georges terrace - and Sean Mack has just loaded some to the WAY 1979 article - there is a direct link/correlation with this list and the poor people who those of us who walk the terrace - have to either walk over or avoid... SatuSuro 12:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article importance assesment

User:Hesperian said:[1] Is there any reason why I shouldn't go through and re-rate all the articles on The List as high-importance? I know people like Grieve and Boan seem unimportant, but if Armstrong's panel of historians think otherwise, who are we to argue? Hesperian 12:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think so. The descriptor of "Influential" is in respect of a newspaper trying to find a balance from a selection of categories of people and then being limited to 100 names. They probably established groups along the lines of historical, political, social work, natural science, business & industry, media, sport. They then probably had to find 10 or 12 people to fit into each group. Not too many, not too few. I reckon this is at odds of how we assess levels of notability. We should use our own judgements (Wikipedia based skills). —Moondyne 12:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For a start if you look at population dynamics in Perth and Western Australia over time (graphs anyone?) the issue of notability within the community was factored by the fact the people who were significant in the community knew each other anyway - and the six hungry families and their descendants fed on each others reputations - so all significantmembers of the community prior to the cook murders probably knew each other in the first 130 years - whereas now (or since the 1960's) - it is possible that the current notables (of the west list) might not have even met each other. So influence is a problematic issue.

Notability, importance, influence, and siginificant contributions to the community - a strange and mercurial mix of factors that the average journalist is only to ready to throw a hyperbole into the bowl and make assertions of greatness - one only has to see the old hatchet job pieces on povey and connell in the 'west magazine' before they fell and died - andy warhols quote about fame - or keats ozymandis come to mind. Nah we need to think why the notability of connell, povey, and the money launderer - christo moll - their specific notability comes as much as some of the 100 when it comes to having had effect in the community. SatuSuro 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's it. Notability, importance, influence, and significant contributions: all different things. —Moondyne 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well - I suppose we need to think of which/what/how - we need to think about here - I had gone into a rant which got locked out due to edit conflict about another side to all this - here: -

Perhaps we need to look sideways at the whole west thing - they are trying to sustain their position of power over information about the history of the state - one can only guess the sense of self importance armstrong and murray have about themselves being associated with a monopoly newspaper - there has hardly been a competitor in the history of the newspaper (has anyone done an article on 'the independent' yet?) in its whole history in a small iso0lated community.

Where are the significant nyungar leaders, or the migrant community, or the ethnic groups - anything on a member of the chung wah or the italian or yugoslav communities? where are the top criminals - the or madams (no one has done shirley finn or kenworthy yet ) - or the crazy fringe fiery protestant church people (there are articles on some of the weirder ones) or any of the rajneeshees or any new age people who have hit the media in the past 40 years or so - all these fringe off the centre groups have had in their own way - influence (anyone remember pemberton and ma sheela and the rajneeshees) - they helped the community formulate ideas about itself as much as any do-gooders in the 100 list. or the bikies for that matter - the paladin sociologists with their formulation of the collecttive shock horror effect of moral panics - the rogues and charlatans help the community understand its underlying ideas as much as any of the 'top 100' - so I really think the way of minded historians - there are lots of people who they would not have put in for a good 100 reasons - but I think as far as wikipedia is concerned - we gotta balance the wests 100 with what in facct be a very different 100 if we looked at those who have somehow fired indignation, horror, moral outrage - which in some way might have helped the community work out where its values are - as much as those who have done 'good' or created a better community. SatuSuro 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Influential" is crap anyhow. Most of these have had little to no lasting influence on Western Australia. Stirling persuaded the poms to found a colony, and chose the site of our capital city; Forrest took us into federation; Hancock and de Bernales opened up our mineral markets; Curtin forged the U.S. alliance; O'Connor gave us the port that put us on the map. These people genuinely influenced what W.A. is today. But Boan sold us clothes, Strickland ran really fast, and Rofl played the wobbleboard. Oh please. Hesperian 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)