Talk:Western Australia

Most Southerly Coral Reef In The World

The article on Lord Howe Island claims _it_ has the southern-most coral reefs. Can Rottnest's reefs be truly described as coral reefs? Or is Lord Howe Island turning some true but narrow claim (which I can't be bothered to chase down) to uniquesness into a (false) broad one?

(I edited the article to only claim coral reefs since since I'm sure any number of Southern ocean islands not to mention Tierra Del Fuego must have more southerly rock-reefs).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.cant (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandgroper

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)

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)

1. I removed the line and had the change reverted by SatuSuro
2. 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
3. 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:

1. The people of Western Australia are often colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
2. Occasionally the people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
3. The people of Western Australia have been colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The people of Western Australia are colloquially referred to as sandgropers, the common name of an insect found on sand dunes around Perth.
7. 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.

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)

History

I notice that the illustration for the state flag is "riding high" and overlaps the intro sentence.I don't know the wiki tools to adjust it to correct position.Please fix,thanks(User talk:Ern malleyscrub)Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent revision - explanatory notes

• Info box pop'n stats - minor update and citation
• Minor rewrite of lead-in (no need to menton Russia as the link explains the reference)
• Climate: one or two very minor edits
• History - two or three very minor edits for clarity
• Demographics - update to latest data from ABS; new map of distribution (approx); simple chart of growth of population; added stats for main pop'n centres; added numerous citations
• Economy- most edits are in this section. Kept the same length (900words) but added five or six citations (there were two previously) and removed some stuff which wasn't supported etc. this secition is probably still too long (relative to rest of article) with some stuff belonging in the separate Economy article which I intend to edit. Also "beefed up" (!) the references to agricultural production and added citations for agriculture, though I admit there's more needed.

Focussed on this article today because I saw a note about a DVD soon being prepared using selected stuff from the WA Project including this article. Will do a version recompare tomorrow to recheck typo's or other mistakes I've made. Been thinking about this article for a while but thought rather than initiate reams of discussion I'd be bold and do a wholesale edit first, return tomorrow to fix errors and add citations etc and let others comment/change at will. In doing this I've obviously risked the ire of past editors who had crafted the article into an already great report on our great state...hope you'll forgive the audacity of this newcomer. GlenDillon 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

just noticed that a paragraph by paragrpah comparison of my changes has been rendered very difficult by something I've done - not sure what. Apologies. Formatting fixes required I think esp. images. GlenDillon 02:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

HELP! Government section has been sucked up into Economy and the image has disappeared. Can't figure what I've done wrong. In edit mode it looks okay but I can't separate the sections. Don't want to risk further damage - Can someone help here? GlenDillon 04:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up a citation - seems OK now Melburnian (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

intro - southern ocean

Noticed a re-reversion regarding the terms "Southern Ocean" in the lead-in. It was in my big edit a week or so ago that I introduced "Southern Ocean" (and other bits) to the lead-in although of course I didn't check my facts first regarding the Southern Ocean. Seems to me the un-sourced note is accurate and useful though it needs a source included of course. Either that, or "Southern Ocean" be removed from the lead-in if it is not strictly true. GlenDillon 18:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, after much back and forth on this in '07, the Australia and the Southern Ocean article was created....it has all the sources. Seems that the IHO, which says the Southern Ocean never goes above 60 degrees south (nowhere near Australia) is the authority in the English-speaking world, and since this is the English language WP, not the Australian WP, we have to at the very least include this footnote.DLinth (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please supply a citation from an WP:RS, and the link to the resolution of the dispute that led to the creation of Australia and the Southern Ocean. cygnis insignis 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very hard to assess this information when the article sources 'The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) defines the "Southern Ocean" as those waters surrounding Antarctica south of the 60° S circle of latitude' to a broken link to the Antarctic Treat Act 1960. Am I to understand that this assertion has been taken not directly from the IHO, but indirectly via an assertion made in a treaty nearly 50 years ago? Hesperian 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OHNO this has been gone through till the cows have been home and back again across so many article talk pages how come it has been let loose again (do we have to be subjected to this?) - there is a history across a whole lot of articles where basically the POV issue has left some people in utter despair - the Southern Ocean denial game has gone too long - the point here about Western Australia is the specific land information and management department specifically identifies its coastal region as having the Southern Ocean abut its southern shores full stop. If they are wrong I suggest the complaining editor approaches the Western Australian Landgate department and have it out with them - not wikipedia editors SatuSuro 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the good oil. Back in 2000 various newsy websites picked up a story that the IHO had released a 3rd edition of their Limits of Oceans and Seas, in which they reinstated the Southern Ocean, defining it as the water south of 60°S. There are a couple of obvious errors there: firstly, the 3rd edition was published in 1953, so it would have to be a 4th edition; and secondly, a 4th edition was not published in 2000, and in fact has not been published yet. The IHO website's only reference to a 4th edition is "4th edition in preparation".[1] In August 2007, long after this "news" hit the wires, the IHO provided a report to the Ninth United Nations Conference on the Standardisation of Geographic Names, which stated:[2]

"The edition in force is still the 3rd edition, dated 1953, which is available from the IHO website. A 4th edition of the publication has been under preparation for some time. It has not yet been finalized."

One can only conclude that (a) The proposal to reinstate the Southern Ocean has not yet been ratified and so is not yet in force; (b) the IHO currently does not recognise the Southern Ocean; and (c) the notion that it does is based on a premature and error-riddled press release.

Where do we go from here: 1. The footnote needs to be reverted as incorrect; 2. the article Australia and the Southern Ocean probably needs to be deleted as pointless; 3. the article Southern Ocean needs to be corrected; 4. I need to go for a long walk, and only come back when my urge to rant about second-rate research based on crap sources has subsided.

Hesperian 00:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored "Indian Ocean"' (as well as the note explaining Southern Ocean) per Australia, and per the references I've listed at Talk:Southern Ocean. Hopefully, those refs. will help resolve this; I'm not sure why refs. weren't added here when the issue was discussed at length at Australia some time back. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One wonders the issue of why geosciences australia and other authorities institutional capacity to see a furphy when they see one - why is it then that http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=southern+ocean&placetype=0&state=0 exists - a figment of imagination - or is the IHO the figment - and that there might be some other source of info that clarifies the issue? SatuSuro 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• What I read is that we have Federal, State, Local Government, and other WP:V, WP:RS sources that say it is the Southern Ocean. Compared to one organistaion proposing a definition that isnt ratified, to my reading ignoring the verifiable reliable sources to support the proposal is actually giving undue weight to the proposal. Gnangarra 11:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Quick summary of where we're at:

1. The International Hydrographic Organization hasn't recognised an ocean named "Southern Ocean" since 1953. In 2000, the IHO made a (still unratified) decision to recognise the "Southern Ocean", but defined as south of 60°S. So either way, the IHO considers the waters south of Western Australia to be the Indian Ocean.
2. In Australia, the waters to the south have long been considered the "Southern Ocean". Western Australia has officially gazetted this place name,[3] as has Tasmania. Interesting, the name is not listed in the gazetteer of the Australian Hydrographic Office, but we know where they stand because they have lodged a reservation to the IHO's decision,[4] which is presumably part of the reason the IHO still haven't formalised the definition.

What we need to decide here is whether to call it Indian Ocean in accordance with international practice; or Southern Ocean in accordance with Australian practice; and also the extent to which we want to get into the details of the dispute in the lead section of this article. The options, as I see them, are:

i. use Indian Ocean;

ii. use Southern Ocean;

iii. use Indian Ocean, with dispute footnoted;

iv. use Southern Ocean, with dispute footnoted;

v. remain non-committal, with dispute footnoted;

vi. remain non-committal, with dispute mentioned (briefly) in the text;

vii. recast lead to avoid the issue.

To my mind, the options get better as we move down the list. Hesperian 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the issue that I raised in relation to actual usage and previous edit warring across articles to do with locations in Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia - i-iv, vi not viable - v and vii seem more appropriate so as to not attract IHO arguments ad infinutum SatuSuro 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Hesperian for summarising - I was struggling with what the meat of this was. I cannot see a problem with some clever wording which says "...the Southern Ocean to the south" couched so as to not imply that it attaches to the coast and a footnote explaining the dispute. Perhaps this is a bit like vii. Australia uses the term which should be good enough for the purposes of this article. BTW, here is the 1953 IHO document (p.6) which struck out the term. It's interesting that it refers to it also being called the 'Antarctic Ocean' in some quarters. Moondyne 10:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The meat could be also the item placed above hesperians summary by gnangarra - however I have not sufficiently plumbed as to why local, state and federal bodies have adopted the usage - if in fact the issue as it has been done at Australia and the Southern Ocean is a valid article or basically an exercise in WP:POINT regarding either Australia usage or the woefully inadequate nature of the CIA factbook SatuSuro 12:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[5] Superbly worded Gnangara. Moondyne 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good that Gnangarra has resolved the issue - well done! SatuSuro 15:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This can hardly be described as "undue weight", given that the term in question is a) proposed by an international body; b) actually in use by the same body, and other international bodies; and c) also in use by other organizations such as the CIA Factbook. To give preference to the local term over the international term would be undue weight. (Furthermore, saying "arguably" is not encyclopedic.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I support the most recent change which removed Southern Ocean and kept the explanatory note, though for completeness the note should reference the IHO report and the Age article (in the absence of any decent document from the Aust Hydrographic Office). I've struggled with this whole issue for several hours. In some ways I wish I hadn't started this discussion, or at least I wished that I'd checked the archives first. So I'm sorry if its just rehashed old turf for most of you. Still, everyeone kept cool and every single contribution/summarisation above has been intelligent and focussed so thank-you for responding. Having boldly/thoughtlessly (re)inserted "Southern Ocean" two weeks ago, I felt some responsibility for proposing a settlement and worked it offline. Initially I was okay with Gnangarra's solution though I wanted to remove "arguably" (mostly because I felt that WA's core WP article shouldn't have an relatively inconsequential issue raised in its lead-in paragraph. Perhaps okay for Spratley Islands or Sakhalin but for WA, Southern/Indian Ocean is a nomenclature issue not a key territorial dispute). Gradually, the more I looked at all the sources, the less appropriate "Southern Ocean" seemed. What clinched it for me was the perspective seen in (even though the map is unsourced and pushes the Indian Ocean way past the 60º line) though on a strict WP policy basis, I feel the IHO proclamation must trump any national designation.GlenDillon 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per Glen's note above, regarding whether we should give preference to the local term or the international term. The precedent on Wikipedia appears to give priority to the international (with mention of local concerns where appropriate). For example, Pluto is described as a dwarf planet, with mention of the dispute over the reclassification. The Northwest Passage is described making mention of Canada's claim to it, not as "Canadian waters". Given, however, that it is somewhat contentious, is it worth seeking comments from the wider community? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ABS population stats

In response to a recent edit by an anon to the article, I had a look at the ABS data for population of statistical districts, and had a bit of a think about it. The population we give in this article for major regional centres (or at least, until the anon edited it) was for the statistical districts with the name of the town. But, at least in my view, these statistical districts aren't always representative of the urban population of a town. Here's an example:

• Mandurah Statistical District (2007 data) (see map)
  • City of Mandurah: population 60,560
  • Shire of Murray: population 12,917
• Total "Mandurah" population: 73,477

I think it's a very long stretch to classify everyone living in the Shire of Murray (including Pinjarra) as living in Mandurah. I know we don't really have any real alternative, especially in cases like Bunbury where a substantial chunk of the urban population is in another local government area. And I also acknowledge that the Perth metropolitan area is well-represented by the relevant statistical districts. I just want to know if there's a better way to represent regional towns and cities. - Mark 03:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark - good point raised. Hadn't bothered to check on the recent anonymous edit until now. Prior to my significant edit on 17 September (my insertion/deletion of blank lines makes a side-by-side version comparison a bit awkward - apologies), the section dealing with regional centres didn't have any pop'n data - I just thought that instead of referring to "important or well-known centres" (important on what basis? / well known to whom?) it would strengthen the paragraph by showing population (rounded down to nearest '000). Of course once I started that I faced the issues that you raised in your coment above. If you look at the ABS spreadsheet which I cited, you can follow my 'logic' ie I grouped certain Statistical Local Areas to derive a total for the main population centre (eg for Albany: Albany Central + Albany Other = 33,000. Note that the anon editor changed this to 36,000 though it's hard to see any basis for this higher figure, nor for the "new" number for Geraldton). Your point about Mandurah is certainly valid. For Bunbury, whereas I had used the Statistical subdivision rounded down (59,000), it looks like the anon editor has taken just the Bunbury Local Govt Area and rounded up! (32,000). Using the higher number made more sense, given that "Greater Bunbury" covers three/four Local Govt areas see [6]with a contiguous population of 59,000. When I did my big edit a few weeks back I asked myself - what info might be 'useful' in this article then proceeded to verify and cite. The whole area of reporting population statistics is not without complexity (ie there's so many ways to cut the numbers - eg the Bureau's provides LGAs StatDists, StatDivisions, SLAs SSDs etc), and the WA article is probably not the place to get bogged down with detailed stats and even more detailed explanations of the basis for the stats. If WP readers want more, they can follow my ABS link or the linked articles. I can see two solutions - though I'm sure there are others:

1. remove the bracketed numbers entirely for the main regional centres
2. keep them, but add brief explanatory notes to the reflist such as:
   1. Mandurah: Local Government Area only? (ie change the number to 60,000?)
   2. Bunbury: Statistical Subdivision (revert to 59,000 or maintain same approach as Mandurah?)

If the consensus is for (2) above, I'd suggest reverting the anon edits for Albany and Geraldton too. GlenDillon 07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ohmigawd this all got hammered out at australian places years ago didnt it? orderinchaos hesperian or moondyne probably remember :( - and this should be at the project notieboard btw SatuSuro 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this at the time for some reason. We should use the UCL population, which is 67,813. Orderinchaos 09:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)