Talk:National Living Treasure (Australia)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Former living treasures

The intro currently has a remark about new ones replacing living treasures who died. Do we need an article listing people who used to be living treasures? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No need, I think. A footnote would do. Ambi 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Postnominals Removed

I can't see what purpose is served by exhaustively listing all the postnominals of the people in this list, so I've removed them all. They change fairly regularly, and whenever that happens we have to not only update their own articles but also remember to update this list. It currently has more than a few errors, which demonstrates the futility of this exercise. All we need here are the names of the Living Treasures and the ex-Living Treasures (= Dead Treasures). If you want to know what honours they've received, or any other facts about them, just go to their individual articles. -- JackofOz 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing people

Phillip Adams has living treasure (1998) listed in the awards section, yet he's not on the list? Joe D (t) 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, cocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.14.61 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Les Murray AO

An IP user here on 14 Feb 2008 made an erroneous, possibly vandalistic edit which has stood ever since. Thanks for flushing this out for me, Shirt58 (talk). I've now reinstated Les Murray (poet) as the correct Living Treasure. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's in and who's out...

The article begins by noting that 15 of these treasures have since died, and then gives the names of five of these people, and one who was excluded. I am puzzled that the other nine are not named. And there is no indication as to who the new 15 treasures are. Also, is this up to date? Myles325a (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a mo, this just in... This note [1] gives the names of the original treasures, and those who are now being treasured in better place than this vale of tears are marked with an asterisk (well, with the exception of poor old Marcus). So, if no one wants to, I'll make some revisions as per my note above. Unless you want to do it. Myles325a (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

While I think this list is an absolutely hilarious piece of mutual back slappery by the lefty luvvies, would it be possible for someone to find out exactly how the pompous twats select the list of mostly harmless people to put on this list, and why they think they have the right to do so? Greglocock (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

--It might be an effort to try to make up for the lack of knighthoods in Australia. 90% of Australians don't know what an "AC" (Companion of the Order of Australia) is, but making these people "living treasures" might raise their profile a little. But it's an unofficial award (i.e., it's not a government award) that (much like the Order of Australia awards- AC, AO, AM, OAM) goes nowhere near the recognition of having "Sir" or "Dame" in front of peoples' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.148.177 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC) The list seems to be have been made by 10,000 members of the public voting directly. So you would get an even more harmless list of people, than you would have if the government had chosen them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.148.177 (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound as though the thing is democratically done. Great. Super. http://www.smh.com.au/national/national-living-treasure-uproar-20120303-1u9ql.html makes it clear that the nominations may be democratic, the final selection is not. It is inner city luvvies back-slapping each other. Which is fine, but not exactly notable. Greglocock (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

well tie me kangaroo down

Rolf's still on the list. Actually that list looks like you have a better than average chance of associating with, or indeed being related to, criminals or even being one. http://www.nationaltrust.org.au/nsw/NationalLivingTreasures so I strongly suggest you resist your nomination.

"National Living Treasures are exceptional Australians with substantial and enduring accomplishments in their field. We celebrate their achievements and acknowledge that they are as diverse as Australia itself." Child molesters, liars and liars, clive palmer, my god the list is hilarious. Greglocock (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolf is no longer on the list. Looks like he is keeping company with Einfeld --66.249.80.86 (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Disowned

Idly perusing the luvvies website I find that NT of NSW no longer list this stellar orb in their tiara. I may be wrong https://www.nationaltrust.org.au/nsw/ but if I'm right, can we delete this fatuous list of pompousity? Greglocock (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Even the luvvies don't agree

http://www.nationaltrust.com.au/nationallivingtreasures/current/ lists 91 current members (9 oct 2012), and interestingly excludes Palmer. i think this list should be either updated or removed from wiki. Greglocock (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've updated it to reflect the NT website, except they still list hughes. Greglocock (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have written to the NT and asked why they do not acknowledge the newbies. WWGB (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And did they reply? I've asked them why they no longer mention it on their website. Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Australian National (actually NSW) Soon to be Deaded or Imprisoned Treasures Big Flummery Gold Star and Elephant Stamp List

The article claims 86 living australians on the list, gives a broken ref, and then lists 85. This is a bit odd. Could someone who takes this piece of flummery more seriously than me sort it out? I doubt you'll appreciate my attempt. (flummery=meaningless or insincere flattery or conventions, for the ill-educated.) Greglocock (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorted, but i would be glad to see better wording. Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally on average 1 in 600 Australians are in prison. So 2 out of 87 seems to imply that if you are on this list then you are THIRTEEN times more likely to be jailed than the rest of us. Golly. Greglocock (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Consistency in titling

• The National Trust calls them National Living Treasures.

• Our article is titled Australian Living Treasures, but the lede starts out Australian National Living Treasures.

• The category for the relevant people is Category:Living National Treasures of Australia.

Basically, what a schemozzle. I propose the following changes:

• The article be moved to either National Living Treasures (Australia) or Australian National Living Treasures.

• The category be moved to Category: National Living Treasures (Australia). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with renaming/moving. What a mess! Rangasyd (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the category was speedily changed this week (28 May) to Category:Australian Living Treasures, but without any discussion that I can find. A damn shame this was done in apparent ignorance of my proposed renaming. At least the category name now matches the article name, but the discrepancy from the official name as determined by the National Trust still remains, and so maybe they'll both need to be changed again. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 03:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Gryffindor (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disowned part 2

This is what the chairman of the National Trust said I am telling you, as the chairman, it is not auspiced by the National Trust nationally.. It is in the article reffed. So removing it is blatantly whitewashing. http://www.smh.com.au/national/national-living-treasure-uproar-20120303-1u9ql.html Greglocock (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So who is auspicing this list in that case? Gryffindor (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I don't like him verbalizing nouns, but in fact the list does not exist on ANY NT website that we can find, and they don't respond to emails about it. So, basically, nobody. Greglocock (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally on what grounds do you object to the statement above, made by the chairman of NTA, in a reliable source, being in the article? Unlike your moronic OR about the UN it is relevant. Greglocock (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to ascertain how many of the persons nominated found it amusing. Anyone could just claim something and put in the papers, but that still does not make it true if it's a feeling, as opposed to a fact. The sentence in the article should therefore be made clear that this is his personal opinion, unless backed by facts/statistics. I see you have edited the sentence again, I think the wording is fine now. What is more of an issue however is who is owning or administering this list? Are you saying no one is responsible for it anymore, do you know if it's even being continued or updated? Gryffindor (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously OR but so far as I can tell no National Trust of Australia, or related websites, host a copy of the list, never mind actively looking after it. I suppose the next test will be when one of the current nominees dies or gets chucked in jail. We could play Dead Pool. I pick Clive baby. Greglocock (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

(can't resist) "dead pool" is a brilliant idea. To help increase the odds, we could add {{Age in years and days}} to each entry: picking the 1st: "[[Phillip Adams]] ({{Age in years and days|12 July 1939}})" gives "Phillip Adams (84 years, 317 days)" (there are quite a few older than that on the list). Then, instead of a static list, make it a sortable table. Who's writing the book? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No stewards of native traditions

On 28 August 2016, User:Gryffindor introduced this paragraph:

As opposed to Living National Treasures in Japan or designations in France or the United States, it does not count traditional Aboriginal artists or stewards of native traditions amongst the list.

There are several problems with this paragraph. In ascending order:

1. wikilinks to those other lists would have been helpful;
2. a statement what is not included in a list is inherently WP:OR unless supported by reliable sources;
3. sources are also required both for the presence of those groups in the other articles and for the absence in this list – and even then it would be bordering on WP:SYNTH;
4. inspection of this list shows the paragraph to be wrong. There are Faith Bandler, Pat Dodson, Lowitja O'Donoghue, Jimmy Little, Charles Perkins, Pat O'Shane, Noel Pearson, Mum Shirl, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, plus a few indigenous Australians from entertainment and sports.

There is many flaws with the concept of this list and its implementation, but what Gryffindor suggested is not among them. I suggest to remove that paragraph. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that virtually every single one of his edits shows a total unfamiliarity with the subject matter, and a preference for wikilawyerism over fact. Greglocock (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Greglocock, I am not sure what you mean wikilawyerism when proof-reading and asking those questions that might be uncomfortable to you. Are you referring to the Phillip Adams statement? He claims that "most were amused to find they were nominated". How is he backing up this claim, where is the statistic to this? Just because someone claims something, does not make it true. Gryffindor (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Now it appears by this edit [2] that the OP is attempting to assert some kind of ownership or copyright over the meaning and usage of the term national living treasure. It is, quite simply, whatever we define it to be in Australia. WWGB (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, I copy two contributions from my talk page here:

Good day Michael,

You have suggested removing the paragraph on the absence of Aboriginal artists in the list of the National Living Treasures of Australia. If you take a close look at Living National Treasure (Japan) or the National Heritage Fellowship in the US, it is all artisans and artists of arts and crafts. The Aboriginal Australians you have listed in the talk page mainly includes social activists, politicians, etc. and one singer who sings in the country music style. Is there such a list or recognition in Australia that only recognises artisans and artists? Gryffindor (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my intrusion, but see National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Art Award and National Indigenous Music Awards for examples. WWGB (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Those are helpful links, thank you for pointing it out. Gryffindor (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't find it useful to have a paragraph of what this list is not, cited to a list of countries that doesn't include Australia. It would be better to:

1. Strengthen the description of what this list is (including that it was initiated and maintained by the NSW branch, not the Australian national organisation), but had national coverage)
2. Identify that there are other countries that have lists with similar names that have different selection criteria
3. Provide wikilinks to Australian lists that are similar to the foreign lists that have names similar to this list

--Scott Davis ^Talk 22:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

+1 That is a very sensible suggestion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have had a go at copyediting the article, aiming at improving the clarity of the description of this list. I found (again) that I removed the reference to an Indigenous Art prize and UNESCO. Comparing the description of Living National Treasure (Japan), I found the art prize is not readily compared to that list either. The Japanese definition would correspond more closely to certified custodians of Aboriginal Oral History, including the sacred dances and ceremonies. This list makes no claim to be even remotely connected to that, and has no close common ancestor category, so I think it stands well enough on its own without needing to distinguish itself from anything else. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So what if they called a war and nobody came? Dead parrot syndrome

Given that none of the organisations historically associated with this exercise in wanking in public actually host the list any more, is it fair to describe it as defunct? Or moribund, or dead as a Norwegian Blue Parrot? Who is going to nail the parrot's feet to the birdcage? Artless I call it, absolutely 'artless. Greglocock (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)