Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 121.211.221.196 (talk) at 07:17, 11 March 2014 (→Yagan Memorial Park). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:V0.5

Australia: Western Australia / Indigenous peoples FA‑class Mid‑importance

Yagan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

	Yagan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 17, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

Text and/or other creative content from Yagan was copied or moved into Robert C Hitchcock with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

A news item involving Yagan was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 July 2010.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 11, 2011 and July 11, 2013.

Untitled

/Archive 1: 2005–2008

Yagan Memorial Park

The recent press releases refer to the DIA granting $500,000 to the City of Swan to develop the park. This Swan River Trust approval dated 9/2/09 refers to it costing $1964800. I wonder who's coughing up the rest? That's a fucking shitload of money. Djanga 02:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it has been the DIA's baby all along; maybe they are paying the City of Swan in installments, or maybe they are paying the City of Swan to do the landscaping, fencing, etc, and they'll come in and do the rest later. Hesperian 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

POV

there is clearly still a major POV problem with this article -- especially the opening paragraph!

J. Crocker 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; seems to be mostly the result of one over-zealous editor (who appears bent on undoing anyone's attempts to correct the obvious bias of the article.) -L —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.117.117 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence fragment that you removed, itself pertinent to discussion of bias, was attributed to a source. cygnis insignis 09:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see your point. To reiterate the reason for my change, I removed the bolded section from this paragraph:

Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is a US News & World Report story headlined Raiders of the Lost Conk, in which Yagan's head is referred to as a "pickled curio", and Colbung's actions are treated as a publicity stunt; this treatment stands in stark contrast to the respectful tone in which the same newspaper covered the work of International War Crimes inspectors uncovering mass grave sites in former Yugoslavia.

My reason for the edit was that the removed fragment only serves to advance the author's opinions, not to enhance anyone's knowledge of Yagan. While it contains a "cited fact", that fact is inappropriate to the current context. The description of the 'pickled curio' article makes a clear enough case that the story was treated as a joke by the media. The fact that the discovery of mass graves in Yugoslavia were not treated as a joke by US News & World Report is both obvious and irrelevant; the only purpose such a statement serves in this context is to equate the Yagan situation with the latter war crimes, which is a subjective judgment.

67.188.117.117 (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You may think that fact is irrelevant in the current context, but clearly Shoemaker thinks otherwise, since he explicitly drew a contrast between the two.

Shoemaker's context (his essay) and ours (a section regarding repatriation of Yagan's remains) are two entirely different things. In his context, Shoemaker's comparison has two effects: to underline his argument about media bias, and to implicitly equate two atrocities. Fine. But in the context in which you cite him - a description of media reactions to repatriation - the first the effect is redundant and the second irrelevant, and the decision to include them gives the impression of editorial bias.

67.188.117.117 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I will need to re-read Shoemaker before I can comment on this. Hesperian 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course the fragment serves to advance Shoemaker's opinion. The entire essay does that.

Yes it is a subjective judgment. But it's Shoemaker's subjective judgment, not ours. What we're doing here is reporting objectively on the subjective opinion of a suitably qualified scholar—a subjective opinion, mind you, which has been adjudged worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Does the sentence give you the impression that we are endorsing Shoemaker's opinion? If so, then that is a problem.

Hesperian 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely the impression I get; it's not a blatant slant, but one of a series of subtle (undoubtedly unintentional) suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page which are troubling because they reduce the reader's faith in the accuracy of what otherwise seems to be a very well-researched article.

In this particular case, there's a bigger problem. Though I understand the Yugoslavia bit comes from Shoemaker, that's not at all obvious. It reads as if you are the one making a comparison to the mass graves. This is mostly due to the way in which Shoemaker is cited: the source introduction prepares us to receive an example of how poorly the media treated the incident ("Throughout the repatriation process, many sections of the international media treated the story as a joke. One example given by Adam Shoemaker is..."), we receive that example, complete with direct quotations, followed by a semicolon. Next comes "this treatment stands in sharp contrast to..."; in this context, the logical antecedent of "this" is the "One example given by Adam Shoemaker". The lack of direct quotations in the remainder of the sentence does nothing to contradict this impression, leading to the conclusion that wikipedia, not Shoemaker, is drawing the contrast (and making the implied judgment.) Even if the reader eventually figures out that you are paraphrasing Shoemaker's argument, the decidedly non-neutral word choice("sharp contrast", "respectful tone") imply you are endorsing his opinion.

Removing what follows the semicolon would avoid any of the above confusion, while doing nothing to detract from the article's coverage of Yagan. At the very least I trust you will rephrase your citation to make the attribution clear, though I'd maintain that the decision to include such a comment gives the impression of editorial bias without any informational gain.

67.188.117.117 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with your "without any information gain" claim. What was the normal editorial tone of the US News & World Report during the 1990s? Was it usual for them to present a humorous or cynical angle? If so, then the fact that they did so with this story proves nothing. The contrast is what matters here.

Following your logic you take the fact that the mass graves story was not presented humorously "proves" something? I would consider it common knowledge that major media outlets do not regularly take a humorous angle towards the discovery of mass graves. Is this US-centric of me? Are there any mainstream media outlets which take a satirical view towards the discovery of mass graves? Or am I assuming too much in my knowledge that the publication, with the title US News & World Report is not a satirical rag or the local hate group's newsletter? Am I placing too much faith in Shoemaker and the Griffin Law Review (or in you in citing him) in presuming that he was providing a representative example of media treatment in citing the "Raiders of the Lost Conk" story rather than attacking a straw man?

If the answer to these questions is no, then the fragment is redundant at best, and should be excluded to avoid the impression of editorial bias. But even if you answer yes to all of them, how does including the fragment answer any of the questions you pose regarding "editorial tone"? The fact that a magazine treats different topics differently is not in the least illuminating; there is only a meaningful contrast if one assumes the topics themselves to be similar, which in this case requires placing the poor treatment of Yagan's remains next to a mass slaughter on the atrocity scale. Obviously this is Shoemaker's subjective judgment; I would have no problem with your reporting it as such in a separate section on scholars' views of where the treatment of Yagan's remains fits on the scale of Bad Things Done By Bad People Throughout History. But when you justify inclusion of this subjective judgment on one topic (relative badness) as providing "proof" of Shoemaker's objective, verifiable claims about a different topic (media treatment of the badness), you are endorsing the subjective judgment, not "reporting objectively" on it.

67.188.117.117 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the phrasing: point taken. Some time in the next 24 hours I will rephrase it so as to (try to) make it clear that the contrast is Shoemaker's, and we are merely reporting it.

Please tell me about the other "subtle suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page".

Hesperian 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; a contrast is only useful if the things being contrasted are otherwise equivalent. In explicitly noting the contrast in the way the stories were treated, Shoemaker is implying that the two stories are equivalent and ought to have been given equivalent treatment. So now we're up to three problems with this sentence: 1. Uncritically accepting the validity of the comparison; 2. Appearing to endorse Shoemaker's condemnation of the contrast; and 3. Failing to make it clear that we are reporting Shoemaker's opinion, not our own. Clearly this is going to require a deft touch. And that requires access to both Shoemaker's article and the original Lost Conk on which he is commenting. I seem not to have kept a personal copy of the former, and have never had access to the latter. Therefore it seems to me that the best, perhaps only, way forward is for me to concede the point and remove the contested sentence. Hesperian 12:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working this through with me, and enumerating the issues so succinctly. I apologize for my initial "zealous" comment. When I noticed the undo a few months after I made the change, I initially misread the mass graves comparison as yours, not Shoemaker's. Frustrated by what appeared to be such blatant unreasonableness, confirmed by an overly-hasty scan of the talk page, I made the poor choice to give up on reason and resort to incivility. I'm very sorry for that, particularly as a more careful reading of the talk archive showed that you have tried exceptionally hard to make the page as balanced as possible.

67.188.117.117 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me about the other "subtle suggestions of bias scattered throughout the page".

Hesperian 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up to the task of cataloging these for the article in full, much less arguing each with you. But in case it is useful in giving you some idea of what I'm talking about, here's a brief list from looking at the section on Yagan's life (1.2-1.3) beginning with the third paragraph of 1.2:

• "possibly through infection of the spear wound"- implication is there's a good chance his death was coincidental to having been recently stabbed, and that the settlers thus got all upset without good reason. Is there reason to believe this is the case? If so, from what source?

• the phrase "Yagan and his friends".

• "Lyon was convinced that he could civilise Yagan and convert him to Christianity, and hoped to use his tribal standing to obtain the Noongars' acceptance of white authority."- seems biased from both sides, first for the implication that Yagan was not "civilised" because he didn't meet Lyon's definition of the term, and second for the unsourced attribution of Lyon's motives as obtaining "the Noongars' acceptance of white authority."

• the characterization of Yagan's February and March actions as involvement in "minor conflicts": "minor" seems an odd choice given the threatening of Noorcott's life; "conflict" implies action taken by two sides, yet what you are describing is a series aggressive (either in fact or in the settlers perception) actions taken by Yagan without retaliation by the settlers. The exception is the "lecture" incident, but that's a whole nother can of worms. The result is the impression that you are trying to play down the threat perceived by the settlers.

• the justification of the killing of the Velvicks. is killing people who have previously mistreated Aboriginal people required by tribal law? Not required but not outlawed? Who is "the native Munday" and why is his explanation relevant? (I know you expand later but as of this part there is no indication of his involvement. The way he is referenced confuses the issue of legality with that of motive.)

• why are we to discard, as your phrasing suggests we should, Hasluck's argument as less credible than the unspecified counter-argument the other source puts forth?

67.188.117.117 (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is still clearly POV in the opening of the article... How did this article get approved? Or has it been modified since its initial approval? Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My changes on the article's opening have largely been discarded by editors. I am not fluent on wiki article NPOV writing and policy so I will respect the editors deletions, but it just seems the opening paragraph leads the reader to a definite conclusion on his character and status, so far swinging between he was a crazed maniacal killer and he was a lauded champion of aboriginal rights who wouldnt hurt a fly, before they would even read the article. I just think the he's a hero and symbol of brutal unjust treatment talk need to be changed or removed to reflect a more neutral tone at the front of the article and let someone read on about his life and story, then judge. 173.18.177.11 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general comment I think Shoemaker's comments are very POV. It is fair enough to not like the US News & World Report attitude towards the mission to recover the head, but to try to contrast it with something like war crimes in the Bosnian War is really comparing apples and oranges. Firstly, Yagan wasn't some bystander, he did spear some of the settlers, even if you think he was justified in doing so, and his party were armed, not totally defenceless even if he was tricked by the greedy Keates brothers. But the main point is that his fate is well known, as is the perpetrator, and all people involved are long dead. The Bosnian situation was very recent at the time, and the fate of the victims was mostly unknown, plus the perpetrators were mostly very much alive and could be brought to account for what they'd done. It is fair enough to complain about US News & World Report not taking aboriginal concerns, hurts and sensitivities seriously and trivialising them, but to compare and contrast a search for the head of a man killed 160 odd years earlier to the search for the fate of missing thousands of unarmed people is an exceptionally long bow to draw. Shoemaker seems to have a track record of this regarding his attempt to build up a single column in the West as "proof" that the WA media treated the vandalisation of Yagan's statue as a joke. Particularly when the column was Inside Cover. I have been kept away from Perth for quite a while, but when I get back, I should be able to supply the date of the article in question.

For later

• http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/now_showing/first_australians/resistance/yagan/

Hesperian 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Childless

Moore also gives the names mentioned in the Gazette, another source that seems to contradict the claim he was childless; "... two sons of Ya-gan, Narah and Willim, the latter a young imp not more than ten or eleven years of age". Do other sources comment on this, or did they ask a reliable source? cygnis insignis 05:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallam, Sylvia; Tilbrook, Lois (1990). Aborigines of the southwest region, 1829–1840 (The Bicentennial Dictionary of Western Australians VII. p. 333.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link):

Father MIDGEGOOROO; brothers NARRAL, a Tdondarup, BILLY and WILLIM (affiliation unknown); father's wives include an older woman and GANIUP, a Ballaroke, either of whom may be YAGAN's mother. The family initially frequented most an area south of the Swan and Canning estuaries but had access to a much wider area (see MIDGEGOOROO). Moore refers to "YAGAN's son" but there seems to be a confusion here. NARRAL, WILLIM and BILLY appear actually to be YAGAN's brothers, although WILLIM was eleven and BILLY six at the time of YAGAN's death, and they were thus possibly young enough to be his sons. However, YAGAN was more probably an unmarried young man, as no wife is ever mentioned. Grey lists JEGAN, who may be the same person, as a Ballaroke (Grey 1838). If so, YAGAN could be GANIUP's son.

Hesperian 11:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Misleading info on Statue Decapitation

I have to take issue with the way the statue decapitation has been portrayed in this article. As I remember it, the vandalism was not treated as "comic relief" by the media in general. I certainly did not get that impression from nightly news coverage. The article referred to was, from memory, Inside Cover, which is not an editorial, but is, in fact a "light, comic relief" section to the paper, and treats all its subjects in that matter, and is page 2 of the paper. They have previously run articles calling the Seven newsreader Rick Arden "Fred Arden", referred to the Queen as "Betty Windsor" and generally run a gossipy and "humorous" line on current affairs - a newspaper version of Clarke and Dawe. I'm sure many people have been highly offended by their various scribblings, and frankly I do not find most of their stuff funny, but it is clear that this is what they are trying to be. Given that, the Shoemaker article quoted is highly misleading. It implies that the major daily newspaper in WA published an editorial ridiculing Yagan, trivialising an act of vandalism and having a good laugh about the affair in general, ehnce the editor made a racist attack on Yagan and his supporters and was encouraging his journalists to do the same. Now I have little doubt that much of the general public may have felt like this, but the West did not publish serious articles in this vein, or publish an "editorial", merely the ravings of second rate comedians who think being offensive is a form of wit, and there are no shortage of them in Australia. I think it is an affront that the Griffith Law Review chose to publish such misleading information, particularly since as an eastern states institution, its readers are unlikely to have sufficient knowledge of the West to realise that the article was not an editorial and all that would be implied if it were. It is an attempt to generate outrage by selective, and indeed misleading quoting of facts, and should not be part of Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.23 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The critical rule here is that were only write what we have reliable sources for. We don't have sources that say the Shoemaker's article is misleading and Griffith Law Review should never have published it. But we have a little bit of wiggle-room when it comes to how we present Muecke's and Shoemaker's observations and opinions. For example, if you take exception to the terms "editorial" and "article", by all means suggest a more appropriate term. (But we can't assert that it was an Inside Cover piece unless you have a source for that assertion; and we can't say that Inside Cover exists to take the piss unless you have a source for that.)

Personally, I think it is not inaccurate to call this an editorial, and I agree with Shoemaker that it "has a definite authorising function"... and I agree with you that Inside Cover pokes fun at everything it touches... yet the fact remains that there are many topics Inside Cover will not touch, because it knows it would not get away with poking fun at them. Hence the "definite authorising function": by taking the beheading up as a topic suitable for poking fun at, it tells The West's readers that it is okay and safe to ridicule this topic. Hesperian 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're claiming that any column can rightly be called an "editorial"? Inside Cover is clearly NOT the West’s editorial, they have a separate and clearly marked one. You could argue that Paul Murray should not have allowed the publication of the piece, but by that logic you could classify all articles in the paper including the letters as “editorials”. No one got killed in the vandalism nor was anyone physically hurt. I think many people would think a lot of Inside Cover's obnoxious articles are on subjects which are not suitable for poking fun at. As it stands, someone from interstate or overseas, or not old enough at the time to have seen the original article, would imagine that the paper’s editorial which normally treats subjects seriously, decided to make fun of this particular act of vandalism. In truth it was a supposed comic relief column that did so, as it does with many other current affairs. I do not suggest that you claim that Shoemaker's article is misleading, but I do question whether quoting him is suitable given his misleading statements. It is also written to imply this was the general view of Perth’s media, which it was not. All TV news bulletins I can remember, and the actual article in the West took the issue seriously and did make plain that it was an act of vandalism, with supposed racist origins. If you must continue to run the Shoemaker quote, at least indicate that it appeared in Inside Cover, rather than in the actual editorial, and that Inside Cover is supposed to be a joke, and regularly runs such articles about current affairs. Surely to not do so is hardly NPOV. They did not, as I remember, run articles poking fun at Yagan's death or his actual decapitation. Comments, like Alston, were focused on the division amongst the aboriginal community caused by the return of the skull. This was a real feature, and not some outcome of racism. There were legal injunctions from groups attempting to stop Ken Colbung repatriating the head as is mentioned in the article. People are being a little too precious on this. Regarding the Alston cartoon, it is reasonable that aboriginals may object to having their identity challenged by reference to their non-aboriginal heritage, but to claim that having the skull say he'd prefer a "warm beer in a quiet pommy pub any day" is some racist attack to associate aboriginals with drinking is obtuse in the extreme, when it is clearly a comment about Yagan "turning in his grave" over the infighting in the community surrounding his repatriation, so much that it implies he would have preferred to stay in England. The Shoemaker article as presented is misleading, as any non-West Australian will assume that the paper in its editorial treated the vandalism as a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.12.67 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought the court finding that the "warm beer" comment "reinforced a negative stereotype regarding alcohol and Indigenous Australians" was bloody ridiculous. It is worth noting that part of the reason Murray got off for that Alston cartoon was that the court found that the overall coverage of the issue was fair and balanced.

I'll concede that editorial is the wrong word. I agree that The West's overall coverage of the issue was balanced. I agree that Muecke and Shoemaker are making too much of this one jokey column. I agree that the language quoted would not appear anywhere in The West other than in Inside Cover.

But we still can't state that it was Inside Cover based on my logic and your memory. We need a source. And stating that it was Inside Cover won't mean anything to most readers of this article unless we also mention that Inside Cover treats every story this way. And we don't have a source for that either.

I've made a few changes to try to address your comments. "And, as an editorial" is excised from the quote. And I've tried to make it clear that the humour that Muecke and Shoemaker damn occurred only in a single column, not across the media coverage. I don't know what more I can do here without making assertions that are not supported by the sources. Please do let me know what you think. Hesperian 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long getting back. That section is much better. As it now stands it doesn't imply the Inside Cover piece was the general media attitude, which Muecke and in particular Shoemaker, seem to, but was a single column. Unfortunately work has kept me from checking back issues of The West for the original source, and they don't have it on their website. I could supply you with the date of the original article (I am ~90% sure it was Inside Cover as I vaguely remember it at the time, and it is their "style"). Would that be inadmissible as original research?

Note

• http://203.11.108.2/Documents/News/Yagan%20Memorial%20Park/YMP_Newsletter_Feb10.pdf. Hesperian 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=5676 Hesperian 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

template links

I moved {{respell}} ({{respell|YAY|gən}}) here, and think the use of {{pron-en}} is also questionable. Both link the Misplaced Pages:namespace, which contains only notes by the creators of that content; it should link to an article if anything, but I think it is beyond the scope of the site to create keys and fix a pronunciation to a name. It may be seem as a convenience thing, rather than properly sourced information, but that should see it demoted from the lead or moved to a sister who embraces this type of data. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What about all the other stuff you reverted with that edit? Kafziel 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Cygnis was re-reverting material that I had already reverted once, and which was restored without comment. I particularly take issue with the clumsy attempt to contrast the contemporary white view with the indigenous modern view. By all means contrast contemporary views with modern views; by all means contrast indigenous and non-indigenous perspectives; but it makes no sense to do both at the same time. Being neutral doesn't mean that every time we state one party's opinion we have to cast around desperately in search of some other opinion to contrast it with. Hesperian 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Importance in folklore - needs a reference

The lead contains the following unreferenced sentence: "Yagan's execution figured in Western Australian folklore as a symbol of the unjust and sometimes brutal treatment of the indigenous peoples of Australia by colonial settlers.". The body of the article does not mention the world folkore, as such this sentence fails WP:V and the lead policy that the lead should only summarize the main body, not contain any original claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not an original claim, contemporary sources describe him as a folk hero, a symbol, a leader, the "William Wallace" of the colony, whose death is described as a cataclysmic event for the traditional owners. Current sources on Western Australia, not 'the world', strongly reinforce this sentence; they are cited in the article. The assertion is uncontroversial, compare the constant historical revision of another iconic Australian who was knowingly flaunting the colonial law - Edward Kelly. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then reference it and move it to the main body. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a very specific person who called Yagan "William Wallace", Robert Lyon. He clearly had sympathies with Yagan, although not enough to give up his attempts to settle the land, or turn Yagan into some sort of yeoman farmer! Attitudes about Ned Kelly are mixed, but it is his positive portrayal by various film and TV show makers which has had much to do with making him out as this "hero", and indeed as some kind of Victorian Robin Hood! However you can refer to the petition that the Catholic Church raised on his behalf in Melbourne for some level of contemporary support, even if it was specifically amongst Irish Catholics who felt marginalised by a government dominated by the wealthy squatters. I'm not so sure that contemporary sources make Yagan a "folk hero". He might be seen as such by Noongars, but I doubt many others in WA even knew about him prior to the great trek to repatriate the head. Perhaps "folk hero for Noongars" or "folk hero for WA Aboriginals" may be a more appropriate.

• FA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• FA-Class Western Australia articles
• High-importance Western Australia articles
• WikiProject Western Australia articles
• FA-Class Indigenous peoples of Australia articles
• High-importance Indigenous peoples of Australia articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (July 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (July 2013)