Jump to content

Talk:Wurdi Youang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Cleaned up some of the references. News articles and blogs should not be used (even if some of them were by the authors, such as myself). Dhamacher (talk)

Location

[edit]

We ask that you please not provide the coordinates to this site. The Aboriginal traditional owners request that the location remain concealed to keep traffic and potential destruction away. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concern, the location is of encyclopaedic value and I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would prevent its inclusion here.
I've asked at WP:AWNB and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia for interested editors to comment here. I'm sure some will have strong opinions on the matter, so I remind all that links to specific Wikipedia policies will be helpful in this discussion.
(The location was removed from the article with this edit. I've not restored it yet, pending comments from other editors.)
Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth this reference refers to the "site at a secret location in the Victorian bush". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the coordinates for Little River, Victoria; I used a similar approach for former Local government areas in South Australia where it is difficult to work out where the LGA seat of government was located due to the lack of sources.Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting incorrect data would be worse (from an encyclopedic viewpoint) than no data. The problem is not that we don't have the location, it's whether we should include it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but this is a request from the Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the site and becomes an ethical concern rather than a practical one. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, This might be seen as shifting goalposts or splitting again, but my understanding is that the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative does not represent Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the Wurdi Youang site, but is the legal owner of the land the site is on. The Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation have been determined to be Traditional Owners of the area, based on their descent from Wada wurrung apical ancestors, and appointment as Registered Aboriginal Party . The Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative has done a stirling job for decades in assisting the health, housing, education, social and cultural needs of the Aboriginal Community in the Geelong Area, but to keep calling them Traditional Owners and use this as the basis for their claim to control secret knowledge about an ancient site is, in my opinion, at best problematic, particularly as there is no indication of what the views of the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation might be on the matter.Garyvines (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support including the coordinates of the site. They're already public knowledge (available on Google Maps, no less), and Wikipedia isn't censored. I understand the desire to protection heritage sites from harm, but in this case I don't think the possibility of harm is adequate justification for making the article less informative. If someone is dead keen to visit the site, they're going to find a way to do so whether or not Wikipedia lists the coordinates. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with including the full coordinates (to the usual standard), but "rounding" them a bit (along the lines of Cowdy001's suggestion) would be an acceptable compromise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site is on privately owned Aboriginal land and those entering without permission are trespassing. It's true the coordinates have slipped into there public domain, but we try to prevent this whenever possible. I would not consider this "censorship". Having worked at Aboriginal sites for a decade, it is very clear that public traffic to these sites does cause serious damage to them. The Aboriginal owners have asked me to do what I can to prevent the coordinates from being public (as much as possible). I suppose a compromise is to provide rounded coordinates, perhaps something along the lines of 37 50' S, 144 30' E. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with rounding or otherwise adjusting the coordinates. In particular, per WP:EP#Adding information to Wikipedia: "a lack of content is better than misleading or false content" - and deliberately changing the coordinates to a less than appropriate accuracy is "misleading or false". Given the size of the site, the original accuracy of 1 second of arc - about 30 metres - is appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping the co-ordinates. The location is available in a number of public sources, including many of the quasi or pseudo archaeology forums, such as this [1] but also legitimate sources such as the UNESCO astronomy portal here [2] and also earlier published documents in library collections which might need a bit more hunting to find but are in the public domain. It is listed publicly on the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay and the Victorian Heritage Register which both provide general locations to the property on which it sits. It is located on private land nearly a kilometre from the nearest road, and so is unlikely to be readily accessible to the casual visitor. Much of the recent interest on the site is based on its supposed role as an astronomical observatory, which is dependent on spatial location and orientation, so that without co-ordinates, the key piece of evidence supporting the astronomical hypothesis is untestable. Providing factual and neutral information on the site can help public awareness and education. Garyvines (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia and is written with a neutral point of view. It is also not censored. We simply don't hide information because it may offend someone. There is already precedent in the form of WP:SPOILER. We don't hide spoilers in movies, TV programs etc, we present the information encyclopaedically. Presenting the coordinates is really no different. Sources already publish the coordinates,[3] so there is nothing to be gained by hiding them here. We certainly should not be rounding the coordinates in the manner suggested. All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and putting in fake coordinates violates WP:N, which is a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main concern is that we are dealing with a culturally sensitive site. Ethical considerations should be taken into account. Wiki is usually the first go-to place for information and a lack of readily available coordinates can deter many who might use this information for reasons the Aboriginal owners are concerned about. People have been caught trespassing on the site and it is fairly easily accessible. The locals keep an eye out for trespassers, but having coordinates so easily available is of concern. Multiple surveys of the site have been published in the literature and the site register (AAV Site No. 7922-001), so the evidence can be tested even though the coordinates are not provided. "Public domain" information is an increasingly problematic issue regarding Indigenous cultural heritage, because much of it is made public without the consent or consultation of the Indigenous owners and custodians. Omission of the site coordinates is not censorship and has nothing to do with causing offence. The hard stance on 'neutrality' ignores the ethical issues at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhamacher (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the Indigenous people may own (possibly in a traditional sense) the site and/or the cultural heritage, I don't think this implies that they own the knowledge of the location, nor the right to keep it secret.
I realise that this particular case is not about censorship because the specific information (the precise location) might be offensive or culturally sensitive, but since you brought it up: In the more general case of ... Indigenous cultural heritage ... made public without the consent or consultation of the Indigenous owners and custodians", according to WP:NOTCENSORED:
Some organizations' ... traditions forbid display of certain information ... Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.
Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates ought to be restored. They're already known and shown at this article's interwiki links. Deliberately omitting them is unencyclopedic and counterproductive (Streisand effect). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • accuracy is the issue here, and in being accurate are we doing harm by spreading the knowledge. Given the nature and significance of the site being inaccurate isnt an issue as those with the need to know the exact location wont use wikipedia as the guide where as those without the knowledge and intent on idiocy will. Just a week or so ago I raise the issue of the changes to all co-ordinates on Australia and the same response used to argue that it didnt matter as WP co-ords arent expected to be used for that purpose. all policies on co-ords says accuracy should be decided on a case by case basis in this case we have a valid reason to not be accurate one the co-ords being used will inaccurate in a months time and the fact that such accuracy isnt necessary. Gnangarra 08:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"are we doing harm by spreading the knowledge" — We are not doing harm by spreading knowledge. Others may do harm with that knowledge, and we can acknowledge that, but we should keep the distinction clear.
"...changes to all co-ordinates on Australia ... the co-ords being used will inaccurate in a months time" — I presume you are referring to WP:AWNB#GPS_coordinates in Australia, in which case I don't think 1.5 metres is going to matter in this case.
" ... all policies on co-ords says accuracy should be decided on a case by case basis" — Please provide links to, and quotes from the relevant text of the specific policies. WP:GEO#Usage guidelines says "In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place.", and none of the "less obvious situations" listed apply here. MOS:COORDS and WP:OPCOORD says coordinates' precision should be relative to the size of the object (not the secrecy of the location). In this case, a stone arrangement of about 50m, 5m accuracy would be reasonable. (As previously mentioned, the deleted coords had an accuracy of about 30m.) Mitch Ames (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In general" so there can be exceptions, previously the co-ord were added by an ip, the point here is that the locations is being excluded because of the likely hood of damage. Larger scale more generalised location is an alternative option to no location. The point I makes is that the information doesnt need to accurate, because its already been decided that we dont need to be so why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other location, as the 1.5m change is the first of a series of adjustments rather than replicating the previous 200m adjustment. Gnangarra 10:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the relevance of the coordinates being added by an IP. Based on available sources the coords are correct, and verifiable, so that's all that matters. As I noted earlier, all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and the coordinates that were in the article are verifiable, so that's what we should use, not something that is essentially OR and, in the case of the Little River coords, deceptively places the site 7.278km from where it is actually located. The movement of the Australian plate is really irrelevant here. It's moving and there will continue to be periodic changes that, as I also noted at WP:AWNB, the GPS system will smooth out, as it did in 1994. Asking why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other location is a real furphy. All current coordinates are going to be out by 1.5m. This place will be no different and certainly won't be an exception. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the point isnt about traditional knowledge its about whether the site would be harmed by making it more readily available, in this case I believe that the likelyhood of harm is greater than the usefulness claimed to be the reason for its inclusion as @Garyvines:. Gnangarra 09:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many valid discussions going on here, some being more academic, some ethical, some practical. By making the exact location public, whether that is done elsewhere or not, goes against common practice in Australia. Aboriginal sites are generally not made public in order to protect them from malicious attack and from uncontrolled visitation. If you are going to make something public and there is a likelihood that a reasonable amount of people will visit, then you have to put in the infrastructure first and it has to be well-planned. This takes money, time and cooperation. Talking about the rights of internet users to have free access to information should not come at the expense of the site or the resources of land managers. More importantly, however, is the ethical consideration. Do the Indigenous custodians (traditional and/or managerial) want it public? Non-Indigenous Australians have benefitted greatly from Indigenous people over many generations (land, knowledge, culture, ideas), as has the rest of the world. The original owners have generally benefitted in very limited ways. The people best placed to profit and benefit from Indigenous cultural knowledge are the educated and well-connected non-indigenous people (like archaeologists, academics, writers, linguists, chefs, radio & film producers, and boutique farmers). When do the Indigenous people get to have and hold onto something long enough to choose whether to share some of it at a time of their choosing and after gaining fully from it socially, politically and economically? Phil Hunt 115.186.229.2 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gnangarra. There is no reason why this needs to be in the article: it's pointlessly unethical, it's unnecessary, and it amounts to Wikipedia editors thumbing their nose at indigenous communities for the sake of thumbing their nose (something which is unhelpful, for instance, in recruiting people with knowledge of topics such as this). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location is encyclopedic knowledge - that's the reason for it to be in this article, just as it is on 1,000,000+ other pages. We might debate the ethics of its inclusion in this case, but an accusation of "editors thumbing their nose at indigenous communities for the sake of thumbing their nose" is itself unhelpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't encyclopedic knowledge: the argument that exact coordinates for every single place intrinsically belong in an encyclopedia is one completely alien to any of Wikipedia's predecessors in human history. They, like us, had to grapple with ethical issues in how they reported content, and not only is it not an unreasonable request not to include absolutely specific GPS coordinates, it's unethical to do so. It objectively does harm, as the traditional owners have stated, there are compelling ethical reasons not to do it, the suggestion that doing this in the case of a sacred site is totally like, say, a skyscraper, displays absolutely no comprehension of or engagement with the ethical concerns about it. I'd call that "thumbing your nose because you can". The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It objectively does harm... — Please provide a specific example of actual objective harm that was/is done by inclusion of the coordinates in this article. Such an example would probably carry more weight than rhetoric. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has been raised several times that the traditional owners have serious concerns about damage to the fabric of the site with increased traffic, and that this was the reason for the request. I also don't need to even Google to think of several incidents where indigenous sacred sites did suffer damage to the fabric of the sites from increased traffic - some of which we've had to ultimately cover in Wikipedia articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite some specific examples of actual objective harm that was/is done by inclusion of the coordinates in a Wikpedia article? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obtuse. There isn't a sekrit magical tollgate around indigenous sacred sites that asks "are you coming here from Wikipedia?" and records the answer, but it makes them much easier for people to find, so issues of damage to site fabric due to increased traffic (and direct requests from traditional owners not to do it for that exact reason) become ethical considerations we need to take into account. As the arguments for doing it are extremely weak, we should err on the side of ethical conduct and fulfil a very reasonable request. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that I may be in the minority here, but I also don't see a reason to include this sort of specific information. On the one hand, precise coordinates are not necessary for an encyclopædic knowledge of the subject, and a general location will do. On the other hand, the distress that revealing this sort of privileged cultural information can create is very real. Before we do such a thing, we need a really good reason, and there isn't one here. Crying WP:NOTCENSORED and comparing this to TV spoilers as is done above is a bit weak, to be honest. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

... revealing this sort of privileged cultural information — Is there any evidence that the location is "privileged cultural information"? The original request (from Dhamacher was to remove the location "to keep traffic and potential destruction away", not because knowledge of the location was "privileged cultural information". It might help if we kept the debate to verifiable facts. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crying WP:NOTCENSORED and comparing this to TV spoilers as is done above is a bit weak, to be honest. - And claiming that coordinates are "privileged cultural information" isn't? Really, let's use a bit of common sense here. The site is publicly accessible. Sources state access is "unadvertised" but it's still a public site with coordinates are available online. However, it's inconvenient to get to, so sees very little traffic. A fence would provide physical protection but the need apparently is not there. Claiming that harm will occur because the coordinates are published on Wikipedia is not supported by any evidence that this will occur. Should we remove coordinates from the articles on Uluru, the Olgas, pyramids of Giza, Machu Picchu or Stonehenge? All these sites have a lot more traffic than this one, which is obscure at best. The Gosford Glyphs are located below an Aboriginal site and are visited by some absolute loonies. One woman even lost her crystal ball there. (It's OK, somebody found it!) Still, the Aboriginal site has suffered no damage to my knowledge, despite being right on one of the access paths to the glyphs. This whole thing is just a storm in a teacup. There is no need to censor the location. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is frustrating that in 2016 we are still discussing the rights of Indigenous peoples in how they wish to control their heritage. If the traditional owners or custodians of an area do not wish the location of a particular site made public, why can't this be agreed to? Comparing this site with famous and decades-long visited places like Uluru and Machu Picchu is a bit cheeky. Perhaps a better example would be ‘Should we post clear warnings from traditional owners about their wishes regarding visiting or climbing places in the articles on Uluru, etc?’ For those who say the location should be public, I would recommend doing a bit more reflection. Look up Aboriginal history-starting from today & go backward, and paternalism. Perhaps contemplate some of the ideas behind the Redfern Speech (the actual speech is a pdf link), or the opinion of a contemporary Indigenous Australian (Nayuka Gorrie). The lack of imagination reference Paul Keating uses may be useful here. Freedom of speech and the freedom to share information are wonderful things, yet they are not absolutes. In terms of legitimate uses of site data for management purposes, there are the normal processes through which one can access information. The confidentiality of data is not just restricted to Aboriginal heritage as it is also used for threatened species and other sensitive issues. There are also many Aboriginal heritage sites that are open to the public and these have generally been made accessible with the custodians’ support. Insisting there is no evidence that publicising the location of a site leads to increased visitation impacts suggests there are ample funds available for independent research into such things. There is barely enough to cover basic data registers and urgent site conservation. It would be wonderful if there was more support for Aboriginal heritage research and conservation. I can think of one example where over a million dollars was given to the study of European engravings in one part of Sydney, while a much larger area was given about $30,000 for Aboriginal sites. The debate over whether Aboriginal peoples should be able to make the location of places important to them confidential has a paternalistic quality to it. The modern history of Aboriginal people in Australia has certainly been one where other people have ‘known what’s better’. As a paragraph in a text, this is worrying. In the context of real people’s lives and the effects on people living today, it should not be dismissed lightly. Phil Hunt. 115.186.229.2 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the traditional owners or custodians of an area do not wish the location of a particular site made public, why can't this be agreed to? – Because (at least some editors believe that) it is encyclopaedic knowledge, and there is no policy that says we remove such encyclopaedic knowledge on request. In fact there is a policy - WP:NOTCENSORED - that explicitly says the opposite. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't find GPS coordinates in any other encyclopedia in human history, and every other encyclopedia has had to wrestle with ethical issues around the information included. Something is not "encyclopedic knowledge" because you want to include it, and giving the suburb instead of GPS coordinates for a sacred site is possibly the biggest stretch of the definition of "censorship" in actual human history. The lack of ethics displayed here is disgraceful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is frustrating that in 2016 we are still discussing the rights of Indigenous peoples in how they wish to control their heritage. - This is really nothing to do with heritage. It's about suppressing the location of a publicly accessible site, ostensibly for security purposes.
If the traditional owners or custodians of an area do not wish the location of a particular site made public, why can't this be agreed to? - You could ask the same for any publicly accessible place. The point here is that the site is publicly accessible and suppressing its location only on Wikipedia is not going to achieve anything. In any case how do we actually know that the traditional owners or custodians want the location suppressed? We only have the word of one editor, who is not one of those people. If the custodians want the location suppressed, they should contact the WMF directly, and formally, and ask for this to occur.
Comparing this site with famous and decades-long visited places like Uluru and Machu Picchu is a bit cheeky. - Not at all. These are all sites that have traditional owners, are publicly accessible and have their locations published. That a site may not be as popular is really irrelevant.
You can't find GPS coordinates in any other encyclopedia in human history GPS coordinates are a relatively new phenomenom and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. There are lots of things we include that aren't available in other encyclopaediae. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take advantage of available technologies. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the site is publicly accessible – We should make a clear distinction between the site being publicly accessible and the knowledge of its coordinates/location being publicly accessible. I believe the site is on private land, so although physically accessible, it may not be legally so. The knowledge of the location is a different matter. Telling you the location breaks no law, but going to that location might. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UNESCO site, as well as publishing the coordinates states "Wurdi Youang is situated in rural agricultural land, with unadvertised public access to the stone configuration." --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The UNESCO heritage portal, run by my colleagues, is out of date - and that is something we are now remedying. In addition to removing the coordinates, over the last few years Aboriginal organisations have obtained ownership of the site and surrounding lands. It is now restricted private land. It is not publicly accessible and agriculture is no longer done around the site. Dhamacher (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from Dhamacher's original request, much of the above appears to be unsubstantiated opinion without supporting evidence - either that harm will/has/happen(ed), or pre-empting views of aboriginal people about whether the place should be known to outsiders. There might also be some confusion between the wurdi youang stone arrangement and the alternative aboriginal name of the You Yangs mountain range. Some of the existing locations given in some on-line sources are quite wrong [4] indicating that the Also, like the Sunbury earth rings, Lake Bolac stone arrangement and Carisbrook stone arrangement, there is no documented or ethnographic evidence of aboriginal association with the sties prior to the 1970s, (see here for example [5] and here [6]) although Aboriginal groups have established strong cultural ties with the sites since then. It is not certain that all Aboriginal people have the same view - here for example is Bryon Powell - Wadda Wurrung Elder, at wurdi youang (the mountain) [7] Note that the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative Limited manages the 800ha Wurdi Youang property near the You Yangs, acquired for them via the Indigenous Land Corporation, [8] and reports the site in annual report and balance sheet [9]; while the The Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation (WAC), trading as Wadawurrung, is the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for Wadawurrung country. [10]. There is also evidence of greater community interest in learning about and visiting the site [11], so that whichever decision Wikipedia makes about including the co-ordinates, will ultimately be siding with one or the other view.Garyvines (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • whichever decision Wikipedia makes about including the co-ordinates, will ultimately be siding with one or the other view - Well, no. If we stick to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, then we should just present the information without opinion on whether or not it will create harm. That way we take no side, which is what we are supposed to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised an RfC to get more input. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with the people who manage the UNESCO heritage portal (they are my colleagues) and they agree that the sensitivities regarding the location of the site are of concern. They have agreed to temporarily conceal the coordinates and we will have a discussion soon about eliminating them altogether, with is extremely likely. The site is NOT on publicly accessible land. The land is Aboriginal owned and restricted, but it is not difficult to physically overcome the barriers (a small fence) and go to the site. In my work with Aboriginal communities and cultural sites, it is abundantly clear that vandalism and damage - intentional or not - occurs, and it occurs at a much higher frequency when the site gains public interest and traffic. The Aboriginal custodians wish to educate the public about the site and their culture - and they do provide some guided visits. But they do not want unsupervised traffic to the site. People have been caught on site without permission, others dump rubbish nearby, and some have even used the area to fire rifles. The local residents formed an unofficial community-watch to keep an eye out for unknown cars at the entrance to the site, because traffic to the area has picked up. Also, the name "Wurdi Youang" (as mentioned above) refers to the largest of the You Yangs mountains (also called Flinder's Peak). The area between the You Yangs and the Little River was the 'Shire of Wurdi Youang' throughout the 19th century. A few of the 19th century buildings in the area bear the same name. The arrangement is called the "Wurdi Youang Stone Arrangement" because it is located in the (now defunct) Wurdi Youang Shire - it is not the name of the arrangement itself (which is still not widely known). Numerous stone tools and artefacts have been found in and around the stone arrangement, attesting to its Aboriginal use and significance. We are currently doing historical and archaeological research at the site, so we don't have all of this information published at the moment (but we are in the process preparing a manuscript). In summation: A site of high significance near a populated area that is not difficult to physically access (even if it is on private land) is of great concern, particularly when the site's exact location is made publicly available. It is not possible to take a "neutral view" on this and publish its location without concern for the site or the traditional owners' requests. I suggest we not hide behind policies that have not caught up to these issues. Dhamacher (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest we not hide behind policies that have not caught up to these issues" – Editors in favour of removing the coordinates from the article might consider proposing a new WP policy to cover this type of scenario. I believe that WP:Village pump (policy) is the place to start. Very rough idea for the wording: "Where there is significant risk of damage if the exact location of an object or place is made publicly available, the exact location should not be included in the article." Note that this intentionally makes no mention of culture or heritage - it is purely about the risk of damage if the location is disclosed, and could apply to anything whose location is otherwise secret. If you were concerned about disclosure of information that is culturally sensitive (e.g. details of "secret women's business") I would suggest creating a separate policy. The two aforementioned policies might often overlap, but they are not the same, so it would be better to have separate polices - if nothing else, it might be easier to get at least one of them accepted. These policies would be exceptions to the general WP:NOTCENSORED in the same way that WP:BLP is, so the idea (of well defined exceptions to the general rule) is not unprecedented. Such polices - or the failure to get them accepted - might remove the need to have the same arguments in future. Note that this is not the place to discuss the wording of such policies, or whether they are a good idea. If someone wants to raise them, do so at the Pump, and just put a link here so editors here know about it. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument doesn't fly because "Mitch really really (really!) wants something in the article" does not = "not having it in the article is censorship". I can't think of any other encyclopedia that has GPS coordinates for sacred sites, so it's an editorial decision, and a bunch of important ethical reasons for not including it have been raised, while the only inclusion reasons amount to "but I want to!" The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to take a "neutral view" on this and publish its location without concern for the site or the traditional owners' requests. - It is indeed possible to do exactly that. If we were to consider the traditional owners' requests we would not be acting neutrally. To be fair we only have your word that the traditional owners have made a request - that claim is effectively original research, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. — AussieLegend 14:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
This demonstrates a continuing colonial practice and is one that is very problematic. Would a written request from the Traditional Owners group suffice? Should I have it notarised and signed by witnesses to demonstrate that I'm not fabricating the concern (as you allude to)? Or will this be a wasted effort? I'm not being snarky, I'm being serious. I am willing to do this, but I don't want to go through all of this effort to have yet another wall put up or another claim that this is an unreasonable or unreliable request in the name of "neutrality". Dhamacher (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This demonstrates a continuing colonial practice... – This demonstrates a Wikipedia practice - inclusion of reliably sourced information (the location) when there is no policy that forbids it. Fortunately, it is possible to change or create policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any other encyclopedia that has GPS coordinates for sacred sites - So now we've expanded it have we? Earlier you said You can't find GPS coordinates in any other encyclopedia in human history and I pointed out then that Wikipedia has lots of things that other encyclopaediae don't. I also said that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take advantage of available technologies. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This argument doesn't fly ... – Let me extend the wings a bit for you: According to WP:POLICY, "policies and guidelines ... describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, ...". From my first post on the this matter I suggested that links to specific policies would be helpful. So far as I can see, those in favour of including the coordinates have linked /quoted specific policies that support inclusion, while those opposed have not linked/quoted any policies or guidelines or even essays that would support exclusion. Probably because (so far as I can tell from several quick searches) there doesn't appear to be anything that supports the exclusion. Yes, I agree there is an ethical issue here, but ethics can be very subjective and a matter of personal opinion (the proof of which is the ongoing debate here), which is why we have policies. (WP:ETHICS lists essays, not policies and guidelines.) Hence my suggestion that perhaps we should have policies about these things. @The Drover's Wife: my post is basically an invitation to create an appropriate policy so that you have an actual policy to support your argument, which you then might be able to balance against the existing actual (and repeatedly cited) policies that support inclusion of the coordinates. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're still (deliberately) missing the point: you don't have a policy to support your view, either, because this is an ethical issue that, (in the absence of an actual guideline either way) Wikipedians have to work out like reasonable people. "Mitch really really wants it!" is not a guideline, and while you've drawn some very long bows to try to claim that one or two guidelines support that claim, you've abjectly failed at making that case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fairly certain that the policy WP:NOTCENSORED has been mentioned, and I'm sure I've already quoted the bit that says "Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic". You might not agree that coordinates are encyclopaedic, we can debate whether they are or are not, and we can debate whether ethics overrides NOTCENSORED, but pretending that "[we] don't have a policy" does not help the debate.
(As to whether coordinates are encyclopaedic, you might want to take that up with WP:GEO; I know it's not a policy, but it does say "In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place", which does suggest that coordinates are encyclopaedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to create an appropriate policy so that we can support the argument. Can we agree to move forward on this? In the meantime, I'm quite keen on addressing Phil Hunt's question below: Is there a policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners? As far as I know, there is not and I feel we should err on the side of caution and respect for now. Dhamacher (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...create an appropriate policy so that we can support the argument. Can we agree to move forward on this? – You (or any editor) can at any time propose a new policy. See WP:PROPOSAL, which describes the process. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy that prohibits voluntary restraint? – Such a policy would be impossible to enforce - if editors voluntarily restrain themselves there is no way you could stop them from not adding information! However - in answer to what I think you're asking - WP:CONSENSUS says that editors may reach a consensus in this (or any) case and agree to exclude the information, even though there is no explicit policy preventing the inclusion of the information. However obtaining consensus may be difficult in this case. Per WP:NOTVOTE, it's not as simple as counting votes. From WP:Consensus#Determining consensus (with my emphasis): "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments ..., as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy". Hence my repeated calls for participants in this discussion to cite/quote specific policies, and my suggestion that perhaps a new policy should be created if (as some editors believe) the existing policy (NOTCENSORED) does or ought not apply. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us see site damage on a daily basis from the malicious and the ignorant... I have worked in Aboriginal archaeology and heritage management for 30 years, and while I know of damage to Aboriginal sites caused by developers and property owners not knowing there was a site there (ignorance, but not in the sense quoted above), I cannot remember a single instance of intentional destruction or damage of an aboriginal site outside of a regulatory framework. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but I would like to see the evidence for it before accepting it as a given.Garyvines (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examples have been reported in the news multiple times, such as Tasmania, WA, Australia wide and even an ABC 7.30 report I was part of in 2012. I've seen rock art deliberately (and illegally, I might note) re-grooved - sometimes to such a degree that the original engraving is quite distorted (not by traditional owners or rangers - I asked). I've seen rock art motifs scratched out. I've seen stone arrangements deliberately damaged: stones moved, kicked over, and turned into new designs. I've seen Aboriginal paintings covered in graffiti. I've seen engraving sites of culture heroes covered in mountain bike tracks. I visit these sites regularly. Rangers take note of damage and Parks and Wildlife have taken down all (or nearly all) signs pointing out heritage sites like stone arrangements and rock art, with only a few well managed sites open to the public (such as the Basin track engravings in Kuringai Chase National Park). Damage and vandalism are due to sites being publicly accessible with increasing traffic as knowledge and popularity of the them spreads. I've seen it. The Aboriginal rangers tell me. It's reported in the literature, on blogs, social media, radio, and on the news. I struggle to understand what kind of evidence you still want to see to be convinced! Dhamacher (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure

[edit]

It seems to me that the closer, User:MrX, misread the point of the request. MrX seems to assume that the question was to whether to include the coordinates, but the actual request was to remove them. Quote: We ask that you please not provide the coordinates to this site. There was indeed no consensus to remove them, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the previous version ought to be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just put the archive tags around the wrong section.- MrX 04:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edit that closed the discussion instead of the RFC . Edit that subsequently moved the closure to the RFC. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
The RFC was worded "should the article include the coordinates", but should not be taken to imply that the inclusion was the disputed edit. (It was merely one "plain English" way of wording a binary question about the existence of the coords, i.e. should the coords be in the article or not in the article.) The RFC clearly and explicitly followed on from the request to "not provide the coordinates" and the removal of the coords from the article. I agree with Michael Bednarek that - per WP:NOCONSENSUS - the version prior to the disputed edit (which removed the coords) should restored, i.e. the coords should be restored because there is no consensus to remove them. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately WP:NOCONSENSUS is poorly written. It says:
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
A proposal to add material obviously does not depend on the existence or lack thereof in the article just prior to the RfC being created. In other words, there is no loophole that allows an editor add contentious material just before an RfC is created, and then interpret a non consensus to include as an endorsement for the material to be retained. That would be WP:GAMING and would violate the principles of WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 14:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what happened here though. Content was removed and, not wanting to precipitate an edit-war, an editor decided not to restore the content to the status quo while the discussion was underway. The RfC question should really have been "should coordinates be excluded from this article?" Either way, the outcome of the discussion would have been the same but the big difference is that there was never consensus to remove the content in the first place. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really help you with what the RfC question should have been; my close reflects what the question actually is. I think I am on solid ground in asserting that the unchallenged existence of material in an article is one of the weakest forms of consensus, and is easily toppled. I'm not a participant in the dispute, so I'm not going to argue for or against inclusion of the coordinates. I can only offer my interpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS and how I think it applies here. Best wishes.- MrX 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: given that your close is based on what the RFC "question actually is" rather than what it should have been, by the same logic, would you agree that, given the outcome of no consensus, we should follow what WP:CONSENSUS "actually is". I.e. "retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". In this case I did not propose including the coordinates - the coordinates were already in the article when an editor made the bold edit that removed them, initial discussion (#Location) failed to achieve any consensus about that removal, so I raised the RFC (#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article) to get more opinions. The RFC explicitly refers to the original discussion, and is clearly an extension of it. I think you have erred in looking only at the literal wording of the RFC questions and treating "no consensus" as "no consensus to include the coordinates" - the discussion was clearly triggered by an editor removing existing material and as such "no consensus" should be treated as "no consensus to remove the existing material". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't believe that interpretation follows the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. There was no consensus when the coordinates were added a year ago by an IP. After it was added, it had silent consensus, but as soon as Dhamacher removed it, the consensus was gone. In other words, you can't insert something into a low traffic article and, if nobody notices and doesn't immediately revert it, demand a consensus for removing it. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus (as opposed to s silent consensus). In my close, I took the above discussion into consideration, but it was substantially similar to the arguments in the RfC itself. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason for adding material to an article and "think of the aborigines" is, at best, a weak reason for keeping material out. I hope that helps. - MrX 00:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for Dhamacher to remove the material, not even consensus by silence, because the removal was disputed immediately. So given that there was no consensus either way, WP:NOCONSENSUS dictates that we should "retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal" by Dhamacher to "not provide the coordinates". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was no consensus to remove it and no consensus to insert it, but now we're both repeating the same arguments.- MrX 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure given that:

Even the closing statement states that there is a policy that would include the location but does not mention any policy that would exclude it. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to challenge my close per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE if you like.- MrX 21:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors wanting to not include the exact notation added policy supported reasons. The fact that you may not agree with them does not mean none was presented. For myself I presented two: wp:Reliable Sources (use whatever coordinates are prominently used in the best of sources) and wp:IAR (do what is best to preserve knowledge, not what is best to follow some hard rule). I may add that I agree with wp:5P, as "a comprehensive summary of information", you'll likely stress the 'comprehensive' bit while I'll stress the 'summary'.- Nabla (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors wanting to not include the exact notation added policy supported reasons. - Maybe I overlooked this, but what were they? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presented two: wp:Reliable Sources ... — The locations are reliably sourced. [12][13] RS does not say that every source has to have the information. RS is not a policy that says we should exclude reliably sourced information.
... wp:IAR — I don't recall anyone explaining how excluding this information improves Wikipedia - that being the sole purpose for IAR.
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As to IAR (and as I already tried to explain), I presume wikipedia is much better off having an article about an *existing* archaeological site (or whatever) than about a *ruined* site. So if not including a exact coordinate helps having a article about an *existing* location, we're helping wikipedia.
As to your two reliable sources. The Megalithic Portal is quite nice (it is in my bookmarks, because I might want to visit some places, I have no relation to archaeology). As it says "Day to day, the site is run by a team of voluntary editors and site admins.", pretty much like wikipedia, I guess. And wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, by our own standard. So The Megalithic Portal is not the best of sources. Your other source, UNESCO, looks much better. I note that you needed to link to a web archive page, because this source, decided to *not include* a exact coordinate. Their current version points to "Latitude (of the local cultural center) 37.8956° S, longitude 144.4662° E." (my bold). So reliable sources have removed the exact location, and settled for an approximate, public location, coordinate. I think we should settle for using these, may we agree on that?. - Nabla (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC) PS: @Mitch Ames: - Nabla (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Including coordinates in the article doesn't automatically turn the subject into a *ruined* site. Any suggestion that it would is, at best, speculative. IAR isn't justification for excluding the coordinates based on pure speculation. Leaving out relevant information doesn't improve the encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia shouldn't deceive its readers, so it shouldn't be using coordinates that deliberately conceal the location, which is 2.4km northwest from the approximate coordinates. The subject of this article is the site itself, not the "local cultural center"[sic]. The website can choose to suppress the actual location but, per WP:NPOV, we shouldn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that despite the formal closure of your RfC, you try to reopen the complete discussion with the very same arguments from the beginning. If so, there probably is a Wikipedia policy to formally request a review and closure of the closure of the RfC by an higher ranking official (probably an wikipedia administrator). So I suggest you start this process Ruediger.schultz (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the terms under which WP:CLOSECHALLENGE operates? They guarantee to fail any challenge of a closure that isn't blatantly erroneous; any closure that can be stretched to "reasonable" will survive.
I have requested a review at WP:AN#Request for review of Wurdi Youang RFC closure. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be discussed with much wider input, possibly at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concerns about this process, a "discussion with much wider input" should probably not be focused on the current case, but rather on the general issues the current discussion showed. The question could be something like "should exact coordinates of sacred places of indeginous people being included into wikipedia, if they are available?" . In such a discussion, participants should also state their affiliation, so it can be verified that indeginous people and their interests are sufficiently represented. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

should probably not be focused on the current case, but rather on the general issues the current discussion showed. — Agreed.
should exact coordinates of sacred places of indeginous people being included — "sacred places" is likely to fail WP:NOTCENSORED. The places are certainly sacred to the indigenous people but they are not sacred to Wikipedians (in general). For example, see Q1 in the FAQ at the top of Talk:Muhammad. I suggest a better approach would be to focus on the potential for physical damage - which also covers things like (for example) the exact location of a vary rare flower. E.g. a possible policy might be "Where the risk of significant damage to a physical object or objects is substantially increased because its location is published in Wikipedia, the location should not be included in the article." I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this policy, and the wording might need some work, but it's probably a better policy, and more likely to be accepted. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article

[edit]
(non-admin closure) Closed as no consensus to include coordinates. While it's true the Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and not beholden to outside organizations, the encyclopedic benefit of including the coordinates in the article was insufficiently demonstrated, and inadequately defended when challenged. The ethical concerns voiced by several editors have at least some weight in determining whether to include such content the article.- MrX 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article include the coordinates of the Aboriginal stone arrangement (the topic of the article)? The traditional owners have requested that it not, but the location has been published elsewhere. Please see the existing discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location for the opposing viewpoints. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, include the coordinates. They are of encyclopaedic value, WP:NOTCENSORED explicitly says that Wikipedia does not remove material just because someone asks ask to, and the inclusion of the information does not violate any other policy. The coordinates are not secret; they are publicly available on the internet (Google will find them, and two of the online references used in the article include them). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include. Including the GPS coordinates serves no encyclopedic purpose that only including the suburb wouldn't, and this response to "maybe it's a bit unethical to tell traditional owners to get stuffed when they request we not include them" is the most ludicrous attempt at stretching the definition of censorship. It is a reasonable request that Wikipedia not do palpable, real-world harm (through facilitating damage to the fabric of sacred sites as a result of increased traffic). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include no evidence that inclusion will cause harm. The location is already publically available [14] [15]Garyvines (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - No clear evidence that the traditional owners/custodians have requested the location be suppressed and Wikipedia is not censored. We have just the word of one editor and WP:AGF doesn't overrule WP:V. We can't accept what amounts to an original research claim. Site is publicly accessible per the UNESCO source I linked to in the section above, which also publishes the coordinates. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether harm will be caused. We should follow WP:NPOV and simply present the information with no opinion. Other reasons are stated in the section above. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we dont need co-ordinates to verify the sites existance, if we were it would be original research we use reliable sources for verification which this article already has. Gnangarra 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that we needed co-ordinates to verify] the sites existence. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we dont need co-ordinates to verify the sites existence then the inclusion of co-ordinates offer no encyclopedic value. Gnangarra 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather silly thing to say. There are lots of things we don't need, but that doesn't mean they are not encyclopaedic. Strictly speaking, we don't need this article. Does that mean it's not encyclopaedic? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
co-ordinates offer no encyclopedic value – Claiming that something is "encyclopedic" or "not encyclopedic" by itself is a meaningless circular argument, as explained at WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. The fact that {{Coord}} is used on 1,000,000+ pages demonstrates a large precedent that coordinates are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Certainly Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates thinks so, with their Usage guideline that say "In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place". Mitch Ames (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment that similar matters have been discussed pretty extensively over at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. (The U.S. NHRP lists most archaeological sites as "address restricted" even in cases in which their locations are widely known and publicized.) A few relevant discussions are here, here, here, and here; others can be found by searching the project's talk archives. I don't think any real consensus has been reached on the matter, but the variety of opinions may be of interest. Since one of my main interests here is putting coordinates into articles, I have mixed feelings about suppressing them, but I can certainly understand the point of view of those who want to protect sensitive sites from vandalism or other harm. Deor (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per UNESCO. It's not the first time we have been here; I seem to remember that US potholers are not keen on the locations of caves being made available e.g. this, but I've yet to read of a nexus between the publication of coordinates and harm to the subject of the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geologists and experts estimate it to be around 10,000 years old, and there are probably only around seven rock formations like this recorded in Victoria, and many of those have been destroyed[16] seams to indicate that other site have been harmed though the cause isnt mentioned. Gnangarra 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that other sites have been harmed. Indeed, one of the examples below says that "1,700 engraved boulders were removed to make way for the North West Shelf gas plant on Western Australia’s Burrup Peninsula in the early 1980s". However, there still remains no correlation between coordinates being published on Wikipedia and the damage that sites have suffered, as much as some people might want there to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include. If this can be seen as a test case or precedent, then if the views of Indigenous peoples from different parts of the world were taken I'm sure they would err on the side of confidentiality. How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue? I've just done a quick poll and 2 out of 2 I've asked do not want this location made public (it's not their country so they would leave it to the custodians for a final decision). My colleagues also do not want sites in their areas made public, unless it was done carefully and proper site conservation management plans were put in place. If those sitting on keyboards can boast no actual evidence of damage to places that are made publicly known on wiki, I would suggest doing some fundraising and put some money in so site managers can do the research and prove what we all know to be anecdotally true - the more sites are known, the more they are visited and the more sites are visited, the more impacts they receive. These places do not regenerate. You can't just re-post them and make them better. Many of us see site damage on a daily basis from the malicious and the ignorant and it is utterly depressing. This is not merely a debate about intellectual or conceptual freedoms. I could post the location of scores of sites within 20 minutes of where I type this and the knowledge would not add one scrap of protection for them, other than to preserve a record digitally of what they used to be like before being degraded. I would ask people to follow current Indigenous heritage management policy and not publish the location of sites without the custodians' permission. Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners? Phil Hunt. 115.186.229.2 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue? - Original research is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
probably the same amount as those who want to publish it, and ignore the news reports of the request that the sites exact location not be made pubic A farmer who previously owned the land fenced the site to protect it, and in 2006 the land title was handed over to the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative. The Wathaurong people are the traditional owners. The co-operative and elders are working with the researchers at the site, the location of which has been kept largely a secret[17]Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't actually say that anybody requested that the location be kept secret; the article merely says that "the location ... has been kept largely a secret". I did search a little while back and could not find any news article that actually said that the indigenous owners (or anyone else) had explicitly asked for the location to be kept secret. (Perhaps the indigenous owners did not need to ask, because they knew that the researchers did not need to be asked - they would keep it secret anyway.) A news article reporting that someone had explicitly asked for the location to be kept secret might be helpful to the debate. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate feels a little bit Catch-22. In the interests of Wiki policies and in the event of information already present in the public domain the site cannot be kept confidential. Those in favour of making the location public request evidence that the site is at risk. From a site management point of view one of the ways to put a site at risk is to make it public and allow visitation. You don't have to prove a site is not at risk by making it public because that is the policy (and it's already somewhere in the public domain). Without time and resources you can't provide evidence to the contrary, and if someone does a straw poll with the nearest Indigenous reps available, that doesn't get even an acknowledgement of interest because it hasn't been through the evidence-wringer. I think I've seen enough. I think it will still be some time before Indigenous people get a chance to control their heritage in a meaningful way. The purist wiki policies seem to be good for those whose passion is information and not so good for those who are charged with realities on the ground. Like others have mentioned, the evidence is there, it isn't easily assembled and in the meantime wiki and other blogs will add to the problem rather than help reduce it (that is an evidence-less opinion, so no need to respond to that one). Phil Hunt. 115.186.229.2 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?" – see my response under #Location above. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include. There is no benefit to publishing the coordinates, but there are clear physical and ethical detriments to doing so. Asking for evidence of damage at the site as a direct result of the coordinates being published on Wikipedia is unreasonable. The UNESCO webpage is out of date and the once-public land is now privately owned by an Aboriginal co-op who as asked to keep coordinates offline as trespassers have been caught on site and damage - both real and potential - has been done. The UNESCO heritage portal administrators (my colleagues) have agreed and will conceal the coordinates (as discussed above). I'm also preparing a report for them based on the new developments and new research. To continue using the UNESCO heritage page as justification is problematic. A letter can be provided by the Traditional Owners if the editors feel it is necessary to overcome concerns about claims of original research. Dhamacher (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A letter can be provided by the Traditional Owners - I have already suggested that this is what is needed. It needs to be sent to the WMF, so that a decision by WMF can be made. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that request is on the public record and included within some of the sources already used for the article, why should they have to ask the WMF when we can chose to respect that request. WMF doesnt enter into content disputes all it can do is take down the article following a legal request we'd all be worse off if that happens. Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that request is on the public record – Can we have a link (or other specific reference) to the public record where the traditional owners actually asked for the location to be kept secret - not just one that says the location is being kept secret. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Dhamacher (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are a participant in this discussion, that link would seem to violate WP:SPS. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont include as per the the public request published in media reports[18] and by the Heritage Council of Victoria[19] recommending protective measures and publishing its location unlike other places in their scope. Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? You're going to try that? The media report does not say that Wikipedia, or anyone for that matter, has been requested to suppress the location. At best this is WP:SYNTH. The fact that one of the participants of this discussion was mentioned, one that wants the location suppressed, raises other issues. Similarly, the VHD extract contains nothing to support the claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • note also - while the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, has title to the site, this organisation is not made up of traditional owners. The traditional owner group is the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation trading as Wadawurrung, which under the Aboriginal Heritage Act has jurisdiction for issuing cultural heritage permits for activities such as archaeological research on aboriginal cultural heritage places.Garyvines (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation is responsible for ownership, while the Co-operation is responsible for custodianship of the site. The Co-op is the organisation on the ground, physically looking after the site and managing the restoration of the area back to native grasses and bush. They also employ the Aboriginal rangers doing this work at the site. I now have a signed letter from Rod Jackson, the CEO of the WATHAURONG ABORIGINAL CO-OPERATIVE, asking for the coordinates to be kept off the page and provides reasons. To whom should this letter be sent? (I need an email) Dhamacher (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it round the wrong way. The Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, based in Geelong, is the owner of the land since the Indigenous Land Corporation transferred it to them in 2006. As far as I am aware there are no members in the Co-op who trace their ancestry to Wada wurrung language group people. The Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation, based in Ballarat, is the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, for the area that contains the stone arrangement. The Corporation has legal rights over approval of management for Aboriginal cultural heritage places that are located in its RAP area, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Corporation was only appointed to RAP status, after the land transfer for the site containing the stone arrangement went thorough. Otherwise they would probably have had a stronger claim against title. The Corporation members claim descent from traditional Wada wurrung language group people. The whole thing is quite complicated, and presents a good reason why we non-Aboriginal people should not try and impose our own views on these sort of arguments, but rely on clearly expressed, supported and documented views of the Aboriginal people themselves. I would suggest that if a change was to be made, it should wait until there is a consensus from both of the two Wathaurong/Wathaurung groups. On the matter of spelling, Ian Clark, in his Aboriginal Languages and Clans, lists 138 variants of the spelling of the language group name, with 'Wada wurrung' the preferred spelling used by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Garyvines (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great news, just forward the email to info-en@wikimedia.org someone from OTRS will confirm the details, its then held on record and then put a notice on the page stating the OTRS ticket number. Splitting hairs of Co-op vs Corp is just that splitting hairs, as for 138 different spellings thats no big deal most Indigenous groups have the same issues and it stems more from the time, who recorded the name, and their origins(English, Italian, Latin, Spanish, German, Dutch) than its does with the actual people. Gnangarra 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not splitting hairs - they are two quite separate organisations and do not necessarily agree with each other about cultural heritage matters. As explained above. the Geelong Co-op is not made up of traditional owners as far as I am aware. Some of the people involved are from the Western District around Framlingham and others from all around Victoria and Australia. The Ballarat Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation does represent traditional owners of Wada Wurrung descent and has a separate legal role in managing Aboriginal Heritage, and so should be acknowledged in any discussion about the Wurdi Youang site. I note that there are conflicting instructions about who you need to get permission from to visit the site - e.g. Wathaurung corporation = [20], Wathaurong Co-op = [21]. The point about spelling was just to indicate the reason that the two groups use a different spelling of Wathaurung, it was not an argument for which group should be consulted.Garyvines (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep constantly shifting the goal posts. This is not productive. My request did not come from me as some wanna-be white do-gooder. It was from the traditional custodians. I have emailed the letter Dhamacher (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are the goal posts shifting? The request for suppression needs to come from someone who is actually authorised to make the request. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a PDF of the letter from the co-op, asking for the coordinates to not be included on the page and outlining why. Dhamacher (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Dhamacher for doing all this work. It is unnecessary in my view. I’ve read and re-read the comments and it still comes across as one group of people using a collection of Wiki policies to justify including the location of a potentially vulnerable place merely for some intellectual idea that it should be made public. Who made Wiki and its editors judge and jury in this case? Why is Wiki and its policies more important than normal codes of conduct? How are the editors (including myself) elected, selected or authorised to speak on this matter? Why is Wiki more important than those who have cultural ties, custodial responsibilities, land owner/manager responsibilities and/or site managerial responsibilities (and how is Wiki in a place to judge that based on a literature review or even from discussing with one group or another?)? Why do custodians etc have to prove who they are and why they have an interest while Wiki editors can simply put whatever information they like without justifying it (other than according to policies most people in the world haven’t read, reviewed or endorsed). The entire premise that the location of any Aboriginal site must have its location made public is, in my view, very disrespectful and misguided given the ethical issue and the potential risks. Do Wiki editors do due diligence, risk assessments, consultation? Are they liable for any damage done that could be linked to their words? Certainly site managers and owners are liable for all sorts of penalties should an incident occur. If this case is an example of how Wiki puts out information, I would be interested if someone could do a review and see how many other Aboriginal sites in Australia (and Indigenous sites worldwide) have been given public locations without any proper consultation with those most likely to be affected by it on the ground. I would be interested to see how many Indigenous communities know that their sites are in the public domain. How many Wiki editors are prepared to put their views at an Aboriginal community meeting, not in the rarefied air of the online? The onus should be on those wishing to make a site public to provide the evidence that it is safe to do so, a common practice for new products, and be prepared to debate it with the communities most affected, rather than expect everyone else to meet some evidence threshold that appears to be made up, again according to policies most have never read. Phil Hunt 115.186.229.2 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phil. Your points are spot on the mark. Dhamacher (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Phil and Dhamacher are over-egg the pudding. It is after all only an encyclopaedia. And the opportunity only exists to influence WP because it is an open consensus-community. It would be far more difficult to influence a commercial encyclopaedia, or one of the mystical psuedo-archaeology websites that choose whether to hide or reveal sensitive information based entirely on their own self interest and conspiracy mindsets. There is in fact a larger ethical question about whether a single group can determine whether information should be available to outsiders or not regardless of their cultural connection to the place. This is really the question being debated, not the cultural rights of a particular group.Garyvines (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You suspect people working on site with Aboriginal community are "over egging the pudding"? Wikipedia is one of the first port of calls for public information. And are you going to equate Wiki with pseudo-archaeology sites? That raises a series concern. And to address your question if a single group can determine whether information should be available to outsiders or not regardless of their cultural connection to the place? Um, yes. They can. When it is their heritage and they own the land... then yes. Yes they can. Dhamacher (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include – The coordinates ought to be restored. They're already known and shown at this article's interwiki links. Deliberately omitting them is unencyclopedic and counterproductive (Streisand effect). I also agree with User:Mitch Ames's specific reading of WP:NOTCENSORED: Some organizations' rules or traditions forbid display of certain information about them online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to understand how leaving coordinates of an important and vulnerable cultural site off of Wiki is "counterproductive", particularly when the Aboriginal community asks for the coors to be kept off. Counterproductive to what, exactly? UNESCO - the site everyone has been citing over and over as justification to leave the coords on - has just changed them to show the cultural centre nearby. They have also asked me to update the description. And I still don't understand how this is "censorship", either. That bow has been drawn to the extreme in this discussion ad nauseum. Dhamacher (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's counterproductive because this very discussion will only widen the interest and dissemination of those coordinates. Once things are out, they can't be recalled. // It's not the headline NOTCENSORED which has been repeated ad nauseam, but the principle of presenting encyclopedic information, regardless of organisational restrictions. Did Freemasons or Scientologists get a say in shaping those articles? Did Muslims get to determine the question of depicting Muhammad? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to understand how leaving coordinates ... off of Wiki is "counterproductive", — @Dhamacher: It may help your understanding if you read the Streisand effect article, which describes how "an attempt to hide, remove, ... a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you're purposefully pushing an ongoing argument over our request to not display the coordinates of the site as a platform to generate increased interest in the exact coordinates of the site? Wow. Dhamacher (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said you didn't understand how leaving the coordinates off was counter-productive, so to help you understand I pointed you to a well documented example of how attempting to remove information could make that information more widely known - i.e. it can be counter-productive. My response was intended to help your understanding of the "counter-productive" issue, no more, no less. I personally have not used "counter-productive" as a reason for including; my reasons are based on existing Wikipedia policies and practices. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont include As the heritage people behind the UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Portal, we certainly respect the wish of the rightful owners of that site to protect it from further damage by not publishing the exact coordinates. We changed our database accordingly to point to the cultural center the owners established to inform visitors about the site - so should WIKIPEDIA as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.schultz (talk • contribs) 10:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I find it rather strange that an editor who has only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia, more than four years ago, has returned after such a long time just to support the "don't include" side. It's especially suspicious when one of those edits was to add a link to the "UNESCO-IAU Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy".[22] Dhamacher has previously stated that website is run by his colleagues.[23] I hope we're not seeing canvassing or meatpuppetry here. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is outragious! To use the number of posts I made in order to discredit my right to state my (or rather as the representative of the portal "its") point of view! Of course people all over the world work togehter in the field of cultural astronomy (there is few enough of us!) - and even if we are not "employed" by the same organisation, we have close connections with each other. I simply am not willing to belief you actually ment what you are impliing here, otherwise I would have to file a formal complaint about your behaviour to the Wikimedia organisation! But the whole topic is not about your behaviour here, but about sensitivity towards cultural issues of ingedenous people, so I dont want to elaborate about your behaviour anymore. Ruediger Schultz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.schultz (talk • contribs) 06:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be sure I understand this correctly. The researchers working at the site, and the Aboriginal organisations who own and manage the site, have requested that you not display the coordinates of the site on the Wiki page because of increased trespassing and damage to the arrangement. You raise road-blocks argue against this for "encyclopaedic value" and "censorship", despite their being no clear benefit and stretching interpretations of Wiki policy. The policies you cite fail to address the ethical problems with this and you skirt around the issue by saying the onus is on the Aboriginal custodians to change Wiki policy - a long, involved, drawn out, and difficult process. You claim the researcher is the only confirmed voice asking for the coordinates to be removed, and that this is not enough. You say there is no evidence that including the exact coordinates on the first page that shows the site on web-searches leads to the increased traffic and damage to the site (which is, frankly, ridiculous and impossible). You say a letter from the custodians would be helpful. When the traditional custodians of the site write a letter asking the coordinates be excluded, it is largely ignored and the same arguments about "encyclopaedic value" and "censorship" are touted over and over. You say our argument is counterproductive as it will draw more attention to the discussion about the site's coordinates, thus making the coordinates more widely known. You continue to use the same arguments over and over against the "don't include" editors knowing this. To support your position, you cite a UNESCO page that displays the coordinates as reason to include them on Wiki. The researcher's colleagues who run the UNESCO page **because they work together in the same academic field and the researchers provided the original information in the first place** change the information on the UNESCO site at the request of the traditional owners. The UNESCO page administrator makes this known on the Wiki discussion page. You now claim a conspiracy to alter the decision based on the fact that people directly involved in the work have addressed the issues you continue to cite for your case and make their voice known? Dhamacher (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought to those who still want this particular site’s exact location publicised, there are Aboriginal sites in Australia already listed on Wiki that don’t have their locations made public. I’m nervous to even mention it as the Wiki-imperialists might seek to fill in the gaps. Then there are important places that do. Uluru, for example, obviously does have coordinates provided for the rock, but not for individual rock art or other sites that are subject to the usual confidentiality precautions. Having done a brief perusal of heritage agencies and associations and Indigenous community websites around the world, it is abundantly clear that the practice, the benefits of and various policies and protocols insisting on keeping sites confidential is the standard. What is not standard by countries, states, associations, community groups, industries and even mainstream media is to divulge the exact coordinates of an archaeological site. I’m not going to clutter this talk page with references – just do a search under confidentiality and archaeological site (from Missouri to Melbourne). Actually I will (see below for a random selection) as some editors demand evidence while doing little of their own leg work other than to reference Wiki policies. Putting coordinates to Aboriginal sites clearly goes against mainstream attitudes. Look up the UN Declaration for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples Rights (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf) for another angle. If somehow Wiki comes to a ‘consensus’ that the publication of the exact location of this and other Aboriginal places should be the norm, then Wiki has become the special interest group putting its own narrow interests first under the guise of intellectual freedom. Still no evidence that a vandal did the vandalism because of a Wiki post? If that’s the only thing that will convince someone, then nothing will. I won’t hold my breath for the headline ‘vandals self-report why they attack cultural places’. What happens with this process now? There seem to be two sets of consensus. Phil Hunt. Australian Association of Consulting Archaeologists Inc ‘The Association recognises that the circulation or publication of the results of archaeological work must be sensitive to Aboriginal concerns about the disclosure of confidential information about sites’. http://www.aacai.com.au/about-aacai/policies/ Operational Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management (A due diligence Code of Practice) Respect confidentiality about the location and details of Aboriginal sites and cultural knowledge shared by Aboriginal communities http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/cultureheritage/ddcop/ddcop-ForestsNSW.pdf Mississippi Archaeological Association “Records of MDAH are public, but information about archaeological site locations is protected by law and exempted from freedom of information requests. Site location information is kept confidential so that site owners will not be disturbed with trespassers, and sites will not be damaged or destroyed by vandals”. http://www.msarchaeology.org/maa/reporting.html Looting hoards of gold and poaching spotted owls: Data confidentiality among archaeologists & zoologists Researchers would generally prefer to restrict access to their data from the general public but maintain open data for colleagues. Given these potential harms, researchers in archaeology and zoology view decisions about who should have access to data and how those decisions are made as complicated and would prefer that some other organization, such as a repository, take that responsibility. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010037/full Public Partnership in Site Preservation: the California Archaeological Site Stewardship Program Workshop participants also sign an agreement to keep specific site location information confidential. https://www.archaeological.org/news/hca/7783 Oregon - Archaeological Sites on Private Lands Site location information is confidential and generally only available to qualified individuals (e.g., professional archaeologists) or landowners/land managers. https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/ARCH/docs/Bulletin%201%20FAQ.pdf Colorado Historic Preservation There are strategies for sharing archaeological information with those who need it to make good preservation decisions while maintaining site confidentiality, such as: Trusting the landowner and decision-maker to help protect sites, and recognizing that when the ground does need to be disturbed, graded, plowed, or bulldozed, the landowner will need to know exactly what is where so that sites are not destroyed; Getting to know and establishing trust in those to whom information might be given, understanding how they will use it, and developing an ongoing relationship with them, especially if they are in a position to protect sites; Educating the landowners and decision-makers on the need for confidentiality; Providing maps with "fuzzy" detail, such as showing a blob for general site location, or "sensitivity" maps that highlight areas of high, medium, and low probability for sites to exist; and providing more detailed information when the decisionmaker/planner has immediate need for it; Asking the user of confidential information to sign a security statement that he/she won't let the information out; Exempting certain kinds of information from Freedom of Information Act requests at local level. http://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/files/OAHP/crforms_edumat/pdfs/1617.pdf Missouri Archaeological Society Site locations are confidential. https://associations.missouristate.edu/mas/identification.html Oregon Department of Environmental Quality The location and existence of cultural resources is considered highly sensitive information by tribes and others, and to protect these resources, it is important that this information be kept confidential. http://www.deq.state.or.us/programs/tribal/TribalCleanupGuidance.pdf Managing Hopi Sacred Sites to Protect Religious Freedom The identification of shrines and other sacred sites for purposes of historic preservation planning, however, puts information into the public domain, and this adversely impacts the confidentiality of these sites. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/united-states/managing-hopi-sacred-sites-protect-religious- Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook Tribal consultation should commence early in the planning process, in order to identify and discuss relevant preservation issues and plan how to address concerns about confidentiality of information obtained during the consultation process. http://www.achp.gov/pdfs/consultation-with-indian-tribes-handbook-june-2012.pdf. Phil Hunt. 115.186.229.2 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... some editors ... reference Wiki policies. — That's because Wikipedia policies determine how Wikipedia works. It's all very well to cite the policies of other organisations but Wikipedia follows Wikipedia's policies, not other organisations' policies. As I have suggested before: if you feel strongly enough that Wikipedia should have a policy about excluding the location of sensitive sites, then raise a proposal to create such a Wikipedia policy. Starting points for creating a policy: WP:POLICY#Proposals, WP:PGLIFE. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we already heard very often here, that Wikipedia ONLY follows its own policies. But what is the policy-following approach in cases where existing policies actually DO NOT address the real issue at hand (and please do not repeat to "create such a policy", this is not feasable to solve the actual case. It would probably take a few years to go through this process, as the issue is very sensitive - and nobody wishes to keep this issue here open for this long time). Shouldn't Wikipedia in such a case follow a general rule like "if there is no actual policy that addresses the issue, then Wikipedia editors should use common sense"? Is it really Wikipedia's intension to ignore any other existing code of conduct, only to stick to their own - non-existing - policies? I am really baffled about the discussion that is going on here...91.130.31.164 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Ruediger.schultz (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the policy-following approach in cases where existing policies actually DO NOT address the real issue at hand — We follow the policies, guidelines and practices that do exist, including:
Mitch Ames (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So after all of this discussion, you're going to go simply revert back to your initial argument of "encyclopaedic value"? We have been round and round about this issue for weeks. We have presented evidence on every front, cited source after source showing the issues, and even provided a signed letter from the Aboriginal community (which the "opposition" asked for)... yet your response is to continue stretching the self-made Wiki policies and say "Well, too bad. We want it up so all else be buggered"? If you actually look closely, most of the sites on the web do not provide the exact coordinates to the arrangement. The Megalithic portal, for example, points to the nearby You Yangs mountain range. As does the UNESCO portal and many others. There is no encyclopaedic benefit to having the coordinates on the Wiki page, but there is a clear detriment when putting them up can have a damaging affect on the site. This is gobsmacking. Dhamacher (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So after all of this discussion, you're going to go simply revert back to your initial argument of "encyclopaedic value"? — 91.130.31.164/Ruediger.schultz asked a specific question "what is the policy-following approach in cases where existing policies actually DO NOT address the real issue at hand", so I answered it as best I could. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is also WP:IAR, WP:NOT to be considered as well as well as WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:BATTLE and WP:BITE its also about being civil and courteous WP:CIVIL. Request for definitive letter from custodians asked for and recieved, cite UNESCO as publishing co-ords so WP should, UNESCO notify of the removal/generalisation of the coords to protect the site yet that person gets bitten and abused and told 2 edits isnt enough WP:AGF says no edit is enough to register an opinion, and then in further response a sea of blue WP links get thrown at the editor. This ceased to be a discusison about what is in the best interest of the subject and become a fine example of why Wikipedia has such a bad time attracting new editors. Gnangarra 07:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but as per WP:GEO#Usage guidelines this says "in general", so there is NOTHING FORCING you to add these specific coordinates in this very case, OK?
as stated like a hundred times before, this issue is not about cencorship, and by the way the very page you cite here also states

And finally… Wikipedia is not any of a very long list of terrible ideas. We cannot anticipate every bad idea that someone might have. Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated. (See WP:BEANS—it is in fact strongly discouraged to anticipate them.) In general, "that is a terrible idea" is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible.

And as a number of people here and (as Phil pointed out) professional organisations working in the field all over the world have pointed out: "publishing such coordinates IS A TERRIBLE IDEA" (and indeed may violate several laws in several countries!). Each and every argument you name to make your point has actually been repeatedly "debunked", but you could not overcome a single argument of the "dont include editors", other than repeatedly cite "NOT-CENCORED". It might help if you could finally state the actual real reason, why you are so desperate to publish these coordinates, I really do not understand it. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this matter can be resolved here; it needs wider discussion and possibly explicit modification of existing policies. I'm not sure which would be a better place to raise it; WP:Village pump (policy)? The last discussion there that I can find was the inconclusive Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#Unsourced geocoords and it's subsection "Arbitrary deletion of coordinates" (2010). Also of interest might be Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations (failed). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading and rereading this whole dispute, I tend to agree with you, that the underlying issue needs larger discussion. But to avoid a "Streisand effect" (as this was mentioned a number of times before) I suggest the four edits of the article before "Revision as of 11:21, 12 October 2016 Dhamacher" need to be "temporarly hidden" somehow before starting such a discussion. Otherwise the coordinates in dispute will most certainly be spread far beyond any possibility of the rightful owners to protect the site from damage by (illegal) trespassers, making the discussion meaningless! And please dont shout "NOT-CENCORED" right away, but keep in mind what is at stake here for all indigenous people all around the globe.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not include for now. The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture. It is more important - to wikipedia's goals - to preserve the subject of an article than to preserve the article. Tourism may be a cause of damege - says our own article about it: «Archaeological tourism walks a fine line between promoting archaeological sites and an area's cultural heritage and causing more damage to them, thus becoming invasive tourism» (check the article for references, it has them). So we should follow the main reliable sources and err on the safe side and do not publish them, unless and until the large majority of main cultural bodies publishes the coordinates. - Nabla (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If people are so concerned about alleged violation of the site, wouldn't it be simpler if they take steps to have this article, and its interwiki & Wikidata offshoots, deleted? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
are you serious with this comment? Just reread this discussion here, where we ONLY ask to NOT-PUBLISH the exact coordinates, and are facing a never-ending bombardment with the two words NOT-CENCORED and ENCYCLOPEDIC VALUE. And now try to imagine how much more difficult an approach to delete-this article would actually be (and what a storm of outrage this would likely cause).Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing the article deletion, we are discussing the inclusion or not of some specific information. - Nabla (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much a fait accompli, but a restoration of the status quo. This whole discussion occurred when an editor removed, not added, the coordinates. There was never consensus to remove the coordinates in the first place. The RfC question was actually poorly written. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, as to status quo, thanks. Anyway, waiting a further day or two does not hurt the final outcome, if it is for inclusion; yet including the coordinates now would hurt the intended outcome, if it is for not inclusion. Given that I ask, and thank, the patience in not including the coordinates. I tried to raise the attention to this needing a closure, so hopefully it will not take too long. - Nabla (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC expired on 17 November. There was no consensus not to return to the status quo ante. The revert which removed the coordinates ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus not to do what you want" is not "consensus to do what you want". The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When the coordinates were originally removed, they should have been restored per WP:STATUSQUO while discussion was underway, so restoration would be appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are aware that publishing these exact coordinates during the discussion whether they should be published is in fact untermining the whole discussion (regardless of whatever any kind of WP:WHATEVER says). Is this, what you really try to achieve, underminig the whole discussion, and if consensus is reached to "not publish", the coordinates would be published anyway? All your remarks actually point towards a "hidden agenda".Ruediger.schultz (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The normal procedure is that when an edit is is contested, the article restored to the status quo and discussion then takes place on the talk page, with the editor who made the edit (i.e. removal of the coordinates) seeking consensus for his edit (i.e. removal of the coordinates) to be restored. While discussion was underway the coordinates should have been left in the article and not edited until there was consensus to remove the coordinates. I suggest you have a good read of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Given that 80% of your 10 total edits to Wikipedia, and all of your edits since 2012 have been to this discussion, I wouldn't be accusing others of having hidden agendas. You might also care to read WP:SPA. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend, while again thanking your patience in not getting the coordinates back, I ask you to also remember of wp:IAR ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."), as you surely understand why in this case not publishing the coordinates makes sense, regardless of standard RfC procedures; and wp:BITE ("Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular.").
IAR is not justification for ignoring rules at will, and I don't see how removing valid content is improving the encyclopaedia. If you look at the recent posts you'll see it was Ruediger.schultz who accused others of having a hidden agenda, and I have a right to respond to such unfounded allegations. I'd hardly call him a newcomer, despite the low edit count. He first edited here 4 years ago, and then was completely absent until this discussion. I have already addressed this previously,[24] it seems strange that Ruediger.schultz only appeared after a four year absence after Dhamacher mentioned that the site showing the coordinates was run by his colleagues, that he had spoken to them, and that one of the only two edits that Ruediger.schultz had made prior to appearing here was to add a link to that very site. I expressed concern that there may be some meatpuppetry here and that concern has not disaappeared. I've had quite a bit of experience at WP:SPI and I've almost always been right, so it's something of which I'm very wary. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coordinates - source?

[edit]

Hello Cunard, you reinstated some coordinates following your RfC review close. I think one question remains: what are the sources for those coordinates? I see none on the article. There is one 200+ page document which I have not read in full, off course, I only did a cursory search for coordinates, and I may have missed some other. The Unesco page has 37.8956°S, 144.4662°E, Ray Norris' work has 37º S, 144º E. Both are different from yours. Nabla (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the RfC close review:

Editors noted that the coordinates were sourced to UNESCO's http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1, which is archived at http://archive.is/QF7mZ.

The archive.is page lists the coordinates I restored. Whether this archived version of the UNESCO page is a sufficient source for the coordinates given that the original page no long has the coordinates was not discussed in the RfC or the RfC close review, so there is no prejudice against a new discussion about that. Cunard (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard:. So, if some source updates its content, we use the archived content, not the current one? Nabla (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If a source updates its content we would use the updated data. However if a source removes content we use the archived copy. That's what's happened here. UNESCO has removed the location of the stones (and added the location of something that is not the stones). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Especially when the content was apparently updated at the behest of a participant in this discussion, made to deliberately suppress the actual location. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The archived version of the source can be used to verify that the source once had that information. As I wrote above, "Whether this archived version of the UNESCO page is a sufficient source for the coordinates given that the original page no long has the coordinates was not discussed in the RfC or the RfC close review, so there is no prejudice against a new discussion about that." Cunard (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabla: Norris' work is (presumably) an approximate location. Note that it is 37, 144, not (for example) 37.0000, 144.0000. UNESCO's current page explicitly says that the location on that page is "of the local cultural center", not the stone arrangement. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames: I know that. That is my point, we do not have the exact coordinates. (semi-off-topic: it does get on my nerves how people use coordinates down to the centimetre, oblivion of their accuracy :-) Nabla (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have the exact coordinates, per the cited reference.
(If people use over-precise values, direct them to WP:OPCOORD. For Wurdi Youang, the precision of one second of arc, about 30m, is appropriate for a 50m object.)
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames:, thanks Nabla (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And those coordinates can be verified as the location simpply by clicking on the coordinates link. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: I challenge the editors to cite a reliable, refereed source (such as a refereed journal paper, book, etc) to justify providing the coordinates to the site that have been posted. None of the refereed publications discussing Wurdi Youang provide coordinates for the site. Free-to-read versions of examples are as follows:
Hamacher, D.W. and Norris, R.P. (2011). "Bridging the Gap" through Australian Cultural Astronomy. Archaeoastornomy & Ethnoastronomy: building bridges between cultures, edited by Clive Ruggles. Cambridge University Press, pp. 282-290.
Norris, R.P.; Norris, P.M.; Hamacher, D.W.; Abrahams, R. (2013). Wurdi Youang: an Australian Aboriginal stone arrangement with possible solar indications. Rock Art Research, Vol. 30(1), pp. 55-65.
Norris, R.P. and Hamacher, D.W. (2009). The Astronomy of Aboriginal Australia. The Role of Astronomy in Society and Culture, edited by D. Valls-Gabaud & A. Boksenberg. Cambridge University Press, pp. 39-47.
As mentioned previously, the UNESCO heritage portal is not a peer-reviewed source so should not be used (it would be equivalent to citing Wikipedia itself, which is against policy). The fact that the coordinates can be changed on the page the way they have shows that it is not a reliable source for coordinates of the site. If the editors cannot cite a reliable, peer-reviewed source, the coordinates should be removed or only those published should be included (e.g. 37º S, 144º E). Dhamacher (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the UNESCO heritage portal is peer-reviewed is really irrelevant. It's not necessary to cite anything that is easily verifiable, and the UNESCO supplied coordinates are easily verifiable simply by clicking on the coordinates link. Most articles don't include citations because of this. Normally, all that is necessary is to find a site on a map and use those GPS coordinates. As was discussed earlier, we shouldn't be deceiving our readers by giving coordinates that misrepresent the location of the site. This is one place where WP:IAR can be used to justify use of the accurate coordinates because using accurate, unsourced coordinates does improve the encyclopaedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend: We would not be deceiving the readers, specially if we point that on the article. I was thinking... (i really am, I don't have any sure idea about it, it is the first time it comes to my mind, so I am asking you, and all) I was thinking what is main usefulness of having coordinates? If the main point is finding it on a map, then sure, we want the most accurate coordinates to the sites' location. If the main point is helping a reader to insert them on their GPS device and drive/walk/bike down there to visit the palce, then pointing them to a nearby cultural centre is better than pointing them to a area with restricted access. Also, "find a site on a map and use those [...] coordinates" is a clear case of wp:Original Research, is it not? Nabla (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"what is main usefulness of having coordinates?" — It's encyclopaedic information about the subject of the article (i.e. the stones, not the cultural centre) - see numerous previous posts about this. Search this talk page for "WP:5P", "WP:GEO#Usage guidelines", "1,000,000+ other pages". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... I really am not that sure (either way). Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source gives the coordinates to the nearest degree. More detailed coordinates should not be included unless they can be reliably sourced and justified. An archive of a webpage easily editable without citation is not a reliable source. Dhamacher (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard I am deeply concerned about the source you used to verify the coordinates. the archive.is has never before been named in the whole discussion (here and on the admin page). So how did you became aware of this archived version? To be frank, this seems to be a privately run website, that stores snapshots of pages on direct demand of an unknown individual. This most probably does not comply with Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. We dont even can be sure that source is not being tampered.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

archive.is is a frequently used web archiving service on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 4 where the community approved unblacklisting the website. I became aware of the archived version when I checked whether a copy existed there. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
frequently used? the RFCs you reference clearly draw a picture of a highly questionable source. It was blacklisted by Wikipedia for "I dont know how long", and only got un-blocklisted a few months ago with a clear "we will keep a close look on this one" message. This does not convince me that your choice of "original source" is a decent pick.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard the more I think about your closure, the more questions arise for me. You state that you actively searched for additional references at archive.is - this means you did NOT base your closure decision on the presented information but actively took sides in the dispute by adding more information that is in favor of one side of the dispute. This appears to violate the "requirement to NOT being involved in the dispute" for the person to act as a closer. I am challenging your neutrality in this RfC! Ruediger.schultz (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin closure - conclusion?

[edit]

Cunard yet another question raises over your conclusion of the administrative review. The RfC originally asked "should the coordinates be included", the RfC closer Mr.X decided, that "there is no consensus to include the coordinates". This closure was challenged by Mitch Ames on the Administrator Talkpage. You decided that there is "no consensus to overturn the previous decision". So the current status of the RfC is that the original closure "no consensus to include the coordinates" is endorsed. Correct? And yet, you conclude that based on your desicsion, the coordinates should be included in the article? I cannot understand how this can be a valid conclusion.

This looks like we are in a situation, where regardless of the RfC, the coordinates are published: 1) if the RfC closure would have been "consensus to include the coordinates", they would have been included. 2) if the RfC closure would have been "no consensus to include the coordinates", they would have been included anyway, because they were already included once. So the whole discussion was a hoax from the beginning?

This seems to be a very bold interpretation of the Wikipedia policies at a whole. I cannot belief this is actually covered by the policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruediger.schultz (talk • contribs) 07:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


You are correct that the coordinates would remain on the page if there is "consensus to include the coordinates" or "no consensus to include or exclude the coordinates". The coordinates only will be removed if there is "consensus to remove the coordinates". This is not a "bold interpretation of the Wikipedia policies as a whole". Restoring the coordinates was the only outcome available per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus since the coordinates were part of the article's stable version. Had the coordinates not been part of the article's stable version I would have closed the RfC close review as keeping the coordinates out.

This is explained in the close:

This discussion reviewed whether the "no consensus to include the coordinates" RfC close is correct. The result is no consensus to overturn. Editors disagreed on how much weight should have been given to WP:NOTCENSORED, ethical concerns, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Usage guidelines.

The RfC closer MrX noted below about the "no consensus" RfC close: "Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close."

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says:

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

The disputed coordinates were added on 1 December 2015. They were first removed 10 months later on 12 October 2016. The removal was disputed on 12 October 2016 and the RfC was opened on 18 October 2016. Editors noted that the coordinates were sourced to UNESCO's http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1, which is archived at http://archive.is/QF7mZ.

Since the coordinates remained in the article uncontested for 10 months, they became part of the article's stable version. The coordinates were in the article's last stable version "prior to the proposal or bold edit". The removal of the coordinates is a "bold edit" to the article's stable version and precipitated the RfC.

Mitch Ames (talk · contribs) wrote:

As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal.

That Mitch Ames did not revert the removal as a courtesy is commendable. It should not result in the coordinates' staying out by default just because the RfC started and ended without the coordinates' being in the article. That would encourage edit warring and dissuade editors from showing such courtesy.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the last stable version for non-BLP related matters should be retained, so the coordinates should be restored and retained unless and until there is a consensus to remove them.

Cunard (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I find it strange that you close a review as no consensus to overturn the RfC closing and then go on and overturn it by adding the coordinates, while the original closer has not. All in all this is a sad moment for me, not new, but another one. Not your closing, strange as it is, but the fact that for some users the only important thing is wikipedia, whatever effect of writing here may have out there on the world is irrelevant. Nabla (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider restoring the coordinates per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus to be an overturn of the "no consensus" close. The RfC close did not determine which version of the article was the stable version, which is defaulted to in the case of "no consensus". The close of the RfC close review made that determination.

Cunard (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this indeed is the fundamental misunderstanding here. The coordinates were NEVER part of the stable article in the first place. The got added by an IP (I am not judging this fact, simply stating it!), and got challenged with the very next edits (although the article was untouched for a number of months). But being untouched cannot mean consensus, as there is no evidence that anybody actually saw this change. And if nobody saw it, who could be "in consensus or not" with it? You are using the exact loophole in the WP consensus policy that MrX in his clarification of his closure explicitly named as "not existing". You cannot edit a low traffic article and if nobody takes note of that, pretend it is accepted.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus makes no mention of reverting back to a version there was a consensus for. The policy merely says "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". First, it is clear that "prior to the RfC proposal", the coordinates had been in the article for 10 months. Second, it is clear that the "bold edit" that prompted the RfC proposal is the removal of the coordinates. Therefore, "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" includes the coordinates. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates were NEVER part of the stable article in the first place. The got added by an IP (I am not judging this fact, simply stating it!) If we're going to state facts, the coordinates were included in the first version of the article in 2011, but were removed without explanation 4 months later.[25] They were restored in December 2015,[26] and remained in the article for 10 months before another unexplained removal.[27] Prior to that removal there were 3 edits made. The coordinates were not challenged with the very next edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious with this comment? Stating that there were 3 edits before the removal on october 12 (and therefore the "challange was not with the very next edits") sounds a bit over-the-top, as all six edits on that day (including 2 AFTER the removal one were done WITHIN 12 MINUTES. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the point in arguing that the "removal was unexplained", when dhamacher opened this discussion the very same minute the edit was done?Ruediger.schultz (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wurdi_Youang&oldid=1192601997"