This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article refers to the Menang peoples, with a link to Noongar - which does not mention "Menang", but does include Mineng. Are Menang/Mineng the same people? Possibly Albany Fish Traps should link to Mineng, and possibly that article should also mention "Menang". Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative wording for the sentence "Following unintentional vandalism of the site in 2011 ..."? (Related edits: [1] [2] [3])
The source ref does say "unintentional vandalism", but Vandalism is generally defined as "deliberate", so "unintentional vandalism" does not make sense. The Collins dictionary of law apparently defimes vandalism as "... not necessarily maliciously", but "malicious" is not the same as "intentional/deliberate". Deliberate but well-intentioned (ie not malicious) destruction could be vandalism, by either of the abovementioned definitions, but "unintentional vandalism" (whether or not malicious) appears to be self-contradictory.
Is there another ref that explains exactly what happened in 2011, so that we might word the sentence better? Perhaps just "accidental damage" would suffice? Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article refers to the Menang peoples, with a link to Noongar - which does not mention "Menang", but does include Mineng. Are Menang/Mineng the same people? Possibly Albany Fish Traps should link to Mineng, and possibly that article should also mention "Menang". Mitch Ames ( talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative wording for the sentence "Following unintentional vandalism of the site in 2011 ..."? (Related edits: [1] [2] [3])
The source ref does say "unintentional vandalism", but Vandalism is generally defined as "deliberate", so "unintentional vandalism" does not make sense. The Collins dictionary of law apparently defimes vandalism as "... not necessarily maliciously", but "malicious" is not the same as "intentional/deliberate". Deliberate but well-intentioned (ie not malicious) destruction could be vandalism, by either of the abovementioned definitions, but "unintentional vandalism" (whether or not malicious) appears to be self-contradictory.
Is there another ref that explains exactly what happened in 2011, so that we might word the sentence better? Perhaps just "accidental damage" would suffice? Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)