This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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.
"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)
why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other locationis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 historyGPS 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)
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)
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)
I've raised an RfC to get more input. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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 historyand 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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
*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)
This needs to be discussed with much wider input, possibly at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Gnan garra 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue?- Original research is not permitted. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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]Gnan garra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)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.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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) 09:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Cunard ( talk) 07:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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.
"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)
why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other locationis 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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
... 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 historyGPS 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)
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)
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)
I've raised an RfC to get more input. Mitch Ames ( talk) 04:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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 historyand 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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
*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)
This needs to be discussed with much wider input, possibly at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Gnan garra 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue?- Original research is not permitted. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
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]Gnan garra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)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.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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) 09:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Cunard ( talk) 07:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
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)