Talk:Wurdi Youang

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

Location

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)

While I understand your concern, the location is of encyclopaedic value and I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that would prevent its inclusion here.

I've asked at WP:AWNB and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia for interested editors to comment here. I'm sure some will have strong opinions on the matter, so I remind all that links to specific Wikipedia policies will be helpful in this discussion.

(The location was removed from the article with this edit. I've not restored it yet, pending comments from other editors.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth this reference refers to the "site at a secret location in the Victorian bush". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using the coordinates for Little River, Victoria; I used a similar approach for former Local government areas in South Australia where it is difficult to work out where the LGA seat of government was located due to the lack of sources.Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Inserting incorrect data would be worse (from an encyclopedic viewpoint) than no data. The problem is not that we don't have the location, it's whether we should include it. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but this is a request from the Aboriginal Traditional Owners of the site and becomes an ethical concern rather than a practical one. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with including the full coordinates (to the usual standard), but "rounding" them a bit (along the lines of Cowdy001's suggestion) would be an acceptable compromise. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The site is on privately owned Aboriginal land and those entering without permission are trespassing. It's true the coordinates have slipped into there public domain, but we try to prevent this whenever possible. I would not consider this "censorship". Having worked at Aboriginal sites for a decade, it is very clear that public traffic to these sites does cause serious damage to them. The Aboriginal owners have asked me to do what I can to prevent the coordinates from being public (as much as possible). I suppose a compromise is to provide rounded coordinates, perhaps something along the lines of 37 50' S, 144 30' E. Dhamacher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with rounding or otherwise adjusting the coordinates. In particular, per WP:EP#Adding information to Wikipedia: "a lack of content is better than misleading or false content" - and deliberately changing the coordinates to a less than appropriate accuracy is "misleading or false". Given the size of the site, the original accuracy of 1 second of arc - about 30 metres - is appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia and is written with a neutral point of view. It is also not censored. We simply don't hide information because it may offend someone. There is already precedent in the form of WP:SPOILER. We don't hide spoilers in movies, TV programs etc, we present the information encyclopaedically. Presenting the coordinates is really no different. Sources already publish the coordinates,[3] so there is nothing to be gained by hiding them here. We certainly should not be rounding the coordinates in the manner suggested. All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and putting in fake coordinates violates WP:N, which is a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• The main concern is that we are dealing with a culturally sensitive site. Ethical considerations should be taken into account. Wiki is usually the first go-to place for information and a lack of readily available coordinates can deter many who might use this information for reasons the Aboriginal owners are concerned about. People have been caught trespassing on the site and it is fairly easily accessible. The locals keep an eye out for trespassers, but having coordinates so easily available is of concern. Multiple surveys of the site have been published in the literature and the site register (AAV Site No. 7922-001), so the evidence can be tested even though the coordinates are not provided. "Public domain" information is an increasingly problematic issue regarding Indigenous cultural heritage, because much of it is made public without the consent or consultation of the Indigenous owners and custodians. Omission of the site coordinates is not censorship and has nothing to do with causing offence. The hard stance on 'neutrality' ignores the ethical issues at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhamacher (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

While the Indigenous people may own (possibly in a traditional sense) the site and/or the cultural heritage, I don't think this implies that they own the knowledge of the location, nor the right to keep it secret.

I realise that this particular case is not about censorship because the specific information (the precise location) might be offensive or culturally sensitive, but since you brought it up: In the more general case of ... Indigenous cultural heritage ... made public without the consent or consultation of the Indigenous owners and custodians", according to WP:NOTCENSORED:

Some organizations' ... traditions forbid display of certain information ... Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.

Mitch Ames (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The coordinates ought to be restored. They're already known and shown at this article's interwiki links. Deliberately omitting them is unencyclopedic and counterproductive (Streisand effect). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• accuracy is the issue here, and in being accurate are we doing harm by spreading the knowledge. Given the nature and significance of the site being inaccurate isnt an issue as those with the need to know the exact location wont use wikipedia as the guide where as those without the knowledge and intent on idiocy will. Just a week or so ago I raise the issue of the changes to all co-ordinates on Australia and the same response used to argue that it didnt matter as WP co-ords arent expected to be used for that purpose. all policies on co-ords says accuracy should be decided on a case by case basis in this case we have a valid reason to not be accurate one the co-ords being used will inaccurate in a months time and the fact that such accuracy isnt necessary. Gnangarra 08:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"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)

"In general" so there can be exceptions, previously the co-ord were added by an ip, the point here is that the locations is being excluded because of the likely hood of damage. Larger scale more generalised location is an alternative option to no location. The point I makes is that the information doesnt need to accurate, because its already been decided that we dont need to be so why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other location, as the 1.5m change is the first of a series of adjustments rather than replicating the previous 200m adjustment. Gnangarra 10:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the relevance of the coordinates being added by an IP. Based on available sources the coords are correct, and verifiable, so that's all that matters. As I noted earlier, all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and the coordinates that were in the article are verifiable, so that's what we should use, not something that is essentially OR and, in the case of the Little River coords, deceptively places the site 7.278km from where it is actually located. The movement of the Australian plate is really irrelevant here. It's moving and there will continue to be periodic changes that, as I also noted at WP:AWNB, the GPS system will smooth out, as it did in 1994. Asking why should this place be an eception to what will happen to every other location is a real furphy. All current coordinates are going to be out by 1.5m. This place will be no different and certainly won't be an exception. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• The problem of course with rounding or inaccurate co-ordinates, is the reader is not aware of this and the co-ordinate is simply in a different location. The result would be that anyone using the co-ordinates to find the location will find a different location, and presumably whatever they were going to do in the first instance, they would then do at that location. I suspect if not advertising the location is the decision, then no location should be given. Even the street address or the Heritage Overlay Map can be used in conjunction with the images, plans and good resolution aerial photographs to work out where the place is. Wikipedia has had a discussion on the inclusion of a disclaimer in this area - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:General_disclaimer/Archive_2#Traditional_Knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_8#Traditional_Knowledge_Disclaimer

• There has also been a separate discussion about disclaimers to deal with representation of deceased Aboriginal people, which might be considered an associated issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_8#Template:Indigenous_Australians.2Fdeceased

the point isnt about traditional knowledge its about whether the site would be harmed by making it more readily available, in this case I believe that the likelyhood of harm is greater than the usefulness claimed to be the reason for its inclusion as @Garyvines:. Gnangarra 09:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Location is encyclopedic knowledge - that's the reason for it to be in this article, just as it is on 1,000,000+ other pages. We might debate the ethics of its inclusion in this case, but an accusation of "editors thumbing their nose at indigenous communities for the sake of thumbing their nose" is itself unhelpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't encyclopedic knowledge: the argument that exact coordinates for every single place intrinsically belong in an encyclopedia is one completely alien to any of Wikipedia's predecessors in human history. They, like us, had to grapple with ethical issues in how they reported content, and not only is it not an unreasonable request not to include absolutely specific GPS coordinates, it's unethical to do so. It objectively does harm, as the traditional owners have stated, there are compelling ethical reasons not to do it, the suggestion that doing this in the case of a sacred site is totally like, say, a skyscraper, displays absolutely no comprehension of or engagement with the ethical concerns about it. I'd call that "thumbing your nose because you can". The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

It has been raised several times that the traditional owners have serious concerns about damage to the fabric of the site with increased traffic, and that this was the reason for the request. I also don't need to even Google to think of several incidents where indigenous sacred sites did suffer damage to the fabric of the sites from increased traffic - some of which we've had to ultimately cover in Wikipedia articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you cite some specific examples of actual objective harm that was/is done by inclusion of the coordinates in a Wikpedia article? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. There isn't a sekrit magical tollgate around indigenous sacred sites that asks "are you coming here from Wikipedia?" and records the answer, but it makes them much easier for people to find, so issues of damage to site fabric due to increased traffic (and direct requests from traditional owners not to do it for that exact reason) become ethical considerations we need to take into account. As the arguments for doing it are extremely weak, we should err on the side of ethical conduct and fulfil a very reasonable request. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

You can't find GPS coordinates in any other encyclopedia in human history, and every other encyclopedia has had to wrestle with ethical issues around the information included. Something is not "encyclopedic knowledge" because you want to include it, and giving the suburb instead of GPS coordinates for a sacred site is possibly the biggest stretch of the definition of "censorship" in actual human history. The lack of ethics displayed here is disgraceful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is frustrating that in 2016 we are still discussing the rights of Indigenous peoples in how they wish to control their heritage. - This is really nothing to do with heritage. It's about suppressing the location of a publicly accessible site, ostensibly for security purposes.

If the traditional owners or custodians of an area do not wish the location of a particular site made public, why can't this be agreed to? - You could ask the same for any publicly accessible place. The point here is that the site is publicly accessible and suppressing its location only on Wikipedia is not going to achieve anything. In any case how do we actually know that the traditional owners or custodians want the location suppressed? We only have the word of one editor, who is not one of those people. If the custodians want the location suppressed, they should contact the WMF directly, and formally, and ask for this to occur.

Comparing this site with famous and decades-long visited places like Uluru and Machu Picchu is a bit cheeky. - Not at all. These are all sites that have traditional owners, are publicly accessible and have their locations published. That a site may not be as popular is really irrelevant.

You can't find GPS coordinates in any other encyclopedia in human history GPS coordinates are a relatively new phenomenom and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. There are lots of things we include that aren't available in other encyclopaediae. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take advantage of available technologies. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

The UNESCO site, as well as publishing the coordinates states "Wurdi Youang is situated in rural agricultural land, with unadvertised public access to the stone configuration." --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The UNESCO heritage portal, run by my colleagues, is out of date - and that is something we are now remedying. In addition to removing the coordinates, over the last few years Aboriginal organisations have obtained ownership of the site and surrounding lands. It is now restricted private land. It is not publicly accessible and agriculture is no longer done around the site. Dhamacher (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Apart from Dhamacher's original request, much of the above appears to be unsubstantiated opinion without supporting evidence - either that harm will/has/happen(ed), or pre-empting views of aboriginal people about whether the place should be known to outsiders. There might also be some confusion between the wurdi youang stone arrangement and the alternative aboriginal name of the You Yangs mountain range. Some of the existing locations given in some on-line sources are quite wrong [4] indicating that the Also, like the Sunbury earth rings, Lake Bolac stone arrangement and Carisbrook stone arrangement, there is no documented or ethnographic evidence of aboriginal association with the sties prior to the 1970s, (see here for example [5] and here [6]) although Aboriginal groups have established strong cultural ties with the sites since then. It is not certain that all Aboriginal people have the same view - here for example is Bryon Powell - Wadda Wurrung Elder, at wurdi youang (the mountain) [7] Note that the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative Limited manages the 800ha Wurdi Youang property near the You Yangs, acquired for them via the Indigenous Land Corporation, [8] and reports the site in annual report and balance sheet [9]; while the The Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation (WAC), trading as Wadawurrung, is the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for Wadawurrung country. [10]. There is also evidence of greater community interest in learning about and visiting the site [11], so that whichever decision Wikipedia makes about including the co-ordinates, will ultimately be siding with one or the other view.Garyvines (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

This argument doesn't fly because "Mitch really really (really!) wants something in the article" does not = "not having it in the article is censorship". I can't think of any other encyclopedia that has GPS coordinates for sacred sites, so it's an editorial decision, and a bunch of important ethical reasons for not including it have been raised, while the only inclusion reasons amount to "but I want to!" The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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 and is one that is very problematic. Would a written request from the Traditional Owners group suffice? Should I have it notarised and signed by witnesses to demonstrate that I'm not fabricating the concern (as you allude to)? Or will this be a wasted effort? I'm not being snarky, I'm being serious. I am willing to do this, but I don't want to go through all of this effort to have yet another wall put up or another claim that this is an unreasonable or unreliable request in the name of "neutrality". Dhamacher (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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 history and I pointed out then that Wikipedia has lots of things that other encyclopaediae don't. I also said that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take advantage of available technologies. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

You're still (deliberately) missing the point: you don't have a policy to support your view, either, because this is an ethical issue that, (in the absence of an actual guideline either way) Wikipedians have to work out like reasonable people. "Mitch really really wants it!" is not a guideline, and while you've drawn some very long bows to try to claim that one or two guidelines support that claim, you've abjectly failed at making that case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I fairly certain that the policy WP:NOTCENSORED has been mentioned, and I'm sure I've already quoted the bit that says "Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic". You might not agree that coordinates are encyclopaedic, we can debate whether they are or are not, and we can debate whether ethics overrides NOTCENSORED, but pretending that "[we] don't have a policy" does not help the debate.

(As to whether coordinates are encyclopaedic, you might want to take that up with WP:GEO; I know it's not a policy, but it does say "In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place", which does suggest that coordinates are encyclopaedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we need to create an appropriate policy so that we can support the argument. Can we agree to move forward on this? In the meantime, I'm quite keen on addressing Phil Hunt's question below: Is there a policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners? As far as I know, there is not and I feel we should err on the side of caution and respect for now. Dhamacher (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

...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)

Examples have been reported in the news multiple times, such as Tasmania, WA, Australia wide and even an ABC 7.30 report I was part of in 2012. I've seen rock art deliberately (and illegally, I might note) re-grooved - sometimes to such a degree that the original engraving is quite distorted (not by traditional owners or rangers - I asked). I've seen rock art motifs scratched out. I've seen stone arrangements deliberately damaged: stones moved, kicked over, and turned into new designs. I've seen Aboriginal paintings covered in graffiti. I've seen engraving sites of culture heroes covered in mountain bike tracks. I visit these sites regularly. Rangers take note of damage and Parks and Wildlife have taken down all (or nearly all) signs pointing out heritage sites like stone arrangements and rock art, with only a few well managed sites open to the public (such as the Basin track engravings in Kuringai Chase National Park). Damage and vandalism are due to sites being publicly accessible with increasing traffic as knowledge and popularity of the them spreads. I've seen it. The Aboriginal rangers tell me. It's reported in the literature, on blogs, social media, radio, and on the news. I struggle to understand what kind of evidence you still want to see to be convinced! Dhamacher (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks - they are good examples.Garyvines (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article

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)

• Yes, include the coordinates. They are of encyclopaedic value, WP:NOTCENSORED explicitly says that Wikipedia does not remove material just because someone asks ask to, and the inclusion of the information does not violate any other policy. The coordinates are not secret; they are publicly available on the internet (Google will find them, and two of the online references used in the article include them). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Don't include. Including the GPS coordinates serves no encyclopedic purpose that only including the suburb wouldn't, and this response to "maybe it's a bit unethical to tell traditional owners to get stuffed when they request we not include them" is the most ludicrous attempt at stretching the definition of censorship. It is a reasonable request that Wikipedia not do palpable, real-world harm (through facilitating damage to the fabric of sacred sites as a result of increased traffic). Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include no evidence that inclusion will cause harm. The location is already publically available [12] [13]Garyvines (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include - No clear evidence that the traditional owners/custodians have requested the location be suppressed and Wikipedia is not censored. We have just the word of one editor and WP:AGF doesn't overrule WP:V. We can't accept what amounts to an original research claim. Site is publicly accessible per the UNESCO source I linked to in the section above, which also publishes the coordinates. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to determine whether harm will be caused. We should follow WP:NPOV and simply present the information with no opinion. Other reasons are stated in the section above. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

we dont need co-ordinates to verify the sites existance, if we were it would be original research we use reliable sources for verification which this article already has. Gnangarra 08:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said that we needed co-ordinates to verify] the sites existence. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If we dont need co-ordinates to verify the sites existence then the inclusion of co-ordinates offer no encyclopedic value. Gnangarra 09:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a rather silly thing to say. There are lots of things we don't need, but that doesn't mean they are not encyclopaedic. Strictly speaking, we don't need this article. Does that mean it's not encyclopaedic? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

• Just a comment that similar matters have been discussed pretty extensively over at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. (The U.S. NHRP lists most archaeological sites as "address restricted" even in cases in which their locations are widely known and publicized.) A few relevant discussions are here, here, here, and here; others can be found by searching the project's talk archives. I don't think any real consensus has been reached on the matter, but the variety of opinions may be of interest. Since one of my main interests here is putting coordinates into articles, I have mixed feelings about suppressing them, but I can certainly understand the point of view of those who want to protect sensitive sites from vandalism or other harm. Deor (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include per UNESCO. It's not the first time we have been here; I seem to remember that US potholers are not keen on the locations of caves being made available e.g. this, but I've yet to read of a nexus between the publication of coordinates and harm to the subject of the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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[14] seams to indicate that other site have been harmed though the cause isnt mentioned. Gnangarra 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no doubt that other sites have been harmed. Indeed, one of the examples below says that "1,700 engraved boulders were removed to make way for the North West Shelf gas plant on Western Australia’s Burrup Peninsula in the early 1980s". However, there still remains no correlation between coordinates being published on Wikipedia and the damage that sites have suffered, as much as some people might want there to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't include. If this can be seen as a test case or precedent, then if the views of Indigenous peoples from different parts of the world were taken I'm sure they would err on the side of confidentiality. How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue? I've just done a quick poll and 2 out of 2 I've asked do not want this location made public (it's not their country so they would leave it to the custodians for a final decision). My colleagues also do not want sites in their areas made public, unless it was done carefully and proper site conservation management plans were put in place. If those sitting on keyboards can boast no actual evidence of damage to places that are made publicly known on wiki, I would suggest doing some fundraising and put some money in so site managers can do the research and prove what we all know to be anecdotally true - the more sites are known, the more they are visited and the more sites are visited, the more impacts they receive. These places do not regenerate. You can't just re-post them and make them better. Many of us see site damage on a daily basis from the malicious and the ignorant and it is utterly depressing. This is not merely a debate about intellectual or conceptual freedoms. I could post the location of scores of sites within 20 minutes of where I type this and the knowledge would not add one scrap of protection for them, other than to preserve a record digitally of what they used to be like before being degraded. I would ask people to follow current Indigenous heritage management policy and not publish the location of sites without the custodians' permission. Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners? Phil Hunt. 115.186.229.2 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How many Indigenous people have the editors above asked regarding this issue? - Original research is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

probably the same amount as those who want to publish it, and ignore the news reports of the request that the sites exact location not be made pubic A farmer who previously owned the land fenced the site to protect it, and in 2006 the land title was handed over to the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative. The Wathaurong people are the traditional owners. The co-operative and elders are working with the researchers at the site, the location of which has been kept largely a secret[15]Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That article doesn't actually say that anybody requested that the location be kept secret; the article merely says that "the location ... has been kept largely a secret". I did search a little while back and could not find any news article that actually said that the indigenous owners (or anyone else) had explicitly asked for the location to be kept secret. (Perhaps the indigenous owners did not need to ask, because they knew that the researchers did not need to be asked - they would keep it secret anyway.) A news article reporting that someone had explicitly asked for the location to be kept secret might be helpful to the debate. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

• Don't include. There is no benefit to publishing the coordinates, but there are clear physical and ethical detriments to doing so. Asking for evidence of damage at the site as a direct result of the coordinates being published on Wikipedia is unreasonable. The UNESCO webpage is out of date and the once-public land is now privately owned by an Aboriginal co-op who as asked to keep coordinates offline as trespassers have been caught on site and damage - both real and potential - has been done. The UNESCO heritage portal administrators (my colleagues) have agreed and will conceal the coordinates (as discussed above). I'm also preparing a report for them based on the new developments and new research. To continue using the UNESCO heritage page as justification is problematic. A letter can be provided by the Traditional Owners if the editors feel it is necessary to overcome concerns about claims of original research. Dhamacher (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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 and included within some of the sources already used for the article, why should they have to ask the WMF when we can chose to respect that request. WMF doesnt enter into content disputes all it can do is take down the article following a legal request we'd all be worse off if that happens. Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Yes, done. Dhamacher (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dont include as per the the public request published in media reports[16] and by the Heritage Council of Victoria[17] recommending protective measures and publishing its location unlike other places in their scope. Gnangarra 08:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Really? You're going to try that? The media report does not say that Wikipedia, or anyone for that matter, has been requested to suppress the location. At best this is WP:SYNTH. The fact that one of the participants of this discussion was mentioned, one that wants the location suppressed, raises other issues. Similarly, the VHD extract contains nothing to support the claim. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note as per the requests of @AussieLegend: and @Mitch Ames: I have contacted the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative for clarification on this matter. Gnangarra 09:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• note also - while the Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, has title to the site, this organisation is not made up of traditional owners. The traditional owner group is the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation trading as Wadawurrung, which under the Aboriginal Heritage Act has jurisdiction for issuing cultural heritage permits for activities such as archaeological research on aboriginal cultural heritage places.Garyvines (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

I think you have it round the wrong way. The Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-operative, based in Geelong, is the owner of the land since the Indigenous Land Corporation transferred it to them in 2006. As far as I am aware there are no members in the Co-op who trace their ancestry to Wada wurrung language group people. The Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation, based in Ballarat, is the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, for the area that contains the stone arrangement. The Corporation has legal rights over approval of management for Aboriginal cultural heritage places that are located in its RAP area, under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The Corporation was only appointed to RAP status, after the land transfer for the site containing the stone arrangement went thorough. Otherwise they would probably have had a stronger claim against title. The Corporation members claim descent from traditional Wada wurrung language group people. The whole thing is quite complicated, and presents a good reason why we non-Aboriginal people should not try and impose our own views on these sort of arguments, but rely on clearly expressed, supported and documented views of the Aboriginal people themselves. I would suggest that if a change was to be made, it should wait until there is a consensus from both of the two Wathaurong/Wathaurung groups. On the matter of spelling, Ian Clark, in his Aboriginal Languages and Clans, lists 138 variants of the spelling of the language group name, with 'Wada wurrung' the preferred spelling used by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Garyvines (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Great news, just forward the email to info-en@wikimedia.org someone from OTRS will confirm the details, its then held on record and then put a notice on the page stating the OTRS ticket number. Splitting hairs of Co-op vs Corp is just that splitting hairs, as for 138 different spellings thats no big deal most Indigenous groups have the same issues and it stems more from the time, who recorded the name, and their origins(English, Italian, Latin, Spanish, German, Dutch) than its does with the actual people. Gnangarra 10:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not splitting hairs - they are two quite separate organisations and do not necessarily agree with each other about cultural heritage matters. As explained above. the Geelong Co-op is not made up of traditional owners as far as I am aware. Some of the people involved are from the Western District around Framlingham and others from all around Victoria and Australia. The Ballarat Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation does represent traditional owners of Wada Wurrung descent and has a separate legal role in managing Aboriginal Heritage, and so should be acknowledged in any discussion about the Wurdi Youang site. I note that there are conflicting instructions about who you need to get permission from to visit the site - e.g. Wathaurung corporation = [18], Wathaurong Co-op = [19]. The point about spelling was just to indicate the reason that the two groups use a different spelling of Wathaurung, it was not an argument for which group should be consulted.Garyvines (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You keep constantly shifting the goal posts. This is not productive. My request did not come from me as some wanna-be white do-gooder. It was from the traditional custodians. I have emailed the letter Dhamacher (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way are the goal posts shifting? The request for suppression needs to come from someone who is actually authorised to make the request. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Thank you to Dhamacher for doing all this work. It is unnecessary in my view. I’ve read and re-read the comments and it still comes across as one group of people using a collection of Wiki policies to justify including the location of a potentially vulnerable place merely for some intellectual idea that it should be made public. Who made Wiki and its editors judge and jury in this case? Why is Wiki and its policies more important than normal codes of conduct? How are the editors (including myself) elected, selected or authorised to speak on this matter? Why is Wiki more important than those who have cultural ties, custodial responsibilities, land owner/manager responsibilities and/or site managerial responsibilities (and how is Wiki in a place to judge that based on a literature review or even from discussing with one group or another?)? Why do custodians etc have to prove who they are and why they have an interest while Wiki editors can simply put whatever information they like without justifying it (other than according to policies most people in the world haven’t read, reviewed or endorsed). The entire premise that the location of any Aboriginal site must have its location made public is, in my view, very disrespectful and misguided given the ethical issue and the potential risks. Do Wiki editors do due diligence, risk assessments, consultation? Are they liable for any damage done that could be linked to their words? Certainly site managers and owners are liable for all sorts of penalties should an incident occur. If this case is an example of how Wiki puts out information, I would be interested if someone could do a review and see how many other Aboriginal sites in Australia (and Indigenous sites worldwide) have been given public locations without any proper consultation with those most likely to be affected by it on the ground. I would be interested to see how many Indigenous communities know that their sites are in the public domain. How many Wiki editors are prepared to put their views at an Aboriginal community meeting, not in the rarefied air of the online? The onus should be on those wishing to make a site public to provide the evidence that it is safe to do so, a common practice for new products, and be prepared to debate it with the communities most affected, rather than expect everyone else to meet some evidence threshold that appears to be made up, again according to policies most have never read. Phil Hunt 115.186.229.2 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil. Your points are spot on the mark. Dhamacher (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect Phil and Dhamacher are over-egg the pudding. It is after all only an encyclopaedia. And the opportunity only exists to influence WP because it is an open consensus-community. It would be far more difficult to influence a commercial encyclopaedia, or one of the mystical psuedo-archaeology websites that choose whether to hide or reveal sensitive information based entirely on their own self interest and conspiracy mindsets. There is in fact a larger ethical question about whether a single group can determine whether information should be available to outsiders or not regardless of their cultural connection to the place. This is really the question being debated, not the cultural rights of a particular group.Garyvines (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Include – The coordinates ought to be restored. They're already known and shown at this article's interwiki links. Deliberately omitting them is unencyclopedic and counterproductive (Streisand effect). I also agree with User:Mitch Ames's specific reading of WP:NOTCENSORED: Some organizations' rules or traditions forbid display of certain information about them online. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to understand how leaving coordinates of an important and vulnerable cultural site off of Wiki is "counterproductive", particularly when the Aboriginal community asks for the coors to be kept off. Counterproductive to what, exactly? UNESCO - the site everyone has been citing over and over as justification to leave the coords on - has just changed them to show the cultural centre nearby. They have also asked me to update the description. And I still don't understand how this is "censorship", either. That bow has been drawn to the extreme in this discussion ad nauseum. Dhamacher (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)