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)

• 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)

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)