Talk:Gibraltar Falls

Restored information
Sourced, relevant information appears to have randomly been removed from the article. I have restored it. Before removing information randomly again, please comment on talk page to explain why. --LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you even bothered to check the info you readded? I have provided reasons in the edit summaries. You have e.g. readded the clearly incorrect Bonzle information (incorrect in the sense that you used it for things it doesn't claim, i.e. distances), and Bonzle isn't a reliable source anyway. You claim that Ginninderra Falls is in ACT, not in NSW? Strange, that's not what the sources tell, neither ones you prefer nor truly reliable ones like or  or . The archaelogical dig is not in the source you provided. having a source for an announced walk, and another one from the next week to say that it did happened, is serious overkill for such a trivial issue. Fram (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that the Ginninderra Falls is in the ACT. You seem to be having trouble with comprehension. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right... My edit summary has "Ginninderra falls isn't even in the ACT", the immediate revert of it by LauraHale is "It is clearly in the ACT. It is not in New South Wales". Wanna discuss "comprehension" or do you prefer to drop your incorrect remarks? Fram (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The article claims that "The Australian Heritage Commission published a report": actually, it didn't; two authors made a report for the AHC, and the report was never published and is only available through one copy at the university (see e.g. and . Hardly a reliable, published source. Fram (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Working through Fram's rough list above and concur. Some of the info is not supported by sources provided. The Bonzle one is really bad. If I AGF the people who have (re)inserted it have actually read it, then competance is an issue here. Its not a reliable source anyway, but when it doesnt even say what you are using it for, thats worse. Ginninderra Falls is not in ACT, its in NSW - Canberra is by far the closest urban link, but its over the border in NSW. A better (well more accurate) wording would be 'Its not the most well-known falls in the general area'. But I would want to see a source actually saying that. Still looking at other issues, just posting an update. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The truly incorrect info is gone (I think), the remaining problems are of a lesser magnitued, more to do with padding the article (the opening hours of the car park and the fact that is has a barbecue are touristic information, not encyclopedic; the description of who is on that painting has nothing to do with the Falls; and having two identical sources (the Canberra Times, currently sources 10 and 12) is a bit of overkill as well) and I have given my opinion of the source used for the archaeological dig (not a published source, only available in one university library, the representation of it here is incorrect). Fram (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC) AHC report - Quite clearly TO the AHC, not BY the AHC. However what disturbs me is its usage, its clearly being wedged in there to support some sort of notability by implying the AHC find it of interest. As its not authored by (and I cant see anything confirming it was even commissioned by them) the AHC, the source in that context is not reliable. If there was info on the Falls that was in the article that was discussed in the report that would be a correct use of it as a source. There probably IS such info in there that could be used, given the nature of the report, but it would still probably be a weak source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a stretch to call the report "unreliable". If it's written by experts in the field, I don't think the tiny distribution is much of a concern; WP:RS lists dissertations and theses, which are often similarly difficult to lay hands on. That said, until someone's actually looked at the source (for all we know, it could basically say "we looked, but didn't find anything significant"), I don't see that it belongs here in the article. The Gibraltar-not-Gibraltar business is cute, but if there isn't that much to say about a subject (which appears to be the case here), we should accept that and move on, rather than trying to slather it with enough filler to get through DYK. Choess (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By 'not reliable' I meant 'not reliable for the use it is being put to here'. I'm sure its very reliable for what it contains/was written about. That however was not what it was being used for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I quite agree with your point then. My apologies, I knee-jerk a bit when I see "reliable", as I've seen failure to comply with the precise letter of WP:RS used as a lever to remove sources that were quite unobjectionable in context. But I see no reason to keep it if the reference hasn't actually been consulted (beyond its title) to build the article. Choess (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to buy into the debate over this article too much, but this edit by Only in death was not well considered - especially the edit summary of "Remove info - source of dubious reliability". A couple of minutes Googling was sufficient to establish that the authors of the report are qualified experts in relevant fields (here they are: ), and the report was written under the oversight of the Australian National University's consulting arm at the time, ANUTECH. Given that the for-profit consulting units of leading universities aren't in the habit of doing things for free, it's reasonable to assume that the report was commissioned by the Heritage Commission as part of its program of work. As reports of this type generally cover their topic in depth, these seems to be no reason to not mention it in the body of the article given that it's likely to be the most comprehensive work anyone has ever written on the topic. As such, I've restored it, albeit with tweaked wording to note that it was commissioned rather than published. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Reasonable to assume' doesnt really cut it for sourcing for me I am afraid. AHC keeps fairly detailed records and I couldnt find anything to say they commissioned it. Likewise there is no info that it was ever published by them (as you would expect a report they commissioned would be). I have no problems with the existance of the report as stated above, its undoubtedly completely reliable given who wrote it for the info it contains, however nothing sourced TO the report was in the article. The report was, on the face of it, being used to support that the AHC find Gibraltar Falls of interest enough to make it notable. And that was what was unreliable about it. I suppose the edit summary could have been clearer, but I made my position quite clear on the talkpage above. (Also see Fram's talkpage for more on that, he can comment here but I think he did the similar sort of checks I did into the reports origin) If someone wants to get a copy and source stuff to the report, thats fine by me, there is probably quite a bit of info in it that would be relevant. Given its quite difficult to get hold of (yes I did try, unlike most stuff *published* by the AHC directly its not generally available) that may be a problem. Assuming good faith, I would consider it merely a minor issue of not checking the source properly. If I wanted to be harsher, I could say it was leaning towards padding a barely notable article in order to hit the minimum character mark for a DYK. Since there are other issues with source-misreading on the same article however I will happily go with the first one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit nonplussed as to why you want it in. At the moment all its being used is to say 'A report was done'. Notability isnt inherited, so that the AHC is notable and (as I say above) a report was prepared for them, doesnt make the report itself notable. As nothing is being sourced to the report, why is it there? It adds nothing to the article without some explanation of its content. For all we know the report says 'This is a boring place with nothing of interest'. Needs context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored it only as it was removed on questionable grounds. On consideration, it might work best as a 'further reading' entry. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit also appears unjustified. The first and third citations are reliable sources which clearly support the material attributed to them (the third source is a statement by someone who's apparently a "authority on Canberra's bush waterways"). I can't see what's in the second ref, but even if it wasn't accurate there's no good reason to remove the other material. I've just restored the first and third components of this material. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar Falls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416041611/http://www.tams.act.gov.au:80/play/pcl/get_out_there/camping/woods_reserve to http://www.tams.act.gov.au/play/pcl/get_out_there/camping/woods_reserve
 * Added tag to http://cbn.canberrabirds.org.au/documents/cbnvol29no4.pdf#page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)