Talk:Pilbara

Removed pic
I removed Image:Pilbara Regiment.png from the article because it is a grossly inaccurate representation of the region. The actual boundaries of the Pilbara region can be seen in all their glory here. Hesperian 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of 'Pilbara'?
Re the claim made in the article that the name 'Pilbara' comes '...from pilbarra an Aboriginal word for mullet'? Is there a source for this? A source language would be good too. A different claim has been made by linguists who have worked with the languages of the Pilbara, i.e. that it comes from bilybarra (='nothing'), can't recall which language but I'll check asap. Dougg 05:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I inserted that. I got it off the Web I think; whereever it came from, it wasn't particularly reputable, or I'd have provided a citation.  If you have a reference for an different etymology, by all means change it. Hesperian 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Title
Why isn't this at Pilbara region, or even simply Pilbara? --Ptcamn 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I imposed a consistent naming on all of the Regions of Western Australia articles when I wrote them a million years ago. Hesperian 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Snake
Item removed -

'' Due to mining in the Pilbara the rare olive python, which lives only in the Pilbara, is critically endangered because of damage to its habitat. ''

Will reinsate in correct section (snakes are not a region) if a cite is found SatuSuro 10:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tonnage
Perhaps someone who understands those danged conversion codes will have a look at the silly tonnage under Railways. Last time I was up there, ore was being shiploaded in tens of millions of tonnes annually, and each rail wagon carried over 100 tonnes. The figures here indicate that just one operator is now exporting 150 m tonnes annually. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Population
I have added a sourced but undated figure for the population in the infobox and lead section which contradicts the number in the body that has no citation. Can anyone find the most recent, reliable figure? I guess the 2011 census results will be the most accurate but they aren't available for a while. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The ABS publishes "estimated regional population" - if you look at 2009-10, and download the XLS for Statistical Local Areas, there are summed statistics which include the Pilbara. That gives a population of 48,610 for June 2010. Orderinchaos 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought it may have the best calculation. However I find the ABS website to be an appalling mess with a very unhelpful search so I don't go there. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I end up downloading the documents and putting them in a structure on my hard drive so I navigate their site as little as possible :P Orderinchaos 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Absence of Aboriginal people in Pilbara
I am curious and a little disturbed about; There is scant reference to any Aboriginal people in this whole region I have added content about Aboriginal people in the Pilbara x 3 and each time it has been deleted. Ok to disagree if the content is wrong or inflamatory but this content was gentle and factual(Typically strange Australian or personal perspective.."its my way or the highway" type censorship) What possible reason would anyone have for adding all this good content and then to leave off the first Nations people?

Murray M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.98.147 (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits were reverted for two reasons: It's view was not neutral and it absolutely no sources for the statements. All content on Wikipedia has to be verifiable! You are most welcome to add content about the Aboriginal people in the Pilbara, but it has to be a balanced view and it has to be referenced. Your claim of censorship or racism is inappropriate. Calistemon (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I left you a message at User_talk:203.206.104.5 but you are on a dynamic IP so I guess you didn't get it. Yiou can read it there. The bottomline is that content has to come from reliable sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sean
 * I will get to work and develop the text you require
 * Referenced does not mean truth or factual but if that is your criteria I will attempt to meet your requests.

Can you explain no reference to Aboriginal peoples in this entry? Maybe deliberate or just an ommission? I have not used the term racist in any entry. There is certainly a community wide perception of overt,covert and institutionalised racism in our communities (Pilbara near the top of the list) but I do not recall stating this. Perhaps that is how you interpreted my entry. I will gather my "facts" and resubmit. Can you answer my Q about this omission please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.98.147 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Many articles at Wikipedia are incomplete. This one is rated C class on the assessment scale.  Thanks for drawing attention to the omission.  If you can add some neutral information which is referenced with reliable sources that would be good.  I will try to add some information over the next few days as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find a few useful sources in Iron ore mining in Western Australia, which I wrote a while back. Calistemon (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's coverage of indigenous peoples in general isn't great. On the plus side, I was pleasantly surprised at Wikipedia's coverage Indigenous Australian artists. It was far more extensive then I expected.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether that is because we have no Aboriginal editors or whether, for a number of reasons, their access to the internet is restricted, like in remote communities. That in itself could be mentioned here if we found a reliable source. Calistemon (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made a very basic start but have to go now. Amazingly, the article does not seem to mention the 1946 Pilbara strike, which we actually have an article for! Calistemon (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor the British nuclear testing or the Murujuga petroglyphs. Now briefly covered. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added some content too and look forward to any editing and comment. Some of it may appear contencious but all clearly referenced, well known by locals and broadly accepted as true. Yes Shifty, the Pilbara Strike is not noted and like much Aboriginal history their voice and record here is not so loud. It is good to see some focus this way. No criticism of the prior work intended as it is good work, well referenced and documented.

possible additions; The complex changes that have occurred, since the Wik/Mabo Judgement, mining v Indjubundi around fair recompense, early relations, hancocks et al, today.,

Murraym

Pronunciation: ʌ or ə?
Twice now, the pronunciation has been changed from "/ˈpɪlbərʌ/ or /ˈpɪlbrʌ/" to "/ˈpɪlbərə/"—first by in revision 832216253, then by. I reverted the first, but now I'm bringing it here per WP:BRD.

Evidence for the final vowel being /ʌ/, not /ə/:
 * Just Add Water: An oasis in the Pilbara a possible game changer for WA's pastoral industry, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). "Pilbara" is mentioned within the first five seconds of the video, and again at about 0:43. It probably comes up again in the rest of the 20-minute video, but I stopped there.
 * Epic Pilbara, Australia's North West Tourism. The first woman in the video is a US expatriate who speaks with a fairly Australianised accent; the final vowel when she says "Pilbara" isn't very clear to my ears, and it could be /ə/ rather than /ʌ/. The man speaking at 0:37, though, clearly says /ʌ/, and again at 0:56 (which also demonstrates the two-syllable pronunciation).
 * Me. I'm West Aussie and I'm here to tell you it's definitely /ʌ/. The vowel might get realised as a more central [ə], especially in quick or casual speech, but that's phonetic, not phonemic.

-- Perey (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The recordings phonetically might be, but phonemically it's still , as is a checked vowel that cannot occur syllable-finally. Also,  covers both  and  as per H:IPAE § Note 32. --maczkopeti (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept your second point, but on the first—"/ʌ/ is a checked vowel that cannot occur syllable-finally" (emphasis mine)—says who? The description in checked and free vowels admits exceptions. And if we accept that, then I'd argue that the final vowel is better represented as /ɑ/ than /ə/ (though I suppose then someone would object that Wikipedia's IPA for English allows /ɑː/ but not /ɑ/). Schwas are slippery things, but if I deliberately over-pronounce that syllable in "Pilbara", it's /ɑː/, whereas in "Edinburgh" (to steal an example from your H:IPAE footnote), my over-pronunciation would turn the final vowel into /ɜː/.
 * I admit I'm neither phonologist nor phoneticist, nor any kind of linguist except strictly amateur, so if you tell me confidently that yours is the correct phonetic transcription in this case, I'll accept it. But my first suspicion was that this was some non-Australian English rule being applied in error, because in my mind and to my ear, it's clearly the vowel of "up" or the interjection "huh". -- Perey (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions indeed, but they're rare, and mostly interjections and loadwords. is a diaphoneme, meaning it doesn't necessarily represent the sound [] (note the square brackets), but rather the sound of $⟨a⟩$ in words like, which could also be  or  depending on the speaker's accent. --maczkopeti (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody figure this out?
In the chart “Definitions” it lists the area of Pilbara as 17,823,126 hectares (which would be 178,231 sq.km.) But in the next section “General” it says The Pilbara covers an area of 508,000 square kilometres (196,000 sq mi),[6] cited to a reliable-looking government source. These numbers are very different. Are they talking about two different things, or two different regions? Somebody who understands Australian geography will have to figure this out, I am just an ignorant Yankee. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only people who have significantly edited this article recently, maybe you can solve this mystery. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The first figure (17,823,126 ha) is the area of the Pilbara bioregion, aka the Pilbara shrublands ecoregion. The Pilbara political region is larger, and extends eastwards to include a thinly-populated swath of the Great Sandy Desert. The ecoregion/bioregion has its own article, but this article is ambiguously about both the political region and the bioregion.Tom Radulovich (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just copyedited the text to clarify the issue. Bahudhara (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry not to be able to help you answering this question. I only added a minor contribution to the Pilbara page after I contributed to that of Uluru mostly in the French language. I am not a specialist about Australia, just curious of this wonderful continent. Shinkolobwe (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a very quiet western australian noticeboard that sometimes attracts editors who might have the capacity to understad the problem, but there is not guarantee - Tom Radulovich has given the best answer so far... however the place better to discusss is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia - sometimes somebody turns up... JarrahTree 12:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom Radulovich, for clarifying the situation, and thank you, Bahudhara, for explaining it in the article. The article no longer looks self-contradictory. (It would be even easier to understand if we were consistent in the units we use - either sq.km./sq.mi. or hectares/acres - but that's another issue for another day.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)