Talk:Albany Fish Traps

Australia: Western Australia / Noongar / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Albany Fish Traps is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Noongar (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Menang or Mineng[edit]

The article refers to the Menang peoples, with a link to Noongar - which does not mention "Menang", but does include Mineng. Are Menang/Mineng the same people? Possibly Albany Fish Traps should link to Mineng, and possibly that article should also mention "Menang". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unintentional vandalism[edit]

Does anyone have any suggestions for alternative wording for the sentence "Following unintentional vandalism of the site in 2011 ..."? (Related edits: [1][2][3])

The source ref does say "unintentional vandalism", but Vandalism is generally defined as "deliberate", so "unintentional vandalism" does not make sense. The Collins dictionary of law apparently defimes vandalism as "... not necessarily maliciously", but "malicious" is not the same as "intentional/deliberate". Deliberate but well-intentioned (ie not malicious) destruction could be vandalism, by either of the abovementioned definitions, but "unintentional vandalism" (whether or not malicious) appears to be self-contradictory.

Is there another ref that explains exactly what happened in 2011, so that we might word the sentence better? Perhaps just "accidental damage" would suffice? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Albany Advertiser just uses "damaged", which probably makes more sense. This press release explains exactly what happened - can't seem to find a better source though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to be more specific about the damage (without reference to "vandalism" or intent). Mitch Ames (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]