Talk:Rabbit-proof fence

Earlier comments

Is the template {{Current Australian COTF}} really supposed to go on the page itself? It seems kinda... meta. pfctdayelise 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes. The main collaboration notice is on the article page of Instinct. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

Nice map Astrokey. Red/Green colourblind people will have difficulty telling fence 1 from fence 2 (you can see for yourself here [1]). I also think that its a good idea to have labels and keys big enough to read in the thumb.--nixie 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks, I just checked here [2] and the colours seem distinguishable. Ill add short description to caption so it makes sense from the thumb, that should be ok for now, might make the text larger later Astrokey44 05:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) LOL

state barrier fence

The intro says that "The State Barrier Fence of Western Australia[1], formerly known as the No. 1 Rabbit-Proof Fence, the State Vermin Fence and the Emu Fence.."

Is the fence really known as the "state barrier fence" now? Just because it has officially changed its name does not mean thats the name everyone gives it. Also it is three fences, not just the No.1 Does the term "state barrier fence" describe just one fence or all of them? Astrokey44 11:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the most common name is just "rabbit-proof fence". And if the barrier fence name doesn't apply to all of the components of the fence, that's not very useful. --bainer (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The official name was taken from the official Western Australian Government website. Since it's an official source, the name it mentions is the official one. Brisvegas 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions not yet answered

Is the fence still maintained? By whom? If not, when did it stop being maintained, and who made the decision? The article says it was less important after Myxomatosis was introduced, but doesn't say if it continued to be maintained. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[3] says that as of 2001 the fence is still used as an emuproof fence, managed by the Department of Agriculture and the "State Barrier Fence Advisory Committee" (which probably answers the above topic about the official name) Bjmurph 05:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you refer to the official Government link it says: "It remains a key device in protecting Western Australia’s $4.3 billion agricultural sector from devastation caused by animals, and is jointly managed by the Department of Agriculture, the Agriculture Protection Board, the State Barrier Fence Advisory Committee, local shires and stakeholders." So yes, it is still in operation. Brisvegas 08:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that they use only a small part of the original 3 fences today & there are other fences that are used too - this is a map of the "current position" in 2001 Astrokey44 12:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Another question not answered in the article: why are the rabbits considered a pest in Australië? Riki (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the rabbits aren't indigenous to Australia, and were at some point introduced for some reason -- perhaps as meat animals? -- and those that escaped bred and became a pest animal. An explanation of this would be a good inclusion in the article.valereee (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

History of the fence says: Rabbits had been introduced into Australia in 1859 by Victorian grazier Thomas Austin, who imported 24 specimens from England and released them on his Victorian farm.

Rabbits in Australia says: Rabbits were introduced into Australia with the First Fleet, although [...]

Rabbits in Australia supports the latter. I really have no idea what the true story is. Ideas? pfctdayelise 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Rabbits were brought over with the first fleet, but maybe they werent released into the wild until Thomas Austin. Its probably something of folklore that it was those 24 rabbits which gave rise to the umpteen billion rabbits, when there must have been others which escaped before and since Astrokey44 14:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also a contradiction in the title of the story which Rabbit Proof Fence (the movie) was based on. In the introduction, it is cited as 'Molly's Daughter', but later it is called 'Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence'.

images...

Would it be possible to use PD-Australia on any of these images? [4] Or this one (huge) [5]. Here's a bookcover [6], I've asked permission for this one [7] Agnte 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

All of the photos on the first page are captioned as being taken before 1 January 1955, which would make them PD-Australia. None of the other stuff is PD. --bainer (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added the most striking image from that collection. I've got permission to use the other one but not under a CC-type licence, so not sure what to do with it really, it could come under {{PermissionAndFairUse}} Agnte 10:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Both of them are in. Possibly they could be re-arranged in a better way but i'll leave it to others. Also, this should be my 1,000'th edit or thereabouts. yay. Agnte 11:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

ACOTF

Congratulations to all who edited Rabbit-proof fence and Dingo fence while it was Australian Collaboration of the fortnight.

• 12 contributors made 46 edits
• The article increased from 327 bytes to 9981 bytes - 30.5 times longer
• See how much it changed
• Astrokey44 also more than tripled the length of Dingo Fence

--Scott Davis ^Talk 13:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say congratulations to the people who worked on this (I meant to, but somehow never got around to doing the research). It is a seriously impressive improvement, huge kudos, and yay community effort! pfctdayelise 14:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

3 indigenous girls use the fence...

There are two different dates for when the girls (from the film) followed the fence. First 1920s is mentioned, then is is stated that they undertook the journey in 1931. I have no idea which is true ;-) 193.120.81.130 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They were put into the Moore River mission in 1931, and although I am not entirely sure about the date of their escape, it was certainly within a short time after that, so I've made the lead paragraph say 1930s instead of 1920s. I also changed the wording of that paragraph slightly; it still makes clear that the story was the story as told in the film and the book, but it doesn't (unlike perhaps the previous wording) suggest that the story was made up. --bainer (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't "rabbit-proof fence" redirect to this article?

Currently, if you search for "rabbit-proof fence" using the search box at the left, you'll be redirected to Rabbit-Proof Fence (film). Shouldn't "rabbit proof fence" redirect to this article? I think that when most people search for the term, they want to read about the actual fence rather than the film. --Bowlhover 02:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, "rabbit-proof fence" always got you here, and still does. "rabbit proof fence" (no hyphen) has been fixed so it now points here instead of the film. "Rabbit Proof Fence" and "Rabbit-Proof Fence" (capital letters) take you to a disambiguation page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

NY TIMES ARTICLE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?ref=science

(I think this was added because it points to an interesting observation within the fenced area: "Above the native vegetation, the sky is rich in rain-producing clouds. The sky on the farmland side is clear." And a scientific study on this phenomena. -- llywrch 02:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Ambiguous tree types

In the "Construction" section there are a few tree types cited with inappropriate or ambiguous links. Mulga is a dab page, wodjil isn't linked at all (seems to refer to any or all of Acacia resinimarginea, A. beauverdiana, A. signata or Lupinus luteus), pine is probably okay, jam is totally irrelevant (I've removed the link), and tea tree is a dab page. I would hazard a guess that "jam tree" means Acacia acuminata and "tea tree" means Melaleuca alternifolia, but I'm not confident enough to actually put the links in. Hairy Dude (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hello,

well done for spotting the problems. I fixed tea tree, jam was vandalism, mulga not sure I will fix this eventually and wodjil is most likely the acacia resinmarginea. You could have just rectified it with the knowledge you had-it's better than what was there prior-so go for it! cheers.--Read-write-services (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness

Shouldn't this article at some point mention how long and to what extent the fence was effective in controlling the spread of rabbits? Seems like a pretty big omission.192.17.213.80 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That would be valuable content. Do you know where such material is available in a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you are dealing with Australians here, dude. Any attempt to post "criticism" of the Rabbit Proof Fence will be instantly deleted. The only reason my comment here hasn't been deleted yet are that they are too stupid to have figured out the existence of the discussion tab. (Here's an exercise for you: make a nice garden filled with carrots, then surround it with a wire fence and see what happens. Let me know how it turns out ;-))John Chamberlain (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I know there was some humour intended there, but a wiser person would have checked up and discovered very easily that I'm Australian. I WOULD be interested in details of the fence's effectiveness. Does that make you the joke? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There's info on the State Library of Western Australia website about the effectiveness of the rabbit-proof fence. Absent any suggestion of a better RS, I propose to add this info in a new 'Effectiveness' section. Jmc (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've now added the proposed 'Effectiveness' section, with additional content from two other RSs. -- Jmc (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Did it work?

I was curious to know how well it worked, but apart from saying that there were some 'breaches' in the first year, the article doesn't really say. If the wire netting only goes 6 inches below ground, I think it would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Rabbits could easily burrow under that.109.157.229.155 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

are the fences still there?PumpkinSky (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think, given its common name- rabbit-proof fence, it is ESSENTIAL that we make the answer to this clear.

IceDragon64 (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Now answered by my added 'Effectiveness' section. -- Jmc (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Visible from space?

The article mentions that the fence is visible from space. It references a source that just makes this claim without any further information, and it does not seem an authoritative or even a reliable source for such a claim. Being able to see the fence from space (100Km altitude) seems highly unlikely to impossible. The fence might be very long but it's very thin and short, which means that one cannot see it (without optical aid) even from a few kilometres away (or above). Unless the fence follows some distinctive geographical feature you cannot find it in satellite images. Even if you did find it because of a distinctive geographical feature, you are not really seeing the fence. Try it now with google Maps or Earth. You can see the rabbit proof fence *road* but not the fence. If you go to space altitude you cannot even see the road. This reminds me of the urban myth about the Great Wall of China being visible from space. This might sound more reasonable as the Great Wall is many times thicker than the fence and taller, but even this one is not visible from space! A quick google search: "is the rabbit proof fence visible from space" returns several pages that all repeat the same claim, without any further info. Seems like we have a typical Internet "echo chamber" where everybody is copying the claim from a single source (or a copy of the source), probably because it sounds cool and impressive. Unless we find a reliable source that offers some explanation or further information, I suggest we delete this sentence from the article. Aboulis (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I reinstated your previous deletion because there was a source. I hear what you are saying (and indeed think you may well be right) but the problem is that you have an opinion, but you don't have a source (and I agree that it is hard to find sources saying "something isn't true"). Unfortunately by its own rules, Wikipedia can be an Internet "echo chamber" although I note that the source is in this case is not the Internet but a published magazine. Not sure where we go with this. Kerry (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Having a source (any source) does not necessarily establish a point. What we want are reliable sources, and better yet, authoritative sources. For example, on matters about space, NASA would be an authoritative source. I know it can be hard to judge the reliability of a source, but in our specific case I believe my argument is quite straightforward. I propose to edit the article like so: Leave the reference that some sources claim RPF is visible from space, but also state that this is highly unlikely and reference the NASA article debunking the myth about the (much larger) great wall of china being visible from space. Aboulis (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that NASA citation about the Great Wall is helpful. I slightly rewrote what you put in the article to be a bit more "neutral"; let the reader draw their own conclusions. Kerry (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I think your editing made the sentence clearer and more neutral. Aboulis (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

These re added as justifcation of reverson of the previous version: (So find a source that says that. A source that doesn't even mention this structure cannot be used to verify any claims about it.) (undo) (Tag: references removed) and (Nothing to discuss. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Information about an unrelated structure is irrelevant. You need to find a source that specifically says that this structure is not visible from space.)

Obviously, I disagree; the burden of establishing the truth of any example of a folkloric trope like this is on the proponent, and leaving the claim so prominently in the article, unquestioned, is wrong. Anmccaff (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The point of the current text is to let the reader decide for themselves what they want to believe by showing them the claim and the objection both with citations. To me that is more consistent with WP:NPOV than saying definitely you can or you can't see it from space. Kerry (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

By current, I presume you mean When it was completed in 1907, the 1,139-mile (1,833 km) No. 1 Fence was the longest unbroken fence in the world. It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space; however, similar claims about the larger Great Wall of China have been debunked by NASA.

References

...which I'd agree is better than claiming it can be seen from space, without caveat. Anmccaff (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant by current. Sorry, I should have been more precise. Kerry (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand WP:SYNTH? Do you understand WP:V? Have you even read either of them? If a source says something you think is untrue, then find a more reliable source that supports your position. Nothing else will do. Information about an entirely different subject cannot be used in the way that you want to use it. 2.28.156.5 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

For those who did not bother to understand the no original research policy, here is the sentence from it which specifically proscribes what you are edit-warring to do here: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Find a source that explicitly states what you want the article to say. That is your only option here, unless you are here to vandalise the encyclopaedia. 2.28.156.5 (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here, you are edit-warring from IPs, generally without using the talk page, and accusing others of "playing stupid games? Anmccaff (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you're not planning to engage in any discussion of the content. Is it that you are ignorant of the policies of the encyclopaedia, or you just don't think you have to follow them? 2.28.156.5 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Not drawing a conclusion is precisely the point. Both claim and the argument against it are presented with their citations for the reader to consider. To draw a conclusion would be to say that the fence definitely can or definitely cannot be seen from space. The Australian Geographic article that makes the claim about visibility from space mentions it in passing (it is not the substantive topic of the article). Is its author Victoria Laurie a reliable source on visibility of things from space? Kerry (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This is really not difficult. I'll repeat the relevant policy again. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources Your own personal conclusion is that the fence cannot be seen from space. That is the conclusion that you are without doubt trying to imply. That conclusion is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If you do not consider the source that makes the claim to be reliable, then delete the claim. Such wilful ignorance of policy as I've seen from several editors here is quite shocking. 2.28.156.5 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You know what I think about the matter? Evidently not! I provided neither the claim nor the counter-claim. I'm just interested in the best interests in the encyclopedia for the reader and mindful of WP:NOV But if you would prefer to delete the claim about visibility on the grounds of WP:RS, I would be fine with that outcome. I think it is unlikely that Victoria Laurie knows firsthand and, while she may be saying so based on some other source, she hasn't provided that source and nor is anyone turning up any other reliable source. Kerry (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no counter-claim. You did not provide any reliable source stating that the structure is not visible from space. Instead, you edit-warred to force in a claim about an entirely unrelated structure. You violated the core policy of there being no original research. Clearly, you were not interested in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, as you had either failed to understand one of its core policies, or you deliberately ignored it. And you were not the only one here doing that. Like I say, that's shocking. If you don't care about the core policies of the encyclopaedia, why are you even editing it? 2.28.156.5 (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You have now reiterated the same set of statements, what 4 times? This isn't the looking-glass world, saying something three times does not make it true. Others, looking at the same policies felt that that this fit, if just barely, within them. Anmccaff (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the statement in the lead section that "It has been claimed that the fence is visible from space." Either we believe that the source is reliable, in which case we should just say "the fence is visible from space", or we don't think the source is reliable and we delete the sentence. At the very least we should say "According to National Geographic, the fence is visible from space", because "it has been claimed" is WP:WEASEL.

For what it's worth:

• [8] says it is not visible from space. (I offer no opinion as to the reliability of this source.)
• [9] says (page 01) "[the Rabbit Proof Fence] marks a line between the Wheatbelt and .. the Great Western Woodlands" and (page 03) "The human-produced boundary between [the Woodlands and the Wheatbelt] is clearly visible from space", with what I presume is a photo taken from space, on which the location of part of the fence is marked. The difference in the terrain is clearly visible, but the fence is not (certainly not at the resolution of the image in that document, although that does not mean that a higher resolution image is not available). Possibly this 2008 report, misread, is the source of the claim that the fence can be seen from space.

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, "it has been claimed", in real life, isn't always weasel-wording; sometimes it's used to introduce something strongly suspected of being false, or noting the the fact of claims without verifying them. The idea that this, like countless other big things, is ViSiBle FROM SPACE!!!! is a regular folkloric trope. Mention of such might be appropriate, especially to debunk it.

Again, outside of wiki's peculiar bastardization of English, reliable means...well, something you can rely on, something which is so, but within it, especially at the level of pedantry the IP editor is insisting on, it simply means "reliably and stably sourced." "Australian Geographic" isn't the bast source, but it fits wiki's RS.

Getting down to the facts of it, the boundary between land usage, the trace of the fence, is clearly visible from some definitions of "space" (another issue, of course; what does space mean here, anyway?) and we have a cite for that now. Given that the first claims that something was visible from space predate space exploration, I wouldn't bet all the mortgage money that this started in 2008. FOAFTale notes an article in Letters to Ambrose Merton from the 80s listing false and dubious claims of ViSiBle FROM SPACE!!!!, but I haven't gotten my paws on it lately.

Most objects, in fact, are far more visible based on secondary effects, shadow, effect of vegetation, auxilliary structures. Hadrian's wall is "visible from (some definitions of) space"....or, rather, it itself isn't, but its shadows, the line of the parallel road, the differences in land usage, etc are. Anmccaff (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

PS:Dog visible from space? Anmccaff (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to replace "It has been claimed" with "Australian Geographic has claimed" (or whatever). Reading the Nicole Alexander blog post (dated December 2016) suggests to me that it may have been informed by the Wikipedia article which at that time did include mention of NASA and the Great Wall of China, so I think we are actually just seeing an echo chamber effect from this Wikipedia article (but when people don't cite sources, it's hard to know). But FWIW my own thoughts on the visibility is that the fence probably has a number of long straight stretches and straight things don't tend to occur much in nature, so in *aerial* photography I find straight things much easier to spot compared to non-straight things. I believe that the Great Wall follows the ridgeline and is not straight, so I think it possible that a long straight fence might be visible from space even if the Great Wall is not. Aside: it would be nice to establish what is meant by "visible" (with human eye or fancy camera or after special post-processing of the image?) and what is meant by "space" (generally it's about 100+km above Earth). But that's just my personal opinoin, when it comes to the battle of the Reliable Source in Wikipedia, I think we don't have a reliable source for the claim (I am happy to see AG as mostly reliable about Australian geography but this is a claim about space and that's not AG's "special topic" and the author doesn't appear to have any space credentials) and the counter-claim (for which I think NASA is a reliable source) is not specifically about the fence but certainly casts a reasonable doubt about the visibility of the fence. And as Anmccaff says, the whole "visible from space" topic (for any large thing on Earth) is a well-established class of urban legend, so I think we have to start with a fairly high degree of skepticism on any such claims. As a scientist, the problem with WP's reliable source policy is that it leads some people to believe that every "non-fact" will have a reliable source. The policy fails to grasp that researchers generally explore hypotheses for which there is some preliminary evidence to think may be true and for which there is some benefit to society in establishing if/when it is true. Debunking urban legends and conspiracy theories tends not to meet that criteria (and unlikely to be funded by research grants agencies in any case). I think we don't have any totally reliable sources to tell us whether the fence is visible from space or not, so we either don't discuss it at all in this article or we present the case "for" and the case "against". Kerry (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rabbit-proof fence. 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/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm to http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050722133944/http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm to http://agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/programs/app/barrier/history.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

distance measurements?

shouldn't the distance measurement of the fences be in Kilometres first and then miles in brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomhigh223555 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

depends what is apt for Australia I suppose.

IceDragon64 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

When it was built, Australia used miles. It now uses kilometres. Miles first is probably valid. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Crossing the fence

How did pedestrians, motor vehicles, trains get from one side to the other? Did the fence cross any streams? If so, how was that handled? SlowJog (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)