Talk:Stockton Beach

Australia: Places / New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Stockton Beach 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 Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (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 New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Greg Ray (2013). "Taking myth to the Max". Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 16 January 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2014.

Untitled

I've moved the following from Talk:Stockton_Beach,_New_South_Wales/Comments Smartse (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this entry to comply. I think some mention should be made of the environmental groups and activists that campaigned against a lot of difficulties to protect the area and as a result at least substantial portions of it are now part of a National ParkFauncet (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

A newly registered editor has been removing cited content from the article,[1] and adding content that is clearly original research,[2] and some of this, such as the time Tin City was established, is contradicted by multiple reliable sources. I've been attempting to engage him on his talk page, without success. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged much of the OR with {{OR}}, as there is no point simply reverting the addition at this time, but it needs to be identified. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max

AussieLegend (and others), The Newcastle Harold story, at http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1956610/greg-ray-mad-myths-find-favour/ , (link corrected as of DES ^(talk) 11:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)) is an opinion piece, but it is also a piece of reporting. It claims that the source of the parliamentary mention (currently cite number 12 in the article) has recanted and has or will state this correction to the Parliament. Note that Cite 11 "Tin City Sand Dune Adventure Tour appears to be a now defunct web page promoting a commercial tourist attraction, hardly the best possible source. Cite #14 is to an image caption and it says "The pictured man was living in the hut, which was allegedly used as a pub in a famous movie with Mel Gibson – The Mad Max. As you can see from the comments below this seems to be a good story of tour operators rather than the truth." since this source says merely that this fact was 'allegedly" true, it is also not a good source. Thus there seems good reason to challenge all three currently cited sources for this statement. In light of WP:NPOV we should mention both vies and giv the supporting citations. one is not so overwhelmingly well sources as to make the other of no value. Please restore my addition of the Harold article. I will not edit war over this, but now that the matter has been raised, consensus is needed. I am comming here as per WP:BRD. By the way, that a person may be blocked from editing Wikipedia does not make that person an unreliable source if published outside Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 11:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Mdann52 added a note to this page citing an opinion piece in The Newcastle Herald.[3] Later, DESiegel made a good faith edit to the article based on that source.[4] Unfortunately, there are significant problems with the source. It's an opinion piece that was published in The Newcastle Herald coincidentally only 2 days after Wikitout (the disruptive editor mentioned above) was indefinitely blocked for disuptive editing at this article.[5] From the comments in the opinion piece, and the edits made to this article, it's blatantly obvious that the "reader, researcher and history buff" identified in the piece is none other than Wikitout. There is no verifiable evidence that Wikitout is an acknowledged expert of any sort, so he doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Given his block and subsequent socking by him as Wikitouts and Wikitoutnow and block evasion by his IP,[6] it's unlikely he will ever reach that level. The other source used in the article is Peter Barton, who operates http://www.madmaxmovies.com, a self acknowledged fansite, which does not qualify as a reliable source as it is a self-published site. Ultimately, what we have is an opinion piece based on the claims of a disgruntled and indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer and an unreliable source. We simply cannot give such sources any credibility when there are multiple other sources that contradict them. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, What are these contradictory sources? Let's have a look at them. One, as I mentioned above, is the now defunct web page of a commercial tour operator, who has a financial motive to make the tour seem more interesting, and cites no source in turn. A second itself calls the statement "alleged", again as described above. The third is a statement in the NSW parliament. Now normally governmental sources are quite reliable, but it would seem that this was no more that then unverified opinion of a single MP. Moreover the Herald story cited above includes the text "When quizzed about his parliamentary assertion, Craig Baumann was apologetic. It appeared he had accidentally misled the house, he said, and he promised to correct the record when the chance arose." That seems to make this source at best questionable as well. I don't see any reliable source that asserts that Mad Max was filmed in this location. Which of these sources do you think is reliable, and why? (BTW I just fixed the link to the story above.) DES ^(talk) 11:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that linking a specific user with an identified individual is probably outing and should not be done here or anywhere on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 11:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page that you claim is defunct is not, it's still active. You're reading too much into what the piece says about Baumann. "It appeared he had accidentally misled the house" is not the same as saying he recanted everything he had said. It doesn't give any context on which to base anything. We can't make any decision on Baumann's statement until he "corrects the record when the chance arises". Until such time as Hansard is "corrected" it remains an authoriatative source. What you call "the second source" has nothing to do with tour operators as you earlier seemed to assert. The website belongs to a photographer and shows an individual living in what was apparently the pub used in Mad Max. These huts cannot be sold; there is a chain of ownership within the same family so it would have been him or a related previous occupant who made the claim about the pub. Note that when this was first added to the article in 2007 it did not mention "alleged".[7] As for outing, unfortunately the individual's claim that "Wikipedia apparently won't let him edit the entry to make his intended correction" is an important part of determining credibility of that source. The article's edit history makes it clear who that applies to and if you insist on using that source in the article then anybody can make the link and justifiably remove that source. You'll notice that I avoided posting personal information, instead referring to him as vaguely as possible given the circumstances. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more specific. At the moment the article cites threee sources for the statement that "Tin City was used for several scenes in the 1979 movie Mad Max.[12][11][14]" These are:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20100831008 "STOCKTON BEACH TIN CITY" This appears to be a piece of advocacy albeit one given on the floor of the NSW parliament. It includes the comment "In fact, parts of Mad Max were filmed on Stockton Beach and a young Mel Gibson camped in the huts." But there is no editorial control or fact checking applied to the speeches of MPs. Any MP can say anything he or she pleases in debate. No source for the statement is cited in this speech. Once the statement is challenged this is not a reliable source. That the MP is question is quoted by a newspaper that he "misled the House" in this statement does not prove that he has completely recanted, but it does cast further doubt on the statement. At best this is an expression of opinion, no more reliable than a newspaper editorial. Hansard is authoritative that Mr Craig Baumann made this speech on the stated date, but not for the alleged facts included in the speech. Those rest on Baumann's unsupported assertion.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080117034021/http://www.cruiseportstephens.com.au/Bus_Tours/dawsons.htm archived from http://www.cruiseportstephens.com.au/Bus_Tours/dawsons.htm I was incorrect above that the original web site was defunct. It remains the site of the commercial promoter of a tour who, as part of the effort to sell that tour, includes the statement that "A number of movies have been made at this location, including parts of Mad Max. The pub still stands!" No details are provided, no source for the information is cited. This is a mere passing mention, and i don't think this site qualifies as a WP:RS for this statement.
http://digital-photo.com.au/tag/tin_city This is part of a photographer's gallery of works. The image has a caption which includes the statement "The pictured man was living in the hut, which was allegedly used as a pub in a famous movie with Mel Gibson – The Mad Max. As you can see from the comments below this seems to be a good story of tour operators rather than the truth." This doesn't even assert as truth that Mad max was filmed on this location, indeed it says that it isn't true. (The comment about "tour operators" is from the source, not from me.) Besides, this appears to be the unsupported comment of the photographer, there seems to be no editorial control here either. This also fails WP:RS, or rather it would do so if it supported the statement for which it is cited. As it doesn't support that statement, it should be removed as a failed verification.

In short, AussieLegend, I see no reliable sources supporting the statement that any part of Mad Max was filmed at this location, and I challenge you to provide such sources or have the comment removed entirely as per WP:V. Or we can take this to WP:RSN if you think any of these sources are valid. I await your response, or any view from any other editors here. DES ^(talk) 12:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, at the time that the image was added as a reference, it did not say "The pictured man was living in the hut, which was allegedly used as a pub in a famous movie with Mel Gibson – The Mad Max. As you can see from the comments below this seems to be a good story of tour operators rather than the truth." It said "The pictured man was living in the hut, which was used as a pub in a famous movie with Mel Gibson - The Mad Max.".[8] Even now, I'm not sure what "as you can see from the comments below" means. I don't see any comments. Regardless of our opinions on Baumann's comments, it's hard to discount Hansard as not being reliable without being backed up by something more reliable. That source is NOT the opinion piece in the Herald, which is what started this discussion. If we can discount, with reliable sources, the Hansard claim then so be it, but we can't do that with the Herald piece, or madmaxmovies.com, which is what Wikitout kept trying to do. Misleading parliament is a big deal and can have serious consequences, which is one reason why Hansard is regarded as reliable. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have no solid proof either way, which leads to the conclusion that nobody can prove a damn thing. Just leave both sides of the story in and stop being a dictator. I know you really want to protect your claims, and the assertions you made, but repeating an urban legend without also including a caveat that it is contentious and has no primary sources is just pure deception. You are not the global arbiter of the truth. Include both damn claims. Jim 104.37.5.190 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple reliable sources supporting the claim, we only have unreliable sources saying the claim is not true. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. We can only base content on what reliable sources say. Please be civil in your communications with other editors. Calling somebody a dictator, just because they are following policy, is bordering on a personal attack. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is a cruise operator a reliable source, but an article from The Newcastle Herald an unreliable source? And one of your sources doesn't even mention Max Max being shot in Stockton! It simply has the words "Mad Max" and "Stockton" in unrelated paragraphs. You are being extraordinarily unreasonable here. This is sheer, unmitigated lunacy. Just include both sides of the story, and let readers decide. -- Jim 172.111.155.20 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the references you have included are a statement from Hansard that the MP later admitted was a mistake, a couple of pages from the Wayback Machine including a hype page from a cruise operator and an unverified caption on a photo, and a book that doesn't even claim anything about Mad Max being filmed in Stockton (and which is bizarrely included for no reason in referencing). The only "credible" reference is from the local tourism board, but they have a vested interest in propagating the urban legend. There is no primary evidence for this claim, so include both sides of the story, and stop crushing dissent like a despot. The most credible reference of all that was ever included in this page (an article from the Newcastle Herald questioning whether this was all just a myth) was deleted by you, since you disagree with the opinion and see yourself as the arbiter of truth. --Jim 172.111.155.20 (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP? Really? How many do you have? The articles that you mention are addressed elsewhere on this page. They are opinion pieces with unreliable sourcing and nothing more. Hansard is reliable and there is another source from the Newcastle Herald, this time an actual news article dated a month after the opinion piece. Craig Baumann has never seen fit to "correct the record" so we can only go by what he said in parliament. For more responses, see the response to your edit request. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations against the idea that the film was made in Stockton are far, far, far more credible than yours. I've created some accounts, so I can add them back in soon. -- Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.250.161.85 (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they are not, as I have explained below. Please note that you are normally permitted only one account with which to edit. If you start editing this article disruptively with multiple accounts, you are likely to be blocked for sockpuppetry. You already appear to have engaged in meatpuppetry, as I have explained on an admin's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any irrefutable references on your side. Yet you have shut off debate on this, and reverted edits from genuinely concerned users over the past two years. This is not becoming conduct, and is blatantly antagonistic. Which reference are you claiming is so irrefutable that it is grounds to shut off debate? --- JimMarlor (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1323879322-55415 is the statement from Craig Baumann "I wish to make a personal explanation. I have often spoken in this House about the wonderful place that is Port Stephens and at least twice about Tin City on Stockton Beach. On 31 August 2010 and on 27 August 2013 I advised the House that Mad Max was filmed on Stockton Beach and that a young Mel Gibson had stayed in Tin City. I now understand that this statement is untrue and wish to correct the record. It appears that a tour operator's unfounded claim had achieved legitimacy and I inadvertently perpetuated it. I was unable to contact Mr Gibson, but an internet search of IMDb's database reveals that all 15 Mad Max film locations were in Victoria."

Powell, Greg (2003). Hunter Valley Bushwalks. Kingsclear Books Pty Ltd. pp. 5–. ISBN 9780908272730. Retrieved 16 January 2014. Chap 2 Stockton Dunes- "Mad Max used them for some end-of-civilization action."

but we also have

Australia, Explore (2010-01-01). Holiday in New South Wales EBook. Hardie Grant Publishing. pp. 9–. ISBN 9781742734989. Retrieved 16 January 2014. "Silverton stands as a reminder of outback isolation with its buildings and stark surrounds featuring in Australian films such as Mad Max II" What is the relationship of Silverton to Stockton?

Does anyone have the DVD to check the commentary track and see what they say? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim in the article is about Mad Max, not Mad Max II. They are different movies. Silverton is in the far west of NSW while Stockton Beach is on the east coast, about 1,010 km (628 mi) away so the second source doesn't apply. (Despite its name, less than 16% of Stockton Beach is actually in Stockton. Tin City is actually in the suburb of Bobs Farm.) The first source might be of value though. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My father worked for Kennedy Miller Productions in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He said that all scenes were shot in and around Melbourne, and that there was absolutely no chance that any shooting occurred in Stockton. I'm not sure how to turn this information into a citeable source (I have no idea about Wikipedia). But I saw an article in today's Newcastle Herald about the "Tin City", came to Wikipedia, and found that it is probably the source of this incorrect information. It would be good if you guys could stop propagating an urban legend. -- John Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.111.155.199 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we can't accept that as evidence. Claims must be supported by reliable sources and while there are reliable sources claiming that filming did occur, there are none that claim it didn't. All we have is heresay and unreliable sources for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious editing and possible meatpuppetry

This article has existed since September 2007, when I created it because the beach's only mention was as a paragraph in Stockton, New South Wales (the beach passes through 5 suburbs besides Stockton and is in two local government areas as well as being the site of the largest shipwreck in Australia). In that time there has been no challenge to the claim about inclusion in Mad Max, which is backed up by reliable sources, so I find the recent rash of edits rather peculiar. There has obviously been some sockpuppetry involved; Wikitout and three of his sockpuppets have been blocked and he has used his IP for socking as well. Failing to have his changes incorporated, Wikitout has apparently contacted a local newspaper regarding this. Most recently, Madmaxmuseum, who is now blocked for violation of the username policy, made the same attempt to remove claims about Mad Max from the article. The Mad Max museum at Silverton is a museum dedicated to Mad Max 2. Sources that Wikitout have used to discredit the claim have been about Mad Max 2, not Mad Max, which is a different movie. It seems more than coincidental that the Mad Max 2 museum now appears to be involved and I can't help being suspicious that some meatpuppetry is involved, especially since Wikitout has shown that he is willing to seek help for his cause elsewhere. Just to clarify, for any other editors who are confused, I'll say it again, the claim in the article is about the movie Mad Max, not the movie Mad Max 2 that was released 2 years later. Sources discrediting the claim of involvement in Mad Max need to be: (a) included in the article,(b) be reliable and (c) be about Mad Max, not Mad Max 2. Simply removing the claims is inappropriate without sources complying with these requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two references http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1956610/greg-ray-mad-myths-find-favour/ and https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1323879322-55415 both state that Mad Max was not filmed at Tin City. The statement in Hansard is the politician retracting his original claim. Isn't that enough?

And again

Today another IP has tried to add claims sourced to the opinion piece and the self-published source. I've left a message on his talk page, but since it appears that his address is dynamic, I'll repeat it here in case he doesn't see it. The two sources that the IP is using have already been discussed. One is an opinion piece, precipitated by an editor who is now blocked from editing Wikipedia, who complained to the Newcastle Herald because he was blocked. That editor also participated in meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry (see above). The other is a self-published source, the owner which is not an acknowledged expert on anything, especially what did or did not happen on Stockton Beach. He is just somebody who decided to create a fansite.[9] I find it strange that he tends to lock threads that dare suggest that anywhere outside of Victoria (He is based in Victoria) was used as a filming location.[10] Neither source meets the requirements of a reliable source and therefore cannot be used as a reference in articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that claim the Tin City was used for filming are:

A former website from a cruise booking agency that is now offline.

A (now offline) website with a claim from one photographer.

A claim from an MP (who has since cast doubt on it saying he was just repeating what he was told).

An ebook that doesn't mention that the movie was filmed here at all (it only mentions Mad Max 2 being filmed in Milparinka near Broken Hill).

These claims are absurd as a basis for deleting the opposing opinion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.250.161.42 (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That a website is now offline does not affect its use as a source. There are lots of offline websites used as sources. The MP source is from parliamentary Hansard, which is reliable, and there is no evidence of your claim that the MP has said "he was just repeating what he was told". By contrast, the sources that you added are not reliable sources, as explained on one of your talk pages and in the section above. As for the content that you added to the article, "experts in the film assert that no filming was performed outside of Victoria" is not supportable. As already explained, madmaxmovies.com is a fansite run by a person who is not an acknowledged expert. To date, no sources other than those have been used to support your claims. We cannot accept content sourced to unreliable sources. Ironically, one of the sources you used actually acknowledges that the reliably referenced claims is on "a gazillion" websites and the forums at madmaxmovies.com even mention the claim. One thread that I've already mentioned discusses a mention in the NRMA "Open Road" magazine. That thread was locked by the website owner after the first post.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which claim that some scenes of the movie Mad Max was shot there doesn't mean anything. Many places in the world (Thailand, Spain) claim the same fact. That is not true. George Miller said in multiple interviews they shot the movie around Melbourne. All the scenes location are well documented. No scene at has anything to do with the landscape of that location. The sources that claim some stuff was shot there are definitely not reliable. What kind of "proof" I can provide ? Articles ? Books ? Interviews with the crew ? The shooting of Mad Max is a very well known and documented thing. People who claim such non sense as this "Stockton's beach" should provide evidences. There are TWO scenes including a beach in MAD MAX, the two beaches are located in Melboure, Seaford Beach (the mannequin scene) and Avalon beach (the Jesse alone scene). There are no "desert's sand scene". People who claim that mixed up with MAD MAX 2. The source of this nonsense maybe come from that : https://books.google.fr/books?id=t3rPIyWjuyAC&pg=PT9&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (maybe because they didn't understand what the author wrote and thought that the first and second part of the INTERESTING FACT part were connected. The second part doesn't talk about Stockton but about SILVERTON. Some says the work of madmaxmovies can't be reliable and judge a tourist site as "Port Stephen's Cruise" as reliable. I can't understand that !

So, maybe someone should put that stuff out about MAD MAX, that is a little bit embarassing. (MELVIN) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.241.160.217 (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

This has now been raised here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard JimMarlor (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that JimMarlor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wikitout. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stockton Beach/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've revised this entry to comply. I think some mention should be made of the environmental groups and activists that campaigned against a lot of difficulties to protect the area and as a result at least substantial portions of it are now part of a National ParkFauncet (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 01:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)