Talk:Gippsland

Cardinia shire, subregions and populations

When I first came to read the Wikipedia article on Gippsland not that long ago I was baffled to see that Cardinia Shire was completely left off the list of its constituent municipalities. It was only when I looked through the history of the article that I realised that this was more likely a hangover from a previous incarnation which (even more bafflingly) ignored West Gippsland entirely. While I can understand those who may point to the continuing spread of Melbourne's suburban sprawl south eastwards as a reason to excise the region's westernmost parts most at risk of being lost to the metropolis (such as Pakenham), I don't think the situation has quite progressed to that point yet!

Of course, rectifying the problem by including Cardinia Shire in the "official" list meant finding a 2001 census population figure to match the other ones given. Alas, try as I might there seemed to be no source which matched the figures given in that one paragraph, which all seemed to actually be lower than the 2001 "census night" figures the ABS produced (which are generally the lower bound on population figures, as later "usual resident" and ERP ("estimated residential population") figures revise these upwards to account for those outside of the area on census night). So I figured the most consistent option was to choose a set of figures from the 2001 census (the "usual resident" figures) that treated all municipalities equally. These changes also have the benefit of automatically "increasing" Gippsland's population by 50,000. (For sticklers, the source of my figures is the book "The People of Victoria; Statistics from the 2001 Census", published by the Victorian Office of Multicultural Affairs in 2003, with all its data drawn directly from the ABS. One of the benefits of this volume is that the data is broken down according to Local Government Area, rather than the more confusing "statistical divisions" that the ABS uses.)

This then brings us to the wider problem of how to define Gippsland's subregions, which is the main issue of the posting regarding East Gippsland/Central Gippsland below. For without an agreed upon scheme, a clear exposition of each of the subregions in the Geography section is impossible. Given that none of the well-known and accepted regions such as "West Gippsland", "South Gippsland", "Latrobe Valley", "Central Gippsland" or "East Gippsland" (actually I've heard of a "North Gippsland" before, has anyone else?) have ever been officially delineated, and that various authorities draw boundaries in different places (which I assume is why at one point the Gippsland article had the "Latrobe Valley" region equating to the Latrobe River basin and thus stretching from Sale to Warragul, and even including Drouin, which actually lies in the Bunyip River basin), I feel a pragmatic, non-dogmatic approach is probably the best. Which is why I've rearranged and expanded the various subsections using primarily (but not exclusively!) the municipal boundaries. As for the confusion regarding the larger and smaller incarnations of "East Gippsland", I think separate treatment of Central Gippsland, coupled with notes pointing out the discrepancy in popular usage, is the most practical approach.

Finally, I've added a heading for History at the end of the article, in the hope that those with more expertise in the field than I have will add some much needed content.

Swithun B 05:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a first-time contributor/editor/pain-in-the-butt to wikipedia but as a current resident of Gippsland, I read the Gippsland entry and was shocked by the lack of positive attributes included whilst numerous unnecessary negatives were, seemingly in lieu of factual information and/or any real substance. For example: the section on education lists only one very small school and it's particulars, when in actual fact there are literally hundreds of schools in Gippsland...!?
The section on Natural resources is lacking any referenced material and reads as a biased account in terms of the wording used, the 'facts' cited, the omission of Gippsland's many positive natural resources, and the slanted focus on just some of the industrial uses of these resources to the detriment of other uses, eg: tourism, environmental conservation, recreational uses etc. The credibility of these sections as such is suspect and what with the lack of quality photographs and tables/diagrams/figures included it falls far short of being a factual, non-biased and broad overview of the topic 'Gippsland'.

As a new participant I understand my input here may be of very little significance, however I am willing and able to 'flesh out' the sections I have questioned if it is appropriate and/or desired to do so. 123.3.105.187 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Population figures

36'000 people in East Gippsland, that is totally wrong, East Gippsland is made up of: wellington shire and East Gippsland shire each has 40'000 people. adding up to 80'000 people, Gippsaland as a whole has 252'000 people spread across its 6 shires.

Have you got a source we can reference for this, so we dom't have to go through trying to prove this again? Swarve 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

yes i do, australian census bureau, 2001, population wellington shire 39'288.

"The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2001 Census reports a population of 227,748 for the region." Baw Baw Shire 32,919; Bass Coast Shire 20,062; South Gippsland 24,026; Wellington 39,701; East Gippsland 37,887; Latrobe City 67,454. [1] --Takver 13:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In gippsland there are two east gippslands, East gippsland shire, which has 37887 people, and there is east gippsland region, which includes east gippsland shire and wellington shire, with a population of 77'588 people, in a statement on the page east gippsland has 38000 people and icludes sale, so it has to be the latter, because sale is in wellington shire, so the population of the east gippsland the page is refering to must be 77'588 not 38'000

Which east gippsland is it?, the shire or the region, because if it is the shire, sale and strattford need to be taken out, but if its the region, the population needs to be changed

McMillan & Strzelecki

I'm hoping that User:87.206.104.24 will respond here as to why they consider that mention only of Strzelecki, to the exclusion of McMillan, is appropriate. A reading of the two ADB biographies linked to in the references shows that both near-simultaneous expeditions (McMillan's was ever-so-slightly earlier) were important in "opening up" Gippsland to white settlement, in different ways, so I don't see why we need to exclude McMillan from the article. Thylacoleo 07:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:87.206.104.24 removed the reference again - have reverted. Wongm 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading through John Wells' book "Colourful Tales of Old Gippsland" and they both get a mention for exploring Gippsland. I reverted edits again to include both McMillan and Strzelecki. Slabba 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:87.206.104.24 removed the reference yet again again - have reverted. Wongm 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:87.206.104.24 why do you keep reverting the edits? At least explain your reasoning. It is very frustrating. It is well documented that both McMillan and Strzelecki both explored Gippsland at different times. I reckon we'll have to get this page semi-protected to stop this from happening. Slabba 07:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It might help if someone can provide a reference for both McMillan and Strzelecki. This article is pretty reference-free, which in itself is not a good thing, and does not help in situations like this. --Michael Johnson 01:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Egg on face department - someone already has. --Michael Johnson 02:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I have taken your advice and expanded the section to make it clearer and added some references. Hopefully it will solve the issue. Cheers. Slabba 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:Scientizzle for protecting the page, it will stop the futile vandalism. Slabba 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polski odkrywca był pierwszym europejczykiem i Polakiem, który dokałdnie zbadał Gippsland. Nie ma żadnych! powtarzam żadnych dowodów aby Aborygeni w sposób udokumentowany nazywali inaczej tą krainę.!!

Zdzislaw 02:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was nice for Zdzislaw to contribute, sorry I don't read Polish. --Michael Johnson 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Discoverer was first european polish < poland > and pole, which (who) has researched dokałdnie Gippsland. Has no! I repeat no proofs in order to otherwise, aborigines called land to manner supplied documentary evidence for it

Who knows how accurate this translation is ( via http://www.poltran.com/) ... Wongm 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears the gentleman believes the first (or only?) European explorer was Strzelecki, and apparently has a source. It is perhaps understandable, if unfortunate, that a Polish source would emphasise Polish nationals. We haven't heard from him for a few days, hopefully that is that. --Michael Johnson 00:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

thats a terrible picture of potato farming. Cant you aussies come up with a better picture of your agriculture than that! a picture of a fence and some grass!!! pathetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.66.163 (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Map ?

A map if available would give much better context than the text summary. --Biatch (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gippsland. 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/20140819125756/http://dsdbi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0003/65235/Meaning-of-Regional-Victoria.doc to http://dsdbi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0003/65235/Meaning-of-Regional-Victoria.doc

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) 21:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)