Talk:List of massacres of Indigenous Australians/Archive 1

Massacre and Australian Frontier warfare
Australian Frontier "warfare" cannot and is not seriously up for any debate among scholars, simply because it was called and classified as "war" "warfare" and indeed "guerilla warfare" in documents by contemporary authorities as well as during colonial parliamentary debates. Queensland in particular - Queensland was the most populous and therefore the most important colony in this respect. Just one small but highly significant example from Qld. In a dispatch to the Colonial office dated 10 April 1860 and thus only 5 months after taking office, Queensland’s first governor George Bowen classified the colony as deeply engaged in an “irregular” type of “border warfare”. This he did following lengthy visits and conversations with people he classified as the leading men of the new colony. Only historians know of this document but it remain almost utterly impossible to find any Queensland colonial governor, any premier or colonial secretary in the period up to about 1900 who did not classify this as "war" "warfare" "a kind of warfare" etc etc in documents and speech. I can as easy as provide several pages of documentation to back this.

The only reason why it is denied today is - political. This agian is founded economical interests of certain industries and in a general national denialism in an Australian population who was never taught the truth during their school years. This resembles japanese denial of attrocities towards POW or mass murder in China, Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide, neo-nazi dinal of holocaust etc etc - it is nothing but Australian national immaturity. Queenstion is - does Australian people really wish to align themselves with this behaviour in some other countries?

If you wish to classify this as POV you need scholary work to support your argument and this scholary work does not exist. Statements to the opposite by the Murdoch press coordinated campaign backing of the spindoctering exersise of Keith Windschuttle or people such as John Howard or Brendon Nelson or various labour politician and a Qld premier such as Wayne Goss etc dos not at up to a scholary challenge and cannot be seen as seriously contesting historical evidenence.

However you may have found something I or nobody else knows about, but please then come forward with it and if you can't then be kind and remove that POV tag.

let me then add that I for one are o fan of the massacre term. To me it sounds as if indeginous people were let to the slaughterhouse like cattle and sheep and this was not generally the case. It was warfare of a kind, but the cost in life was hugely uneven (probably something like 50 to 1 in general) and it did indeed frequently end up in wholsale killing of indigenous people.

As for massacres. Well definition in the encyclopeadias etc are clear - if small pox was indeed used deliberately, as some scholars believe (it was in the US so the possibility cannot be excluded in Aus), then it does constitute a massacre. Besides the definition of the word massacre is agreed upon and it has been debated frequently on this page.

here is one definition of the word massacre ˈmasəkə/Submit noun 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people. "reports of massacres by government troops" synonyms: slaughter, wholesale slaughter, mass slaughter, wholesale killing, indiscriminate killing; More verb 1. deliberately and brutally kill (many people). "thousands were brutally massacred by soldiers" synonyms: slaughter, butcher, murder, kill, annihilate, exterminate, execute, liquidate, eliminate, destroy, decimate, kill off, wipe out, mow down, cut down, cut to pieces, put to the sword, put to death, send to the gas chambers; literaryslay "thousands were brutally massacred by the soldiers"


 * If the sources exist, please cite them. I looked in the Brisbane Courier newspaper (published 1864 to 1933) and the only use of the terms "frontier war" and "border war" that I could find appears to relate to India and disputes between Qld and NSW in relation to railway connections and other odds and ends. I did find one mention in 1912 of Governor Bowen that used the term "border warfare" but not as a direct quote of Bowen's. So I cannot support your claim that those terms were used at that time. If you have the citations for colonial authorities using them, please add them. If these terms are those employed by modern historians, then let's be clear about this and say "these events are now known as ....". As it stands, the article does need improvement and I can see why it has a POV tag on it. For example "It is generally acknowledged that the European as well as indigenous death toll in frontier conflicts and massacres in Queensland exceeded that of all other Australian colonies" is vague and uncited (if it's such common knowledge, surely there are many citations available) and seems to be almost in direct contrast with what is said later "However, we will never be able to locate or describe in detail more than a small percentage of these events. Thus any attempt to list all events of this kind will of nature (at least in Queensland), be more deceptive than revealing." (which is cited). We do have very good access to historic (pre-1955) newspapers online in Australia; it's not unreasonable to expect citations to contemporaneous reports of events which are accessible online, even if there might be a need to suggest (based on recent works) that these accounts might not be accurate or contain bias or whatever. And it seems these events were reported in at least some cases as I found without any difficulty this 1862 article and this 1868 article about massacres in Queensland (both of which are missing from this list incidentally) and both of which call them massacres and express outrage at the events (contrary to the suggestion that all these events were hushed up or approved of). If you are prepared to put in the effort, I think there's plenty of material to substantiate enough events with sources. When it comes to something like the smallpox, if there is no concrete evidence that it was deliberate, we should say that, but it is also OK to say that Smith & Jones speculate it was deliberate because of the US event and let the readers make up their own minds about what they believe. Perhaps we should look at merging this list with the Frontier Wars article (since the lede para appears to have been copied from one to the other). Kerry (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * there are sources on this section visible in the notes, sources backing up the statement and sources which you can read. Howabout you began there. Sure newspapers are not where you need to go, and "frontier war" although a reality was not a term used at the time of event, but that does not mean that there were no war. You cannot ask me to read for you, you need to read and either properly (scholary) dismiss or acknowledge the sources presented in the notes and citations - come on please Bebel (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Massacres of settlers by Aborigines
Should massacres of settlers by Aborigines also be included?

On 27 October 1857 11 Europeans were killed at Martha Fraser's Hornet Bank station on the Dawson River, in central Queensland. On 17th October 1861 nineteen white settlers were killed at Cullin La Ringo, the largest massacre of whites by Aborigines in Australia's history. (preceding unsigned comment by 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC))


 * I think massacres of non-Aboriginal people should be included too as sometimes they were connected to Aboriginal massacres. e.g probably the Wills Family massacre in about 1860. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs).


 * Suggest that you start a new entry on massacres of European settlers by indigenous inhabitants.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.232.245 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a separate article. The focus here is massacres of not massacres by. Paul foord (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacres or killing of Europeans by Aboriginal people or islanders should not be included in any such list. Yes this should certainly be done and has been done recently for all of Queensland in a book by Orsted-Jensen, but like this and in Loos work, it should be done in a separate list, not one mixing the two sides. The present list as it appears here is fundamentally a highly questionable enterprise. No one was officially allowed to kill Aborigines others than in self defence. So if they did so anyway they naturally kept quiet about it. In Queensland at least we have mounting evidence that this was done very frequently in retaliation not so much for the killing of white people, but for the killing of livestock. However, only very few of these account describe the actual event and location in detail. This mean that we naturally have records of what is likely only the tip of the iceberg. With certainty I can talk only about Queensland. Yet this was the most important colony in terms of frontier violence with numerous indications of violence and general statements to this effect. Yet still we will hardly ever be able to locate, name and describe in detail more than perhaps 10 percent or less of such. We have many frontier settlers saying that 'more than 300' or 'more than 400' were shot every year, we have general statements saying that x amount were shot or 'dispersed' following this or that event or that NP had been out 'ridding'the district, as it stated at one time of '59' blacks, or that five to ten Aborigines were generally shot in retaliation for every head of cattle they killed and similar, but to locate every actual site of such killing is the exception. It is simply not generally possible. Helsned 12:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 26 Dec 2011

If massacres of European settlers are to be included on this page then perhaps the whole page should be merged with the Australian Frontier Wars page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.121.202 (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What about ?
I read something about the so called. From 1816 till the 1930s about 200.000 Aborigines were killed by white settlers. I think this should be added to the list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.151.247.118 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 December 2005  (UTC+10 hours)


 * That AH post didnt really contribute anything and used derogatory terms so I erased it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs).
 * Don't delete other people's comments - nobody has deleted yours even though they are repetitive, badly spelled and unsigned despite numerous requests - Oh and PS we are all volunteers--A Y Arktos\talk 09:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a rude thing Arktos. You need to go to manners school. Its attidues like that makes people find better to do. Also, that AH term is highly derogatory. Does wik support using derogatory terms re a culture that has suffered massive genocide? If so this is a disgusting place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.33 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 July 2006  (UTC+10 hours)


 * Well, the list can be added to providing that the information is adequately referenced. The history of massacres of Aboriginal people in Australia has been a hotly contested area in recent years. And the overall numbers of indigenous Australians killed in frontier conflict has been especially controversial. See for example the article Black armband view of history, which contains a rough summary of some of the debate. So it would probably be advisable for anything on this list to be referenced. Ideally, if numbers are estimates, or if the facts and numbers are disputed for particular massacres, that should be mentioned here too. --Alexxx1 13:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The real evidence of Aboriginal massacres is the remains, especially in these days of advanced forensics. However, Australia's acid soils sooon dispose of human remains even if those remains were not burned first before burial which was one of the usual practices. I live in an area where there were several (maybe many) massacres of Aboriginal people. My family came here in the 1840s and the town still slings off about massacres though probably less then it used to. The reaction if anyone gets too close to one burial site is bizarre. If Keith Windshuttle came to this town and asked the usual places (Museum, Council, Library), where the evidence of Aboriginal massacres are - they would look at him blankly and innocently though they would know. Do townships willingly disclose secrets like this from their past especially to stangers not even from local areas? Keith Windshuttle would then go off and claim there were no massacres at this location as there is no proof of any. However, that does not negate the fact there were several massacres. Windshuttles unrealistic yardstick re proof of Aboriginal massacres isnt appropraite to the topic and its context. Those now collating this information are doing so carefully so it can't be denied again as to deny genocide is a very abyssmal thing for a nation to be doing. I was bought up to know all about the arsenic dampers left on fence posts etc and heaps worse. If an Aboriginal person then goes and borrows that damper to eat, well its his/her fault if they die - isnt it. They were not only massacred but the blame for it happening was turned around on the victim. We understand the same dynmaics these days re Family Violence where the perpetrator blames those he attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs).

Aboriginal people share food. Food is regarded as being there for all to access, (unless cultural restrictions forbid some food types depending on moiety etc). Taking an apparently abandoned damper off a fencepost was not considered a crime in Aboriginal culture. This cultural difference about what was regarded stealing and what wasnt, was exploited by some colonials to lay baits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs).

Sections
Could this list be sectioned by State/territory? -- I@n ≡ talk 08:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can bad language such as 'Abo' not be used here. That is so rude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.128 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 June 2006   (UTC+10 hours)

Name
Would this article be better named List of massacres of indigenous Australians? The current title is a bit ambigious and excludes massacres of TSI peoples (if there were any)--Peta 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As there had been nobody asking not to move the article in several months I have moved it. Garrie 05:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not really a list either. I think it would be better to put the information into a table though I do not have the skills to do this. 124.177.90.225 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Alpha order & headings
Would anyone mind if I ordered this page in alphabetical order & headings? I think this would make it easier to read - and easier to find a particular article if you needed to? Cheers Danielle (If I don't hear anything, I'll just go ahead & do it I guess) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.237.169 (talk • contribs)


 * I think chronological order makes more sense, although I agree that it is not particularly clear at the moment. It could do with some reorganising, perhaps into a table? --bainer (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of 'indigenous' compared to 'Indigenous'
It is appropriate practice in anthropology/archaeology at all Australia's universities and amongst professional people engaged in cultural heritage practice in Oz, to use a capital when using the word 'Indigenous' as a mark of respect and good manners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.56 (talk • contribs).

Alleged massacre at Coolac
An editor using a range of IP addresses generated by Telstra (203.54.*.*) insists in inserting details of an alleged massacre at Coolac, NSW. She has failed to cite sources for this massacre. Her account of the incident does not meet Verifiability standards and thus it cannot remain on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for original research and her insertions are in breach of all wikipedia standards. The issue was discussed extensively at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1 with several editors assuming good faith and seeking sources, which they could not locate.--Golden Wattle talk 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
The word ‘massacre’ in the title is incorrect, tending towards being a weasel word. A ‘massacre’ refers specifically to “killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly”. All of the cases listed here are a reaction to specific transgressions, there is nothing ‘indiscriminate’ or particularly cruel(for the times) about the methods. I suggest the word ‘massacres’ be replaced with ‘violent reprisals’ (or something similar) for accuracy.

In some of the cases listed here, such as the Battle of Pinjarra, it is disputed that the event was a massacre. The use of the word "massacre" is biased, subjective and emotive and does not necessarily describe the incidents accurately. In the case of many of these events, they were conflicts involving Aboriginal Australians and Settled Australians which resulted in deaths of multiple numbers of Aboriginal Australians and in some cases Settled Australians as well (although they had a tactical advantage of firearms in most of these incidents). Perhaps the title should be something like "Conflicts and battles between Aboriginal Australians and Settled Australians" and perhpas with the extra addition of "resulting in multiple deaths" or similar. Perhaps there should also be a new article that describes conflicts between Aboriginal Australians themselves although much of this would be based on oral rather than written histories and much more dificult to describe. 86.134.86.93 11:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree to a large extent. Massacres/war crimes/atrocities have been a feature of many famous battles throughout history. The only real difference between those and this subject is the disparity between the forces in this case. The ABC (in its Frontier TV series several years ago), the Australian War Memorial, and many other prominent institutions generally characterise these events as "frontier conflict" rather than massacres. The latter tends to imply that indigenous people were passive "victims", rather than free peoples defeated by superior military technology. Frontier conflict is also how clashes in other countries between settlers and indigenous peoples are conceptualised. I think we need to bring our historiography up to date and rework and retitle this article to reflect its military history component and significance.  Grant  |  Talk  03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the definition of "massacre"?
Er...I'm pretty sure that when two or three people die it *isn't* a massacre. A massacre is a mass killing surely?...


 * So what number then would you define a 'massacre'? And is that number objective? Or is a massacre not a massacre because it was committed on a group of indigenous inhabitants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.232.245 (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre


 * "A colonial frontier massacre arises from the indiscriminate killing of six or more undefended people. Why six? The massacre of six undefended Aboriginal people from a hearth group of twenty people is known as a ‘fractal massacre’." Mann, B.A. 2013: ‘Fractal massacres in the Old Northwest: the example of the Miamis’, Journal of Genocide Research, Vol.15, No.2, June 2013, p.172. Aliaretiree (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So Europeans just came to Australia and started "potting Aborigines"?
Not to put too fine a point on this; but why is it that there is no similar page for the European victims of the war? Are non-whites the only ones capable of being killed by racist, genocidal folk? Or is the point of this to denigrate Western Civilization by taking the context away?

We see the same thing everywhere... Whites took over most of the world and now bear "The White Man's Burden" (of guilt)? There were wars between the indigenous peoples that killed a lot of folks (innocent or not) in Australia, North and South America, Africa, and Asia. Before, during, and after the introduction of Europeans. There needs to be a greater emphasis on Historical context. Right now this reads like an a listing of all European deaths caused by Americans in WW1 and WW2 without mentioning there were wars taking place and the other side was putting up a bit of a fight. This was a war. Obviously the Europeans won; but early on it was not as one-sided as the article attempts to show.

A better view would be to include the obvious racism present but show how the deaths (on both sides) were a reaction to the war for control of Australia. Whites disrespected the locals who reacted within their cultural norms and were retaliated against by folks who apparently combined a misreading of Darwin ("Survival Of The Fittest") with a misreading of the Old Testament (i.e., thinking they were somehow entitled to "wipe out the Canaanites" even if they weren't "Israelites entering the Promised Land").

YMMV173.57.39.152 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kilcoy, Queensland
The Kilcoy, Queensland article notes a massacre not included here. Paul foord (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Boston Massacre
The Boston Massacre while referred to as such wouldn't not fit my personal description.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.132.165 (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Blanket Bay, Victoria
The article refers to a massacre at Blanket Bay but gives no source for it. I found another reference to this massacre at the website of the great ocean walk: http://www.greatoceanwalk.com.au/AboriginalConnections.htm. However, the source for that is given as Pers. Comm. Harradine (personal communication with someone named Harradine?). Further investigation suggests that this refers to either Lionel or Herbie Harradine who both worked at the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust. I am in the process of contacting them for more information.
 * I can help with that. Details are documented in: Ian D. Clark, pp119-123, Scars on the Landscape. A Register of Massacre sites in Western Victoria 1803-1859, Aboriginal Studies Press, 1995 ISBN 0855752815. See the entry on the Gadubanud Blanket Bay massacre--Takver (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculative explanations
I've removed some wording attached to the section on the Myall Creek massacre: "The successful prosecutions resulted in pacts of silence becoming a common practice to avoid sufficient evidence becoming available for future prosecutions. Many large scale massacres were to go unpunished due to this practice."

First reason for removing it is that it is unsourced. If someone has a valid source for this claim, then please provide the source. There is too much in this article already that lacks citations and have had citation needed tags attached for years. Secondly it is basically a speculative argument, not anything that is established, proven fact. It's possible to speculate about a lot of things, that doesn't make such speculation worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Perhaps, as some historians have argued, the reason "many large scale massacres were to go unpunished" was that there weren't many large scale massacres to punish, they were relatively rare events. Perhaps that's because hanging the perpetrators in the Myall Creek case made it clear that the British colonial administration would severely punish the perpetrators of such atrocities. Perhaps some of the larger scale killings were more properly classified as battles not massacres, i.e. not something that required punishment. Perhaps it is highly questionable that some/many of the massacres ever occurred at all, as in the Forrest River case. Webley442 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Added a source for the claim. The book is considered one of the ten most influential Australian works of non-fiction in the twentieth century so can be seen as reliable. Wayne (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the source. I've altered the wording slightly to achieve a more NPOV tone. This is what a source says, not proven fact; it's Elder's belief or opinion which may or may not be correct. Wikipedia isn't here to rule a source right or wrong. As for the book being influential, no doubt true, however I can think of quite a few very influential books/documents which have been later shown to be completely (or partially) wrong; sometimes outrageously so. That's why we need the NPOV wording. Webley442 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A few questions for user WLRoss regarding the “List of massacres of Indigenous Australians” article changes. Firstly is Elder’s book the source for the text: “Another effect, as one contemporary Sydney newspaper reported, was that poisoning Aboriginals became more common as "a safer practice".”? Is this direct from the newspaper? If so, we should have a citation for the newspaper edition here. Or is this Elder paraphrasing a newspaper report? Did the newspaper report actually say that this was a consequence specifically of the Myall Creek trial? If so it would be more appropriate for the text to read: “One contemporary Sydney newspaper reported that a consequence of the Myall Creek trial was that poisoning Aboriginals became more common as "a safer practice".” Or “Elder says that one contemporary Sydney newspaper reported that a consequence of the Myall Creek trial was that poisoning Aboriginals became more common as "a safer practice”.

Is Elder’s book the source for the text: “Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.”? If so it would be appropriate to say: “Elder says that many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.”

My concern is that the opinion of one journalist, be it Elder or the reporter on the unnamed Sydney newspaper, shouldn’t be construed as a proven fact but should be reported for what it is, their opinion or what was in a newspaper report.

My reason for being somewhat pedantic on this issue is that I happen to be acquainted with a family that used to own various small newspapers from around 1905 through to WW2. They had a lot of stories about journalism in that period that had been passed down through the family and one that sticks in my mind is one about a journalist who worked for them around 1910. Whenever that journalist needed a story to file (to justify getting paid) and there wasn’t a current news story to cover, he’d ‘interview’ some old pioneer and hand in a story about the ‘old days’, often one about battles with ‘hostile’ Aborigines. Their editor found out after a while that he wasn’t actually interviewing any old pioneers. He was just writing fictional stories about the goldfields or ‘battles’ with Aborigines and passing them off as true. The journalist was quietly let go, without a reference, of course.

Journalists just making stuff up or ‘not letting the facts get in the way of the story’ is a perennial problem and a more common one than some people think and I don’t think any encyclopaedia should give a newspaper report or one journalist’s opinion too much weight unless it is corroborated in some way. Webley442 (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you consider Bruce Elder's book unreliable? There seem to be no reasons to add provisos to material sourced from it unless there are differing interpretations of events in reliable sources. I'd certainly consider it a better source than Quadrant articles given that magazine has a strong political leaning. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On the issue of adding provisos, there are a number of historians who argue that the extent of massacres has been exaggerated. Obviously Windschuttle is the most prominent one, but there are others. So, for example, a bald statement like “Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.” needs a proviso to reflect at least the possibility that the reason that 'many' massacres went unpunished is that there weren't many real massacres.


 * As for Elder, it's not that I have anything in particular against him, but it's a fundamental principle in practical, historical and legal terms that it is a grave mistake, especially in matters alleging serious wrongdoing, to place too much reliance on any single source. Just because one person writes something down does not necessarily mean that it's accurate. All it takes is for that one source to be wrong, misled or dishonest and the whole edifice comes down. We should always look for corroboration and wherever possible corroboration from independent sources. We also need to consider the reliability and credibility of sources. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, journalists have earned a reputation for never letting the facts get in the way of a good story, there has been and will be journalistic fraud, and when journalists go into the business of writing 'popular' history books, well, my observation is that they tend to read a few books, do little or no original research, take everything that they've read that suits their purposes as being gospel and regurgitate it as the 'facts', often completely unaware that there are other schools of thought on the subject. As for Quadrant having a particular political leaning, I really don't care whether an author or a journal is left-wing, right-wing or centre-of-the-road. If I am interested in a particular subject I read everything I can get my hands on and if the evidence checks out, that's what I go with. Unfortunately what passes for evidence these days, in a lot of cases, is mere assertion or speculation. Webley442 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So you've got no specific reason for adding the proviso then? The book is a reliable source so can be used without the need of qualifiers. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well firstly I'd like to find out if the statement “Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.” does come from Elder's book. It is not clear that it does. If it doesn't, then it is unsourced and should be removed in line with Wikipedia policy on verifiability. (Same with the statement about poisoning being a safer option.)


 * If there is a source for it then I feel there will be a need to add some text paraphrasing one of Windschuttle's statements, also a reliable source, about how many of the massacres are mythical. So there will be two contradictory statements, one saying that there were many massacres that went unpunished and another saying that there weren't many massacres to punish. In that sort of situation, the proper resolution would be to add provisos along the line of "Journalist Bruce Elder argues...." and "Historian Keith Windschuttle argues...." Webley442 (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * General statements like that seem unnecessary given that this article is about specific 'massacres' and the History Wars article covers the debate in detail. I don't see how Windschuttle's (disputed) view about the incidence of killings negates Elder's apparent claim that many massacres went unpunished anyway. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that Windschuttle's view negates Elder's claim (if it was Elder) but it directly contradicts it. It disputes the claim that there were many unpunished massacres by making the claim that there weren't many massacres, that they were relatively rare events. Whether you agree with Windschuttle or not, and as I said before he's not the only historian who argues that the level of violence has been inflated, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to make statements along the lines that many massacres that went unpunished as though it is undisputed fact when it is not. Wikipedia isn't here to rule on who's right. Webley442 (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * One further point, as mentioned above, this article is about specific 'massacres'. So broad claims that there were many unpunished unspecified massacres and that an unspecified number of poisonings took place somewhere unspecified, some time unspecified, doesn't really fit in with that 'specific' theme. Webley442 (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Elders book and the claim of poisoning: Elder quotes directly from a contemporary newspaper that specifically states that as a result of the trial poisoning became a safer practice to avoid getting caught. Scores of unpunished massacres are contained, in considerable detail, in George Robertson's 1879 book Australian dictionary of dates and men of the times and also Michael Cannon's 1988 book Life in the country: Australia in the Victorian age. I intend to eventually make a new page specifically for this type of massacre. You seem to be using Windschuttle as your only source. I point out that he is the editor of Quadrant, which is not considered an unbiased source, and that all the authors who publish in it must? agree with his views.Wayne (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks for confirmimg that the poisoning statement is contained in Elder. Is Elder also responsible for the comment about "many" unpunished massacres or should that statement have a different source cited? If it's George Robertson (or Michael Gannon) who said it then let's give him the credit and not just let it hang there with no-one taking the responsibility for the claim. Not that the fact that either of these two person's wrote about these unpunished massacres is conclusive proof that what they wrote is accurate but at least attribute properly. Unfortunately some history books are little more than collections of tall tales with no effort made to verify the accuracy of the accounts within.


 * Windschuttle isn't my sole source, there are others like Josephine Flood, Geoffrey Blainey and other who have touched on similar issues, eg the exaggerated death tolls from conflict. I cite Windschuttle fairly often because he has specifically addressed issues which a lot of contemporary historians have studiously avoided such as the highly questionable and sometimes completely non-existent evidence behind many claims of massacres. I don't expect to convince you or anyone else nor do I need to. Even if only one historian disputed claims that there were many massacres, that is enough.


 * As for bias in Quadrant, whether a particular point of view is biased is a matter of opinion. Your claim that everyone who publishes in Quadrant must agree with Windschuttle's views is a little out there - like any other journal or magazine, anyone can submit an article to Quadrant. Perhaps some people aren't all that keen to submit articles because they know that, like any responsible editor, Windschuttle will insist on a little integrity in the work - insisting that they make no unsubstantiated claims, requiring authors to produce some evidence to back up their rhetoric. Webley442 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Windshuttle's method excludes oral memory. I know of one case, Major Newman's poisoning of aborigines in Templestowe in the 1840s, which has been conserved both by Newman's white lineal descendents, and by the descendents of the surviving aborigines, who have since met up. The general facts agree, but no one has apparently written of that incident, and therefore, as in numerous other incidents well-known to descendents of early pioneering families, it doesn't figure in the kind of records Windshuttle takes to be definitive.  An antipodean relative has emailed me  this from Cannon  'Some squatters preferred to poison their blacks, rather than draw attention by firearms' (p.74 examples follow). Arsenic was readily available on sheep runs, but shooting was the major method: 'Poisoning . .was probably rare besides the enormous number of shootings of Aborigines which occurred throughout the century. Michael Cannon, Life in the Country, (1973)1978 pp.74,75. The first thing any competent historian asks himself is, 'who controls/writes' the documentation that remains?' If it is documentation from the occupying power, then due caution must be exercised to avoid espousing the official line, which filters field reports basically from the friends or direct beneficiaries of colonizing policy. All the world knows this, well almost all of the world, except KS.Nishidani (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "like any responsible editor, Windschuttle will insist on a little integrity in the work - insisting that they make no unsubstantiated claims, requiring authors to produce some evidence to back up their rhetoric." : the 'Dr Sharon Gould' hoax pretty much discredited that viewpoint! (see Keith Windschuttle) I find it interesting that you state that you're only using authors from one side of the history wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I state that I only use authors from one side of the History wars? That's pure invention.


 * Here, for the purposes of this discussion, I have cited authors who have made statements or arguments relevant to the topic at hand because they HAVE made RELEVANT statements. It is your contention that all these authors are on one side of the debate. In various other articles and discussion pages I've cited the work of dozens of historians, some on one side of the debate, some on the other, some who died long before the History wars started. I use what is relevant, what has evidence to support it rather than empty rhetoric, I don't decide who to use based on someone's allegations of their political leanings. As for the Sharon Gould hoax, that's been debated endlessly elsewhere. The Sharon Gould hoax was cleverly crafted, it contained so much that was true, that she managed to slip something false in with it. Show me a magazine or journal editor who has never had someone slip something by them in a field outside the editor's personal area of expertise and you'll be showing me an editor who never published much of anything except his own personal hobbyhorses.


 * On the issue of oral history, which Nishidani says Windschuttle excludes, Windschuttle has made statements similar to many others who have to deal responsibly with the issue of evidence. Oral history is regarded with suspicion for very good reasons. It's called hearsay in law, and it is not allowed in courts because it has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable. If all you have is uncorroborated oral traditions, you don't have much by way of credible evidence. Oral histories have little value unless they can be corroborated by something because anyone with any experience knows that stories that get passed from one person to another to another are subject to distortion additions, redactions and outright fabrications at times. There may be rare exceptions to this situation where the same story has been received from multiple independent eyewitnesses and then passed down but usually the story traces back to one source, if it can be traced back at all. Windschuttle does not insist, as some have claimed, on only using 'official' reports. Look at his actual work. He cites not only whatever is contained in any official reports but in private letters and diaries, archaeological evidence and where available, the recorded accounts of Aboriginal people. There were always people on the frontiers of colonial Australia who were highly sympathetic to the Aborigines and very willing to record in their letters and diaries what was happening. But any evidence has to be scrutinised and its reliability considered.


 * Lastly, this is not the appropriate venue to rehash the History wars debate. Everyone is entitled to have their own views on it but the issues I am trying to deal with here are purely and simply whether it is appropriate for text like “Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.” to appear without attributing it as an argument that a particular party has made rather than as broad general statement of the 'truth'. Webley442 (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "'Oral history is regarded with suspicion for very good reasons. It's called hearsay in law, and it is not allowed in courts because it has been repeatedly proven to be unreliable. If all you have is uncorroborated oral traditions, you don't have much by way of credible evidence.'"
 * With suspicion by whom? All this tells me is that, while you are familiar with KW, you are not familiar with what has happened in historical scholarship in the last half century, which, thoroughly informed by anthropology, generally agrees that the archives of Western imperialism are not sufficient to write the histories of colonized people. From rigid Trotskyite, KW has become a Namieresque neo-con with a hermeneutic mission to reinstate the whiteman's traditional version. These people swing from one extreme to another. Liberal scholarship rightly is wary of this fixation, either with ideology, or with its inverted form, the pseudo-empiricism of the archivalist who accepts only one version of history, only because the documental record happens to be written and conserved by one, domineering side of history. This is extreme naivity.
 * Arnaldo Momigliano once noted (The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1990 pp.29-53))that Greek historiography itself is essentially oral, and that the founder of the art, Herodotus, merely records what he heard, i.e. hearsay. The same is true of the more 'scientific' Thucydides. Source criticism, of the kind Windshuttle practices, can't apply to oral history, which essentially requires distinct analytical techniques. It's terribly provincial to think you can apply archival analysis, based on documents from one, dominant side to a conflict, to get an 'empirical' picture of the whole subject, and that is why demographic analysis, oral traditions, and sceptical analysis of the whiteman's accounts, arose.
 * The Battle of Little Bighorn is not written according to the US sources alone. Lakota, Cheyenne and Arikara oral sources, many gathered several decades after the event, are used. The battles of Isandlwana  and Rorke's Drift used to be written from official archival documents. No South African historian works on them now without taking due account of the oral Zulu accounts, written down generations later (See John Laband, 1995). Idem William Dalrumple's The Last Mughal, on the siege of Dehli. Lawyers love to disbelieve Shakespeare wrote his works, chanting 'It's hearsay', 'oral information recorded long after his death' etc. No serious historian thinks the rules of evidence in law apply to the study of the past. Historians have other methods. You used to learn this in the first semester if you studied for an historical degree. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the responses above address the issue that I raised here. Once again, it is not appropriate for text like “Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices.” to appear without attributing it as an argument that a particular party has made rather than as broad general statement of the 'truth'. I have yet to see a reasonable argument as to why Wikipedia should be used to endow such a statement with any kind of endorsement as the 'truth'.


 * As I said above, it is not appropriate to try to rehash the History wars debate in this venue. Tens of thousands of words have been written elsewhere over these issues, much of it ideologically driven drivel. But very briefly, I did not say that oral traditions cannot be used but it really only has value if it can be corroborated just like written accounts from a single source have very limited value if not corroborated and even more so if the source is questionable. Yes, historians do use oral accounts like the accounts of Rorke's Drift but no responsible historian relies solely on it and especially not if it is contradicted by other good evidence. Some people believe stories their granny told them must be taken at face value, others want something more before they will call it a work of history.


 * Yes a lot of people who call themselves historians today do rely heavily on oral traditions, some rely on it when it is directly contradicted by other better evidence because it suits their personal ideological leanings to do so. Which is why a lot of what is called history today is worthless. Webley442 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't 'call themselves historians'. They earn degrees and doctorates in places like Yale, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford or even Sydney university. Your prejudices are showing. Oral evidence is not trumped by 'better evidence' (archives). Both are just sources, of differing kinds. Historians understand that distinction. They also understand, as Windshuttle doesn't, that the colonial law until 1884, for over a century in many parts of Australia, disallowed aboriginal testimony from being used in courts. So of course, this is wonderful. The aborigines have no written records. If massacred, nothing of what survivors might report could be used in court evidence, if the crime was ever reported in the century of most severe frontier killing. Catch-22. If you survived a massacre, you could not register your version of events for court records because you, being black, were deemed unreliable in law. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many massacres were to go unpunished due to these practices" may be a general statement of truth but it is relevant as these practices led this situation and the connection is made by reliable sources. A great many massacres were known to authorities who took no action due to these practices making convictions by already biased juries unlikely. Wayne (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "‘The conspiracy of silence following the Myall Creek executions made it extremely difficult to obtain evidence and, as R.H.W.Reece has concluded, “even on the rare occasions when whites admitted killing Aborigines there was still no guarantee that they could be indicted” owing to a lack of evidence.’ A. Dirk Moses, Frontier violence and stolen indigenous children in Australian history, Berghahn Books, 2004 p.205"
 * You might consider using this as a basis for restoring a revised, or rephrased version of the deleted comment.Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires that the consensus view be presented with minor views given less prominence This is called due weight. Windschuttle often presents a minority view at odds with the general community of historians and social scientists, and should thus be presented as an alternative view and not the prevailing view when such conflicts of "fact" arise.Wayne (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact Windshuttle is all over related articles as though he were mainstream, and not a dissident opinion. My suggestions for improvement stem from that observation.Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, can I take your comment above about using the A. Dirk Moses quote as a basis for a rephrased version of the comment to mean some sort of agreement that such a claim should be contain a provision which attributes the statement to someone rather than it be left looking like a statement of universal truth handed down from on high? Don't tell me that I've made some progress here? I'm stunned.


 * As I've indicated before, I'm not interested in rehashing the History wars again on these pages, I've been down that particular track before and found it a colossal waste of time. If you want to chat amongst yourself about it, feel free.


 * But, a couple of minor corrections before I go. One: Nishidani, the problems with Aboriginal evidence being accepted in British courts had nothing to do with the colour of their skins. At the time, British law required that anyone giving evidence had to be able to take the oath, which required swearing before a Supreme Being/God that you would tell the truth. Since the Aboriginal beliefs didn't involve that concept, they couldn't be sworn in. Nor could white-skinned, blue-eyed blondes of impeccable British lineage if they had been stupid enough to make it known that they were atheists. Quite a number of lily-white British citizens, up until about the 1880's found that they were excluded from giving evidence, even in their own defense, when the Courts were presented with evidence that the particular individual had professed to be an atheist. Aborigines who could show that they had were converted to, or raised as, Christians, could be sworn and give evidence. The concern wasn't skin-colour, it was a genuine believe that people who didn't fear divine punishment for lying under oath couldn't be trusted not to perjure themselves. These were more religious times. Two: as to the relative weight or value of oral traditions vs other forms of evidence, I wasn't referring just to archival evidence, i.e. written claims though often that will be the case. Archaeological digs and other forms of examination like the use of metal detectors, for example, produce actual physical evidence - like human remains, musket balls, cartridge cases, cannon shot. In some cases, of course, what turns up is the absence of physical evidence that should be there if the oral or written claims are true. Does anyone seriously want to argue that an oral tradition trumps contradictory physical evidence? If so, argue it with someone other than me. I'm not interested in conversing with the irrational. Webley442 (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "can I take your comment above about using the A. Dirk Moses quote as a basis for a rephrased version of the comment to mean some sort of agreement that such a claim should be contain a provision which attributes the statement to someone rather than it be left looking like a statement of universal truth handed down from on high?"
 * No. I have several book citations saying that a 'pact of silence' or a 'conspiracy of silence' reigned throughout that period, relating to the Myall massacre or to other similar events of the period. I think all you need do is google about, and you will find that attribution to a single scholar (as his own POV) is rather pointless, since that language, related to Myall or other events, is standard for Australian histories on the way massacres of aboriginals were handled. To say, 'according to A.Dirk Moses' would be to distort the record by insinuating to the unwary reader that this is his own opinion rather than a quite consensual position in this field of history. Wiki is absolutely unmoveable on this, that language should not 'weasel' things to create an improper view.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "At the time, British law required that anyone giving evidence had to be able to take the oath, which required swearing before a Supreme Being/God that you would tell the truth. Since the Aboriginal beliefs didn't involve that concept, they couldn't be sworn in,' etc."
 * Absolutely no need to fill me in on this. NSWales, unlike South Australia and Westerrn Australia, couldn't get confirmation from Britain for the proposed change in depositions. We don't know what aboriginal beliefs at the time 'involved'. They weren't Christians, and so couldn't be trusted to tell the truth, unlike the whites, who were sworn in, and lied through their teeth mostly.Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have 'several' citations for pacts of silence then put them in the article and change the text to something along the lines of "Historians X, Y and Z argue that...." Until you produce the citations it is just you saying it and that is not good enough for Wikipedia standards.


 * If you actually have a citation where it says that the consensus amongst Australian historians is that there was a pact of silence then give us that citation and we can change the text to "Historian X in his book Y says that the consensus amongst historians is that...." That along with the citations from the 'several' other historians would make the claim that there is a consensus credible. Otherwise it is just you saying that there is a consensus and it doesn't matter how many other editors may agree with you, Wikipedia editors don't count as reliable sources. If you are going to argue that a consensus exists on this particular issue, you need a reliable source for the claim, except in the relatively rare instances of issues that are widely known and agreed upon like "the Earth revolves around the Sun". That there were many unpunished massacres of Aborigines because of pacts of silence doesn't fit into that category.


 * It seems that there is a need to fill you in on the issue of oaths and British law. You are the one who made the claim that Aboriginal people, "being black, were deemed unreliable in law". It wasn't colour based and it wasn't a strictly Christianity vs all other beliefs issue either. People of all colours and and a number of religions with a central deity including Jews and Muslims could and did testify in British courts of the day. Yes, whites did lie in court but the belief at the time was that a fear of divine punishment for breaking an oath was a deterrent to that. No-one ever argued that the deterrent was 100% effective.


 * We have a pretty good idea what Aboriginal beliefs of the time involved because there is a wealth of anthropological studies on the very subject. Webley442 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting the citations. Sorry if I appear overly pedantic on the issue of citing verifiable sources but I have spent/wasted a lot of time engaged in 'discussion' with another editor, now permanently blocked for his behaviour on a number of articles, who kept trying to insert text based on his personal opinion and claiming that he didn't need sources for it because 'everyone knows' that what he claimed was accurate and that he represented the 'consensus' view, despite being cited multiple sources to show that he didn't.

Still not convinced that such broad claims belong in an article on specific massacres, though. Webley442 (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case the Myall incident precipitated an increase in poisoning and is directly linked to the code of silence that followed which makes it relevant. The code of silence can feature in other massacres as well where authorities met with such silence in their investigations. Wayne (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize for appearances of pedantry in your request,Webley. Asking for, and providing, precise sources is what responsible editing in wikipedia is about.
 * The lead could contain those references, in alluding to the difficulty of obtaining verifiable details of what occurred at the time, since it is so commonplace in the literature it deserves a note, adequately sourced.
 * The lead also lacks mention of the range of estimates of those killed in massacres (the upper estimate for deliberate killings by Reynolds is around 20,000 as opposed to 2,500 whites). I agree with Wayne that the Myall creek massacre marked a break of sorts, where the danger of speaking about killings became common knowledge because there, it precipitated under Gipps a court case, and, to judge from the occurrences in the literature I have checked, is frequently associated with the diffusion of a culture of silence. Boasting could lead to being hung. Cannon has the statistics for Victoria 1840-1850, only 5 court cases, and no convictions, and he glosses this with a remark on the difficulty that ensued in securing adequate testimony.
 * The use of the phrase 'conspiracy of silence' precedes the history wars. It occurs in a Sydney Newspaper in 1933. And Mary Durack's classic, Kings in Grass Castles,(1959) which I have but must reread to find the page, openly alludes to the practice of covering up massacres by silence in the Kimberleys in the 1890s. Such mentions well preceed the 'History Wars' controversy.
 * Casting about in areas I am more familiar with, for list pages, I see that the leads are rather more contextualized than ours, and quite a few pages have overviews. Just a few
 * List of events named massacres
 * Genocides in history
 * Indian massacre with an overview (perhaps we could use this model?)
 * List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire
 * List of North European Jews
 * List of Palestinian suicide attacks
 * List of political parties in Israel
 * List of terrorist incidents
 * I don't adduce these as 'proof' that this list of individual incidents means the genocide theory is correct, but simply to illustrate that a wiki list can have a lead and a lead+overview which contextualizes the incidents more fully that we have here. I think some consideration therefore should be given to the idea of mentioning in the lead or an overview, the diffuse use of an argument about 'conspiracy of silence' by those who maintain evidence is hard to obtain about the events in the list. Aboriginals or 'mixed bloods' themselves, once converted to Christianity, often explained their reluctance to recall the events that led to the demise of their tribes, on the grounds that it would be 'unChristian' to bring up the past.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Two unlisted events?
Hello, I recently came across an account of 14 indigenous people being shot by police near Wiluna in WA in 1911 (reported in 1912). See this link here: Has anyone researched this? Also, an anthropologist drew my attention to "a massacre of Aboriginal people on Wongawol Station, east of Wiluna near the Gunbarrel Hwy. Tommy Mellon, the Manager and his staff were responsible. The survivors fled to Wiluna and other areas around Lake Darlot, Barwidgee St, et. al. where their descendants are generally today. Some of them took the Wongawol name as a surname. Forky Wongawol (now dec.) was a big regional Law Man. Frankie Wongawol is still alive." Are sources available? Thanks 150.203.229.9 (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These are events known collectively as "The Killing Times" mentioned in this article, which should really have it's own separate article. Wayne (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:ALLEGED - 1867
This edit introduces - into the 1867 paragraph - several expressions of doubt that appear to violate WP:ALLEGED. Specifically: Either we think these things happened or not. If we think they did, we say so. If not, we don't mention them. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for what looks like speculation. I'm not an expert on the subject matter here, and I make no assertion as to the truth of the claims, but I think that we have a clear violation of WP:ALLEGED here, which needs to be fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "claimed to be"
 * "allegedly"
 * "is supposed to have"
 * "thirty years after the event" - implying unreliability
 * "There is no other supporting evidence of this event." - implying that it may not have happened

Lead sentence
I don't like the lead sentence as it stands, so I made this change but was reverted. Specific problems with the current wording are:


 * The problems are mostly independent, so I've split them into separate subsections to allow us to discuss them independently. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

... a yet unfinished attempt ...

 * "The list below is a yet unfinished attempt to list ..."
 * This is redundant - the article has an expand list note already.
 * 'The list below is a provisory compilation of data so far to hand.'Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." (That's why we have templates.)
 * And to quote WP:LEADSENTENCE: "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as 'This is a list of X' or 'This list of Xs...'.
 * We could consider moving expand list to the top of the lead section, rather than "immediately before [the] incomplete list". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

... some of the better documented ...

 * "... some of the better documented ...
 * This falls foul of WP:WEASEL, by suggesting that there are more massacres, but they are not documented, or not documented well enough to list here. Perhaps there were more massacres, but in the absence of any specific information, we should not make such insinuations. (Although if there is a reliable source that says something like "research by [some definite person or group] indicates that there were other massacres not specifically documented", then we could include such a statement, citing the source.)
 * No it doesn't. Apart from Windshuttle, no serious historian denies that the white man's archives document only what interested them, or omits what is known through oral tradition by the defeated. Every historian of antiquity, to the Holocaust, to Nanking knows archival documentation never gives the full picture, and must be supplemented. In Australia the fact of archival inadequacy is often alluded to.
 * (1)Deborah Bird Rose,Hidden Histories: Black Stories from Victoria River Downs, Humbert River and Wave Hill Stations, Aboriginal Studies Press, 1991 p.266:'better documented'.


 * (2)Frances Peters-Little,Ann Curthoys, John Docker (eds) Passionate Histories: Myth, Memory and Indigenous Australia, ANU E Press,2010 'The Black War in Tasmania 1823–1834, is widely perceived by historians as one of the best documented of all.'  p.39


 * (3)Jeremy Russell-Smith, Peter J. Whitehead, Peter Cooke  Culture, Ecology, and Economy of Fire Management in North Australian Savannas: Rekindling the Wurrk Tradition, CSIRO 2009 p.51:'Of those massacres in the Northern Territory that have been documented,' etc.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Every historian ... knows archival documentation never gives the full picture"
 * So quote a specific one of them saying that, and provide an appropriate reference.
 * Oh dearie me. So, you haven't any basic acquaintance with the historical method, and require me to document the obvious? Okay, but further requests to source what any practitioner of a discipline, and all good readers know, will be ignored. Read Martha C. Howell, Walter Prevenier,From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods,Cornell University Press, 2001 chapter 3.
 * "... require me to document the obvious?" Yes, WP:VERIFY requires you to provide references. (Some times even for the "obvious".) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're persisting in silly policy wonking, while curiously misconstruing guidelines to boot, in a way that suggests you haven't understood them. I don't need to verify with a book source an obvious remark on a talk page. Were that the case hardly any wikipedian would survive challenge in any discussion and the way would be open for any fool to hold up rational debate. Edits to the article must pass verification, whenever requested. Wake up. This is obvious.Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't need to verify ... [a] remark on a talk page. Edits to the article must pass verification, whenever requested.
 * My original talk page post suggested that "we could include ... a statement [that research by [some definite person or group] indicates that there were other massacres not specifically documented], citing the [RS]". The context was the lead section - the implication being that the cite would be for the article, not the talk page. I added cn to the article accordingly. Any of my subsequent talk page posts were also requesting references for the article (as you say "this is obvious"). There's probably been some [time] overlaps of article and talk page edits, but you've provided a ref in the article, so there's no problem now. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "In Australia the fact of archival inadequacy is often alluded to."
 * "Alluded to" is not "stated". To read such allusions as statements of fact is WP:OR or WP:SYN. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

which took place
And to a less extent:
 * "which took place"
 * Redundant. Possibly for grammar reasons it should be either "that took place..." or ", which took place". But first we should decide whether the article's scope is limited to the "colonial period" (and in turn define "colonial period").
 * Either (,which/that) is fine. Massacres occurred beyond what whites understand as the colonial period (when they were a colony of GB), but Aborigines were subject to colonial policies. The completion of progress to extend to them full civil rights everywhere only took place as late as the 1960s, when the last restrictions were formally abolished. The Mabo Act, which formalized a recognition of their traditional land rights, dates to the 1990s. Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The current wording is not "fine" because it is ambiguous. It's not clear whether the list is intended to be restricted ("... massacres that took place mainly during the colonial period") or unrestricted ("... massacres, which took place mainly during the colonial period"). Given your statement above that "Massacres occurred beyond what whites understand as the colonial period..." I presume the intent is unrestricted, so I've inserted a comma into the sentence. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're evidently having difficulties construing your interlocutor's English, while taking much time over your own. Please pay attention to what other people say. Don't invent excuses for wasting their time.
 * You suggested two possible emendations of a sentence.
 * I replied: Either of your proposals was 'fine'
 * Your reply? No, it's not fine, meaning 'neither of the suggestions I (Mitch Ames) made was fine, even though you (Nishidani) supported me.
 * What's the effen point in playing silly games like this?Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians or Indigenous Australians
Other suggestion (not part my original edit): Any comments, better ideas? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Aboriginal Australians" should probably be "Indigenous Australians", to match the article title.
 * See Aboriginal Australians. There is no reason to flatten out the variety of terms used by making every reference to aborigines read 'indigenous Australians'. The average Australian reader will immediately recognize the vernacular 'Aborigines'. 'indigenous Australians' is newspeak, fine, but not a default term.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "There is no reason to flatten out the variety of terms..." WP:LEADSENTENCE is a reason to use the same term in the lead sentence as the article title. The hatnotes of both Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal Australians (and the existence of separate articles) suggest that the two terms are not synonymous. I don't see how ignoring WP:LEADSENTENCE helps the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you cite policy read it first. I.e.,
 * "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms.'"
 * Policy wonkers often ignore the central demand of encyclopedic writing, that it should show a keen eye for nuance of language, sensitivity to stylistic variation, which is precisely the case here. etc. Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out (based on the existence of two separate articles, and the hatnotes on each), I don't believe that Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal Australians are synonyms. If you think they are, please says so explicitly, so that we know precisely what point we are debating (eg whether they are synonyms or not, or whether the use only of a non-synonym is the best wording).
 * I don't believe that Indigenous Australians and Aboriginal Australians are "slightly different forms". My understanding is that "slightly different forms" would be (for example) Australia / Australian, Aborigine / Aboriginal - ie different word forms such as plurals, adjectival equivalents etc.
 * "... may include variations" ... is not the same as "may use a variation instead of the title".


 * ... the central demand of encyclopedic writing, that it should show a keen eye for nuance of language, sensitivity to stylistic variation ...
 * We appear to have a difference of opinion here about whether your "nuance of language" and "sensitivity to stylistic variation" makes the article better, and based on the banter so far, I doubt that either of us is likely to sway the other's. I rather hope that some other editors will contribute to this discussion to help reach some agreement. If not, I'll probably post a WP:RFC. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "The average Australian reader..." Remember that we write for the entire English-reading world, most of whom are not Australian. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee whiz. I didn't know that, after six years here. I have a distinct impression of a toddler from p'rimary school running home after a lesson and trying to tell granny how to suck eggs, if you wi9ll permit a WP:AGF violation. I allow myself this because you are evidently unfamiliar with the fact that 'aboriginal' in English precedes the specific default Australian use of the term for its native population. See the Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, 1989 vol.1 p.35 columns 1-3Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether I'm familiar with the etymology of "aboriginal" is irrelevant. What the "average Australian readers will immediately recognize" is less relevant (proportionally to the percentage that those readers constitute of English Wikipedia readers) than what the "average [world-wide English-reading] reader" understands the words to mean. If you were aware of that, fine, I'll just assume that you mean "reader" instead of "Australian reader", and we can politely carry on the discussion on that basis. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you listening? (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)? I didn't say you were unfamiliar with the etymology of 'aborigine'. I noted that your remark indicates you are unfamiliar with the history of its usage, which is not specific to Australia. Speakers of English the world round understand what it refers to. There is point in employing the preferred Australian term because it is globally recognizable and yet reflects local usage. Is that clear, or do I have to spell even that out further? This is wikilawyering, or pettifogging of the most time-wasting variety. We're here to compose articles, not to frig round on trivial disputes on talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The two terms have different meanings in academia depending on context.
 * Indigenous Australians is a term used to include Torres Strait Islanders. It is generally used for convenience to avoid having to say "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" all the time.
 * Aboriginal with a capital "A" is a proper noun that generally refers to the Australian mainlands (including Tasmania) indigenous people only, or.."first people". This is a convention that was first proposed, and is now widely accepted, in the late 60s. As such, the term Aboriginal Australians is redundant ie: Aboriginal should be used alone without the word "Australia" attached to it. Wayne (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So in the context of this article, are we talking about Indigenous Australians or Aboriginal Australians?
 * Is there any reason why the article title and the bold text in the lead section should differ (contrary to WP:LEADSENTENCE)? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

List of massacres of Indigenous Australians → List of warfare deaths and massacres of Indigenous Australians – To describe Aboriginal people as if they were just sheep lead to the slaughterhouse is not only unhealthy it is untrue and it is depriving them of their abilities as warriors. Possibly most Aboriginal attacks and various measures defense ended in a massacre, but we need to give Aboriginal people credit that it was to them a war in defence of their land and rights, even when it primarily targeted settlers livestock, and that they did in numerous cases fight against all odds and for that reason with extreme bravery. Besides if we wish to list massacres of defenceless people, we would have to remove a great number of entries and exclude all cases clearly related to warfare. Bebel (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think a list of massacres is appropriate, "warfare deaths" greatly expand the scope of the article, so that any single death from warfare may be added to the list. Massacres happen in war all the time, such as in Europe when fortified cities were conquered, or when surrendered or injured troops are killed. "Massacre" therefore does not indicate sheep. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as massacres is how these are described in the sources. A List of warfare deaths of Indigenous Australians would be something separate and much longer. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the scope of the article is clearly deaths in Australia, but the proposed title would imply inclusion of deaths outside of Australia, including the many killed fighting and at least a dozen who died as prisoners of war in World War 2. One presumes also that at least some of the over 1000 Indigenous Australians who fought in the First World War were also killed in that fighting. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the term "massacre" does not imply that those killed were not at war. Search through List of events named massacres for "war" to find numerous instances of massacres that occurred as part of a war. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support concept, but not this proposed article name I'm sympathetic to this request (though the proposed title isn't great). As I understand it, there's a strong view among modern historians of this topic that many of the events which have been previously classed as 'massacres' should be recognised as the result of 'battles'. The argument is that many large-scale killings formed part of fighting (either directly, or as part of the aftermath of battles), and not recognising this contributes to the lack of recognition of the considerable extent to which Indigenous Australians sought to defend their lands. In many cases historians have found difficulties distinguishing a 'battle' from a 'massacre' (for instance, the Battle of Pinjarra involved fighting as well as the killing of captives), so a more inclusive title would be a step forward. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support concept Well I have done a major reediting of this article today and added quite a few entries, and I will keep adding many more. But one cannot classify warfare as massacres, nor is all war massacres 'Mitch'. Most of us see massacres as something like what happened at Myall creek, the lining up in some way and systematic murder of defenseless people. If that is what massacres is, well then we will have to remove several entries here. The word "massacre" is simply not giving us sufficient coverage for the actual events on the ground and it is important that we understand this as the result of frontier warfare as this is how it was seen and perceived at the time of event. Settlers and their govt saw themselves as at war with indigenous people. I had hoped that you would not just reject but that at least some of you might have some suggestion to change this heading in some direction that gives us better coverage. How about you Nick do you have a suggestion?Bebel (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. How about "violent clashes and massacres" or "collisions and massacres"?Bebel (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The names have to be in the sources, so the real question is what the reliable sources call these. None of the ones I've looked at recently use 'collision' Stuartyeates (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well well - then we are in real trouble, because the wast majority of primary sources in Queensland (the biggest killer colony) does not use the word "massacre" at all, they speak of "dispersal" and in fact the very word "collision" is the word used in most official writing. Native police monthly enumerations always used the word "collision" and in some cases "dispersal". and the native police accounts for likely a third of all cases of this kind in Australian history. "Massacre" was the word used by critics of this policy, but they were not given access to the primary sources. Collisions may in fact be seen as a more neutral and correct word here Bebel (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Look also in early newspapers, see trove, here is one from Sydney Morning Herald 14 Sept 1838, editorial p.2: "The government, it is evident, will not, or cannot, protect the whites from the aggressions of the blacks — it behoves the former, therefore to protect themselves; and this they can most effectually do in the jury-box, by determining not to convict persons on charges originating in collisions with the blacks (my highligt), except upon the most conclusive evidence of wanton cruelty. Let there be equal laws and equal justice."
 * The word collision is the one most frequently used in the primary sources; it is the contemporary critics that used "massacre" and many of the so-called "revisionst" historians has then reintroduced this word. However many are now more inclined to accept viewing (as was common among leading men. settlers and politicians ín the past)the frontier as engulfed in forms of warfare. The word "massacre" was more frequently used in colonial days when settlers were killed by Indigenous people. The word "collision", however, may be seen as covering both massacres, warfare and skirmishes of all kind, so I would argue that it is actually a very good encyclopedic word, but massacres certainly need to be there too.


 * comment I should say that I have never been a fan of this article, which I find somewhat childish, misleading and founded in lack of knowledge of the frontier wars (and wars it certainly was). I never really thought this article belongs in an encyclopeadia, but so many seems to think differently so I have now attempted to at least improve on it. It is to me as case of "if you can't beat them join them". The very existence of this article is founded on the fundamentally false perception that it is possible to list at least most if not all massacres and deadly collisions at the colonial frontier whereas the actual primary sources strongly speaks to the opposite. The real massacres were exactly the type of event hardest hit by secrecy. Most of the cases we know of were more a kind of warfare that ended up derailing into outright mass executions - after the concept of "take no prisoners." Thus attempting to list such events is certain to be used as a tool for engaging in future denialist behaviour. We may list more cases and then the denialst will claim that this is all there is to it. Bebel (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestion. List of frontier collisions and massacres of Indigenous Australians
 * That could describe indigenous people across the globe, not just Australia. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * true you are right - that missing word "Australians" was just a mistake, it is now corrected. But what do you think? it is easily documented that the word "collision" was indeed the official term and it has some benefits in terms of coverage and neutrality Bebel (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Write sentences, not headlines
I suggest that entries such as this one:

probably need rewording so that they are grammatically correct sentences rather than headlinese, which may be misleading. In the above case the literal meaning of that sentence is that hundreds of people (who may or may not have been Indigenous Australians) killed someone or something. Presumably what we really mean is:

If there was only the one or two instances, I'd just fix it myself, but there are many, so: Mitch Ames (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus to make the change?
 * Is anybody else motivated to fix them?
 * I have no objections, but little time, but I think that the general title is sufficient signal that casualties here are Aboriginal casualties unless otherwise stated.Bebel (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tasmania 1816 entry disputed
The following comment was inserted by 203.214.58.7 into the article text. I've removed it from the text and replaced it with disputed:

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why have two separate articles for "Australian mass murders" and "massacres of Indigenous Australians"?
It doesn't really make sense to separate these two, what is the reasoning behind it? And it can't be that "massacre" and "mass death" are too different, because they are used interchangeable in the articles anyway. If the point is to underline the horrendous racism, that could still be done by having to separate sections or using another way of marking the motivations behind the acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshagreen (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mowla Bluff Massacre?
This is a well documented massacre and does fall outside the Killing Time of the Kimberley, in 1916, 6 years after the end marshall law. Between 150-300 Nygina-Mangala people slaughtered and put in to a mass grave.Turgid Bombastic (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Police
I'm not sure what the relevance of the point you keep inserting about police not being "constitutionally" allowed to fight wars is, but if you want to include such a claim, can you please provide a reference to a relevant and reliable source which supports it (eg, that the police units of the time were constrained by their relevant constitution). I'm currently on a different side of the world from my sources on this topic, but from memory various works note that the settler side of the Frontier Wars was frequently fought by police and paramilitary units. More generally, military historians don't draw the kind of institutional distinction you're trying to insert here (with what constitutes "warfare" having a very broad definition), so the purpose of the text is unclear. I'd also note that the first para of this article is a mess - it doesn't clearly set out for general readers what the issue this article covers is, and the provisos they need to consider. Importantly, there's the issue that many of what were previously considered one sided "massacres" are now recognised as having been contested "battles". Nick-D (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nick - war is in any democracy and constitutionally driven society conducted by military not by police units (that is why there is a diffrence between military and policing) and there has to be a formal declaration of war behind it. When historians dealing with a British colony use the wording "semi-military" "retaliatory force" etc they are per definition dealing with an illegal activity unless there was a civil war or some other acknowledge situation of warfare. No such thing existed in our case, this is indeed the core problem and why war is contested by some people. Yet still in the correspondence you find the word "War" used everywhere police was not officially recognised as "semi-military" and the legal experts at the time are on record with numerous remarks in parliament that this situation was "not legal", was "abnormal" or an "constitutional abnormality" Remarks to this effect is cited by several historians dealing with Queensland history. I shall add Dr Ross Johnston, "The Long Blue Line" (his book about the Queensland police force), pages 86, 88-95 as just one such source. I shall see if I can find time to add more sources, it is not difficoult, but it is really all quite simple and logical, not even the death squads and simi military units in South America dictatorships of more recent times was ever legal or officially acknowledged. There is another reason why it is that simple. There would have been no reason to use euphemistic language or veil actions in secrecy if this was legal. Yet that this was so is mentioned and described by virtually all research and writings on the issue.


 * It isn't correct that there needs to be a formal declaration of war - for instance, Australia hasn't declared war on anyone since 1945, yet it's recognised that Australian forces have fought in multiple wars since that time (with Federal Police officers having served in Afghanistan and Iraq). More generally, I don't really understand the point you're trying to make here, and it isn't helped by the long-winded material you're adding to the article. If your argument is that reliable sources state that the acts committed by police noted in the article were illegal "massacres" rather than lawful acts of war, it would be better to say this succinctly. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "illegal massacres"???? - when and y whom have massacres ever been declared legal? This is nonsense. Police officers in Afghanistan and Iraq did not participate in warfare - they were despatched as police instructors aimed at estabising a police force in another country - they were not there as soldiers. You are mixing things up.


 * As for declaring or recognising war - "it isn't helped" you state "by the long-winded material you're adding to the article"


 * Excuse me - what are you talking about? You are presented with two primary sources (one was a high court judge the other a military man who had been an officer in this "police" force) and an additional reference to a historical work, all stating clearly that police was not at the time of event legally/constitutionally (in accordence with British law), allowed to engage in acts of war or be an "avenging" force.


 * also - Did you not get the point made erlier - you seem to ignore this - that there were no Australia at the time of event and that we are here dealing with colonies under British law and its constitutionary acts? All primary sources state that the Australian colonies ran an undeclared and unrecognised war against indigenous people. Police is established to perform police work - that is investigating crime arresting suspects or perpetrators and bringing these to justice - the so-called native "police" operating in colonial Victoria, NSW and Queensland - did nothing of this kind - they conducted punitive expedition often with with indiscriminate shooting. It was simply warfare camouflaged as police work - and this was admitted in several primary sources - the police in Queensland used of euphemisms and words such as "dispersing" (they pretented to do perform a dispersing of illegal crowds or gatherings as did the contemporary British police with demonstrations etc. but truth is that they were engaged in mass shooting of people - no police force has ever been allowed to perfom massacres indeed no military is). This is the point made here and this poinnt is the point made in  numerous similar primary sources and historical research Bebel (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Helsned, you've been around on Wikipedia for long enough to know that this isn't a place to publish original research and that content should generally not be referenced to primary sources, especially when high quality secondary sources are available as is the case here. What I'm asking here is that you limit material to what's supported by secondary reliable sources, and to write this concisely with a general readership in mind - please remember that Wikipedia is typically used by people seeking an introduction to a subject or an overview of it. Nick-D (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True but there was already references to two secondary and reliable sources as asked, yet several people were still not happy. There is too much Australian nationalistic selfpraising political nonsense in this shitBebel (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Alleged massacres
Can anyone find concrete information about alleged massacres? One alleged massacre I have not been able to find information about is one in the Adelaide Morialta district. My grandfather, working at the time for the state water authority (known as EWS at the time), received some letters from someone claiming to be (from memory) an Aboriginal elder, detailing the alleged massacre of many Kaurna people in the Morialta region, with their bodies sealed up in the many caves in the area. As information is hard to find due to the unofficial nature of many of these incidents, there are very few reliable sources, as all such sources are from settlers and not Aboriginals. Are there any untapped Indigenous sources that can provide further information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.120.220 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusion
This is supposedly about massacres of Aboriginals. But the intro refers to a frontier war. That is an entirely different matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't: the massacres were a key element of the frontier wars. The rambling lead isn't good though. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Balance
Why is there no list of massacres of White Australian?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question. I have long thought both topics should be in the same article, as some massacres were reprisals, so would be more meaningfully presented together. Kerry (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Colonial Frontier Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872
The Centre for 21st Century Humanities and the Centre for the History of Violence at the University of Newcastle (NSW) have published via a four-year process to map the frontier massacres in Eastern Australia, a project funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) grant investigating Violence on the Australian Colonial Frontier, 1788-1960. See Colonial Frontier Massacres in Eastern Australia 1788-1872. Aliaretiree (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. 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/20050922233555/http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/ida/link_d3_1824war.html to http://www.nsw.nationaltrust.org.au/ida/link_d3_1824war.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827163652/http://www.walkabout.com.au/locations/WAPinjarra.shtml to http://www.walkabout.com.au/locations/WAPinjarra.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708184924/http://pals.dia.wa.gov.au/timelines.aspx to http://pals.dia.wa.gov.au/timelines.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819051101/http://www.ards.com.au/whywarriors.htm to http://www.ards.com.au/whywarriors.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829214700/http://www.remoteareatours.com/history.html to http://www.remoteareatours.com/history.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070730001436/http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=320 to http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=320

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of massacres of Indigenous Australians. 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/20070705062249/http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/review/review_submissions/dr_clement/files/218/Dr_Clement.pdf to http://nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/review/review_submissions/dr_clement/files/218/Dr_Clement.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ordering
Oops a made a few mistakes. I added the 1839 Campespe massacre and the 1833-4 Convincing Ground massacre under the NSW heading. Later finding older entries below under Victoria heading.

I strongly suggest that the CHRONOlogical order of the page be "enforced" - and forgo/remove the erroneous alpha "state headings" (e.g. Victoria and WA were not States in 1833; most of Australia was NSW). This would allow a consistent chronological flow down the full page allowing users a better sensed historical compression of the continental invasionary impacts. Perhaps then, present-day-State locations or GPS could be formatted into each entry. --Invisi Bletv (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please help me with... understanding whether i can/should/wisely reformat the whole of this list page into a strict timeline so that the reader has a consistent chronological flow, that is, remove the the "state" based subhead groups then reorder the year/event-bulleted-paragraphs chronologically? I agree with 58.165.237.169 above but would this significant change cause bad issues with admins, bots and other contributors? bainer also suggested formatting into a table but i don't know how to do that atm. All comments are appreciated... Invisi Bletv (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Invisi Bletv, I have moved your comments from the Alpha order & headings section above. It's generally not a good idea to re-open a discussion that's more than a decade old; people are very likely to miss that there are some new comments betwen all the old ones (in fact, this talk page could do with some archiving). A new discussion at the bottom of the page is more likely to be seen.
 * Personally I'm not sure a purely chronological list is more consistent. Will a 1830 massacre be more closely linked to another 1830 massacre half-way across the continent, or to a 1835 massacre in the same area? I would expect the latter, particularly because there likely was no Australia-wide policy regarding the treatment of the indigenous population. Whether a grouping by modern territories is the most useful is of course also debatable. Maybe a sortable table could do the trick, with columns for date, location (however that's grouped), and description? Huon (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A sortable table would work well for this article. I agree that the 'location' field is problematic given the movements in borders since white settlement. We might need go with 'location at the time of the massacre'? Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thx for commenting. I still maintain chronology is the main track and have to disagree with Huon‘s assumption that “there likely was no Australia-wide policy regarding the treatment of the indigenous population” as the body count and methods paint a striking pattern. As regards the ‘location at the time‘ put by Nick-D, I note that most entries include some historical placenaming, together with the general fact that these local labels-of-location too do change over time as have State-boundary jurisdictions. Even for example ‘Waterloo Creek’ which is disappearing from some maps as a result of a NSW state decision some years ago to rename the waterway ‘Millie Creek’.  While the precise locations of the many  killing fields may never be  exactly determined, some also occurred over a wide area rather than a defined point or intersection. All in all I still feel that removing the State-categories is best, while allowing most embedded historical references to locations to stay in the descriptions, but tending toward the need to insert GPS coordinates - as do Judy Watson’s and Newcastle Uni’s project. Invisi Bletv (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dates in lead
The extended dates are given in the source, an uncontested fact, how is that 'unencyclopaedic'. — cygnis insignis 04:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "and possibly later" is the unencyclopaedic bit. It doesn't say that in the Uni Newcaslte source. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily be good to state it in the lead here. "1780 to 1930" is a fine statement but it's equivalent to "1780 to 1920s". Donama (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And the article was reverted again to assert "… until the 1920s", which is absolute and not what the source says. The title of the report is to the period 1960, in the midst of the introductions is an explanation of the scope and that only the stage 1 map is to 1930. I don't consider the preferred interpretation above to be anything but crassly selecting data from the source to diminish its own findings, reactionary and unhelpful in improving mainspace content. — cygnis insignis 06:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Please do change it to what it should be then. Just don't write "possibly". That kind of fuzziness doesn't hold up. Donama (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Inventing facts and then reverting to them multiple times also doesn't hold up. cygnis insignis 06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit which I've just reverted, the article does in fact contain references attesting to a massacre in the 1920s. Stating that massacres only occurred in 1788 as was done as part of the edit is obviously not correct. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A curious reading of what I was attempting to convey in that sentence, given the discussion here, … however, I tried to improve it with this prodding to remove any further reactionary edits. Can we please try to focus on improving content instead of reverting to bullshit, or endorsing it. — cygnis insignis 15:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The useful part of my contribution to this vigorous collaboration was graciously acknowledged, any unhelpful remarks are now withdrawn and struck. — cygnis insignis 03:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)