Talk:Palm Cove, Queensland

Unsupported claims
I would like to discuss the validity of recent additions to the page, specifically the following passage, and some of the claims within.

"Dalrymple's group had stopped in the area for a few days in order to rest and supply themselves with water from a large lagoon at Palm Cove. Sub-Inspector Robert Arthur Johnstone of the Native Police who accompanied Dalrymple and was armed with large calibre Snider-Enfield rifles, administered a "severe lesson" to the resident Aboriginal people who attempted to stop him from accessing the lagoon. Dalrymple "heartily rejoiced" at the punishment inflicted, and in language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised, they labelled the Indigenous inhabitants as "bloodthirsty bullying scoundrels" claiming "unmistakable evidences of wholesale habitual cannibalism" with "heaps of human bones and skulls found in each camp, and in some, roasted and partially eaten bodies were found beside the fires at which they had been cooked..and the flesh and part of the skeletons of four men (blacks) of whom they had eaten". Johnstone also noted that "the blacks here have splendid canoes made of solid cedar logs...with outriggers capable of carrying fifteen or twenty men"."

The following claim is what I wish to discuss.

"Dalrymple "heartily rejoiced" at the punishment inflicted, and in language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised, they labelled the Indigenous inhabitants as "bloodthirsty bullying scoundrels" claiming "unmistakable evidences of wholesale habitual cannibalism"

The question that I would like to raise is this. Did Dalrymple actually use "language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised" Or, as I would like to contend, simply describe what he saw, with no malicious or other ideologically misplaced intent.

For background, the entire sentence of the reference (on page 11) used to justify the claim simply says.

"And in imperial discourses the attribution of cannibalism displaced the violence of colonisers onto the colonised"

For more background, in the edit description of the reverts, the claim is that "colonists of northern Queensland dehumanised the local Aboriginal population through tropes of cannibalism" and that cannibalism is "ideological fiction without necessary context and which has contributed to genocidal actions."

So, my question is, where is the evidence, that, specifically, what is described in the journal of Dalrymple, is the result of an "ideological fiction"? Where is the evidence that is was a trope, designed to displace the violence of the colonisers onto the colonised? Where is the evidence that it was "language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised"

The reason that I ask is that the reference does not implicate Dalrymple at all. Does not provide any evidence, such as communications to or from Dalrymple. Any eye witness testimony about what was really observed.

So, let us compare the actual original writings of Dalrymple.

"Immediately after landing a considerable mob of blacks came out of their camps, and in the most daring manner attempted to prevent Mr. Johnstone’s advance. According to his instructions Mr. Johnstone did not allow a shot to be fired, but this only appeared to add to their insolence and daring, as they advanced to within thirty yards, shipped their spears in the woomeras and poised them to throw; then, and not till then, the sniders opened upon them, but still they appeared utterly reckless as to the results, and their leader, a big hulking ferocious looking savage of over six feet in height, with several of his more daring followers, tried still to throw their spears, and to induce the rest to come on when severely wounded.

From the discoveries made in their camps we all heartily rejoiced at the severe lesson which their unwarrantable hostility had brought upon them, and that such blood-thirsty bullying scoundrels had at length met more than their match ; for undoubtedly had the shore party been a poor shipwrecked crew cast ashore from the Pacific Ocean, as many hundreds of poor fellow's have been, who have never been heard of more, not one would have escaped the certain destruction and mutilation which is almost invariable in such cases.

In every camp along the beach for two miles unmistakable evidences of wholesale habitual cannibalism were discovered; heaps of human bones and skulls were found in each camp, and in some, roasted and partially eaten bodies were found beside the fires at which they had been cooked. Lumps of half-eaten human flesh were found in the gins’ dilly bags"

I am interested in hearing the views and comments from other interested editors. With this in mind I am notifying User:Dippiljemmy

Thank you David. moreno 72    07:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the best thing ever, truly I frigging love this platform! David I really don't know how to respond to this. You think that an extended verbatim quote of Dalrymple works in favour of your argument, I think it works in favour of my argument! Cannibalism and colonialism are topics that are too involved to discuss on a wiki talk page but the reference I provided is a very good explainer because it is specific to northern Queensland and does mention Dalrymple and Johnstone. There are others, but seriously if you won't accept this, you won't accept the others. The thing that I find interesting is that the portrayal of Aboriginal Australians as uncivilised savages who engorged themselves in cannibalistic feasts is in your view a completely accurate one. You will not accept anything that even attempts to put some context to this. Seriously, if that's your mindset, then it is quite difficult to change such an extremist view. It is also a view that Wikipedia administrators may be concerned about. Or maybe not, I don't know exactly the level of racism that's tolerated on here.


 * The term ideological fiction I quoted from Poignant, refers to the fact that cannibalism as a rite may have existed but was deliberately expanded into gross anthropophagy to dehumanise and blame the victim. ie. they all deserved to be shot because the guy employed by the government to kill them said they ate each other for dinner. Funereal rites such as cremation and mothers carrying the small bones of their deceased children in dillybags, much like how Westerners keep the ashes of their loved ones in urns on the mantlepiece, were common. I find it astoundddddinnnnng that the people who accuse colonised populations of gross cannibalism were and are also practising Christians who regularly receive a piece of wafer that represents the "Body of Christ" followed by a sip of wine that represents the "Blood of Christ". These Western Christian traditions have a strong basis in cannibalism. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.


 * Anyway, I think that's enough commentary on this. I will say though that I think you should stop harassing me. Your level of racism and the continuous, venomous and extensive commentary that you leave on my user page and elsewhere is akin to type of behaviour that could be reported. (cue lengthy vicious monologue of how and why I'm completely wrong followed by vandalism of some of my contributions)Dippiljemmy (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank-you User:Dippiljemmy for your reply. It is very refreshing to actually have a discussion beyond the edit description. Yes, Wikipedia is the greatest resource ever, but it has become that because of the five pillars. Such as "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia." From my perspective, it can be summed up in two words. Verifiable accuracy. And the other is
 * "Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures," From my perspective, this can also be summed up with two words. Seek consensus.


 * So, is consensus possible?


 * But first, I would like to address some of your comments.


 * "The thing that I find interesting is that the portrayal of Aboriginal Australians as uncivilised savages who engorged themselves in cannibalistic feasts is in your view a completely accurate one."


 * -My view, opinion or interpretation of the practices or lifestyle choices of Aboriginal Australians in the 19th century is completely and utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on my edits. What I do want to ensure, and am dare I say, fanatical about, is that a reference is never misinterpreted or misconstrued in any way.


 * "You will not accept anything that even attempts to put some context to this."


 * -If that context, in this case, is supported by a reference that directly and unambiguously discusses the event, perhaps even introduces new information. Then YES, I will of course accept it. All you have to do is present it. It's that easy. But in this specific case, you haven't provided it, nor does the existing reference speak directly to the 'observations' of Dalrymple. It is simply a blanket statement.


 * "the reference I provided is a very good explainer because it is specific to northern Queensland and does mention Dalrymple and Johnstone"


 * -Yes, it is a good reference, and does mention Dalrymple and Johnstone, but can it be used to accurately verify the statement "in language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised, they labelled the Indigenous inhabitants ..." Of course not, as it is clearly synthetic and a violation of WP:NOR. For reference, this policy states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." So in this case, the A is "in language designed to attribute the violence of the British colonisers of northern Queensland onto the colonised" (source 1) the B is "unmistakable evidences of wholesale habitual cannibalism" (source 2), and the synthetic conclusion (the one that is not mentioned in either reference) C, is "they labelled the Indigenous inhabitants". C, is YOUR opinion/interpretation, which, as you should know by now, is a violation of five pillars, you know, the core of what makes Wikipedia so great. Surely you can now see that, and why I have vigorously tried to remove it.


 * "Seriously, if that's your mindset, then it is quite difficult to change such an extremist view. It is also a view that Wikipedia administrators may be concerned about. Or maybe not, I don't know exactly the level of racism that's tolerated on here."


 * -It really is a shame that you perceive my actions are coming from an 'extremest view', or are being racist. I am merely ensuring that the core principles of Wikipedia, the ones which make it so great, of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and WP:V are maintained. May I also remind you that personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor.


 * "I will say though that I think you should stop harassing me"


 * -I understand that you may perceive my actions as harassment, but, and I quote "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If you edit constructively, engage in discussions when requested and don't violate WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, then you have my assurance that I will not 'vandalise' your contributions. But given that anyone can edit any of Wikipedia, and if you don't like people editing 'your' contributions, maybe editing Wikipedia is not for you.


 * "Your level of racism and the continuous, venomous and extensive commentary that you leave on my user page and elsewhere is akin to type of behaviour that could be reported."


 * -You are more than welcome to report any racist and venomous commentary that is made, but all I have ever done, in keeping with number 4 of the five pillars, is to try to discuss any issues with you. If you perceive me following the five pillars of Wikipedia as "behaviour that could be reported", then maybe editing Wikipedia is not for you. May I also remind you again that personal attacks is Wikipedia policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor.


 * So now that I am at the end of my "lengthy vicious monologue", could we please get back to the issue at hand and to strictly comment on content, not on the contributor. It should be obvious that the text as it is currently, violates WP:NOR, as it contains synthesis, and must be removed or changed. Perhaps you could, in your reply, present an alternative version that we could discuss together, that we would both be happy with.


 * Thank you David. moreno 72    13:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Dippiljemmy. British colonial accounts of native cultures are infamously racist, I would have assumed this is common knowledge. Regardless, it is well known that these early colonial accounts were almost always profoundly racist (reflecting broadly held European and British attitudes at the time), prone to wild exaggeration regarding Aboriginal people and often self serving (justifying massacres etc). As Katherine Biber, legal scholar, criminologist and historian at UTS states in this peer reviewed journal paper: "It is important to establish from the outset that there is no credible historical evidence to support allegations that indigenous Australians practiced the forms of cannibalism sought by the colonists"


 * I have a pile of books on this subject and several mention the fabricated colonial tales of Aboriginal cannibalism used to dehumanize Aboriginal people and depict them as dangerous savages. If Biber's words do not satisfy you David, I will go through some of these books and find more when I have the time. Dippiljemmy's secondary sources do provide much needed context to the false and racist claims found in the primary source which can not be treated as reliable for factual claims regarding Aboriginal people and their culture during the colonial period. Everyone knows colonial accounts from this period are saturated in racism. Bacondrum 21:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing David, could you please try and keep your comments concise, these huge slabs of text may be part of the problem regarding discussion between you two. As per WP:TALK "Long posts risk being ignored or misunderstood. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio tend to attract continued participation." And Dippiljemmy, please refrain from attacking other editors, comments like this are counterproductive: "Your level of racism and the continuous, venomous and extensive commentary that you leave on my user page and elsewhere is akin to type of behaviour that could be reported." Civility is a cornerstone of Wikipedia - comment on content, not other editors. Bacondrum 22:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bacondrum for your comments. I'm not questioning any of what you have stated, but you still need to address the crux of the issue, that synthesis is being used. You can't take a snippet from a reference that doesn't mention A, to make any conclusions, assertions or attributions to A, because that is a form of WP:NOR which is not permitted on Wikipedia. The way Wikipedia is supposed to work is that you take a reference which directly mentions A, and any of it's conclusions or statements that relate to A, and then create an edit using words that don't misinterpret those conclusions or statements.

It's all clearly stated in WP:V.

"Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy"

Interestingly, there is a note there that says.

"When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so."

So, could User:Dippiljemmy or Bacondrum, or any other interested editor, please provide a direct quote, that directly mentions Dalrymple (of course), and then any other conclusions or attributions, such as "language designed to attribute" or "fabrications" or "trope" or whatever, in relation to his statements in his journal about cannibalism, or bullying scoundrels, that all exist in the one sentence or paragraph from a single reliable reference, including it's page number. It is that simple. I'm not asking for anything that is outside of any existing Wikipedia policy. Just a source that clearly and directly supports all of the material. I would be more than happy to replace the newly added text with that quote, and I'm certain that you would be very contented as well. See how easy achieving a consensus is!!! Of course, if you cannot, then the recently added text must be removed as it is a clear violation of WP:NOR, but I'm sure it won't have to come to that as it would seem that there is plenty of source material.

Thank you David. moreno 72    09:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi all. As no replacement text has been supplied, I propose that the follow text should be used, given that the current text contains a synthetic claim that must be removed per WP:OR.


 * The first documented British visit to the area was by a coastal expedition led by George Elphinstone Dalrymple in 1873. Dalrymple's group had stopped in the area for a few days and accessed a large lagoon at Palm Cove. Immediately after landing a large number of Aboriginal people came out of their camps, and attempted to prevent the groups passage to the lagoon. It was only when the Aboriginal people were poised to throw their spears that they were repulsed by gunfire. After discovering the "unmistakable evidences of wholesale habitual cannibalism", such as "roasted and partially eaten bodies" in the camps of the Aboriginal people, all of the group "heartily rejoiced at the severe lesson which their unwarrantable hostility had brought upon them"


 * Any comments, suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you David. moreno 72    11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Changes have been made without consensus and reverted as per guidelines set out in edit-warring warnings. Any further editing without consensus may result in users being blocked. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC))


 * Hi Dippiljemmy. The suggested changes were not objected to for over two weeks, and so consensus was achieved per WP:SILENCE. If you object to the changes, then you must not revert per WP:ONLYREVERT, but constructively discuss the changes, make suggestions and a counterproposal etc. on the talk page, By not doing so, you are disruptively editing by WP:STONEWALLING. Any further reverts will be reported. Thank you. David. moreno 72    02:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * David, consensus has not been achieved through silence. I refer you to the Wikipedia policy that "if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like." My dissent was put forward and my argument consolidated by another editor. I would say that this is the opposite of stonewalling. In terms of consensus, your view is in the minority and you seem to be projecting your own failures of Wikipedia policy upon myself. Please refrain from making edits that so overtly go against the good faith required by editors to remain within the established norms of Wikipedia. I am leaving your revert for the time being, mostly so everyone in the world has the chance to look at it for a while and really see how the thought processes behind genocidal activities of a previous era are alive and well in some sections of the modern day community. Perhaps you may choose to discuss your views with the Indigenous population around Cairns, some of whom are more than likely to have read or will read both the article and this talk page. I wonder what their reactions may constitute? (Dippiljemmy (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC))