Talk:Waterloo Creek massacre

Disputed facts
Can anyone versed in these matters confirm:


 * Who did the killing.
 * Why they were there.
 * What sources exist for the number killed.
 * What reports of the event exist.

I have read some of the refernces, but I would like the article to reflect any other POV as well. Rich  Farmbrough 00:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See some updates and additions below ... Invisi Bletv (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Where are theses places?
I have travelled by different modes across much of Australia, and am not aware of the locality of this incident. Where is Snodgrass Lagoon and Waterloo Creek? [GR]

The the entry following this insertion has no basis in fact. Snodgrass Lagoon is reputedly located somewhere south-west of Moree, which in itself is approx 220 km northwest of Manilla in the New England Region of New South Wales. As Manilla historians state elsewhere, Major Nunn and his party are said to have ambushed a tribe of the Kamilaroi Nation on the Namoi River downstream from the current town of Manilla. The people scattered and were rounded up and marched back from that location to Grenhatch Station some 10 kms east of the present town, where one Aboriginal man was hastily tried for a crime and subsequently shot. DNKmunik8 (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 2-08

Its near Manilla in Northern NSW. I know that area well having walked most of the bush around there many times. It strikes me that something happened near Crow Mtn there but this isnt Snodgrass lagoon. I am not 100% sure if Roger Millis exactly defined the exact location. I'd have to go back and read his book. I walked the area well before reading the book not at that time thinking that what was claimed re that massacre may have been a set up of Major Nunn by the colonials. I need to go read the book in context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2006.

My instincts tell me that the Waterloo Ck Massacre was a set up by the squatters to get Major Nunn back for his actions over another massacre that the squatters had been responsible for. Why would Governor Gipps retain his trust in Nunn if Nunn was going around killing Aboriginal people when his mission was to stop the squatters doing this very deed themselves. Gipps also bypassed the usual channels to communicate with Nunn which indicates Gipps was very aware there was something very badly amiss, reaching to government level. Source is careful reading of Waterloo Creek Book by Roger Millis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.98 (talk • contribs) 5 July 2006 - comment moved from article page by AY Arktos.

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Waterloo Creek Massacre:

Currently the NSW Dept/Local Land Service representatives direct people to this "Lower Waters" marker which is located at :

-29.793486, 149.453385

The massacre began "somewhere", was centred in a westward direction, and then continued west in a fan-out pattern.

According to Milliss, the women and children ran downstream (westward) trying to escape the 50 armed horsemen.

The current coordinates are located to the east of the "Lower Waters" marker.

—Invisi Bletv (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've moved the coordinates westward a bit, to the approximate location of the "Lower Waters" marker you refer to. This may be about the best we can do for an event so vaguely located. Anyhow, is this better? Deor (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Deor.
 * That’ll do for now. Further research and field work is on the horizon ... with the community and Local Gov. working towards a Site Memorial for the victims.


 * If any readers wish to offer any real-life on-site expert assistance in mapping, geo-physical and archeological study in cooperation with the related Aboriginal Descendant group - pls let me know here to connect.Invisi Bletv (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Hint from JarrahTree
Removed final sentence re "Who defines a crime ..." as commentary.

The remainder of the new section Gov. Legal Inquires was condensed from the newly referenced Forbes paper which I read as contextual legal analysis with important dates of consequential Gov. reactions etc. In there, should I have used some "Blockquotes" and ref'd each specific paragraph back to Forbes.

Is it okay now? Invisi Bletv (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

YouTube primary source
@User:Invisi Bletv: I appreciate your excellent intentions and reasonable POV in reverting my challenge to your YouTube primary source. However, please now amplify your confident edit summary by explaining (1) your evidence that the cited YouTube source is not a copyright violation or that the website has licensed the work from the owner; (2) why you are purporting to convert the primary matter into a secondary source by citing yourself (per username!) as the author; (3) if not yourself, who is the reliable secondary source justifying inclusion and interpretation of the primary matter; and (3) If the citation is not 'vague', do you believe it is reasonable to require WP readers to listen to a video of over half an hour's duration in attempting to verify the speaker's summarised opinions and estimations? Please also bear in mind the WP policy that "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source, and that improvement of articles is necessarily a co-operative and patient process. Bjenks (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Bjenks: Many may not appreciate glib 'appreciation' icing poor adjudication. Your honour ... A) I recorded the video of Roger. I trimmed and titled the video of Roger. I uploaded the video of Roger to Youtube. No person or corporation instructed, contracted or paid me to do so. B) Let's not muck about, I'm only purporting that Roger is a primary source of information in this video backgrounding his major published work on this subject (previously oddly absent from this topic page). The youtube-username is put into the reference section automagically anyhow. C) Mate, I trust there is no intellectual bias against time-based media - there are many many WP pages referring WP readers to an entire book of hundreds of pages, or an entire site. Roger comments on the number of fatalities and the extent of the death-dealing events in the last quarter of the cited video. It's okay to skip ahead, or rewind. D) Who's on first? Is first on second? Does second have primacy over first. Under WP protocols after my Undo, should you not have left the video-reference INTACT while we have this talk. Your second-bite challenge seems unnecessary obtuse and denies WP readers researching this topic valid 'public domain' information which is not printed on paper nor available from anywhere else. Did you view the video? If you don't like hearing what Roger says, then just shout "I don't want this video referenced on WP!" to your offline self. Respecting cooperation ... why not undo your undoing of my Undo before I redo. Invisi Bletv (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've avoided answering my specific concerns about YouTube sourcing, and you don't seem to realise that WP policy doesn't admit self-sourcing, original research, etc. Nonetheless the good points may be worth restoring with acceptable sourcing and I'm now reading Milliss's excellent excellent book (and others) in the effort to assist. Bjenks (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)