User talk:Shower nymph

Rabbit-Proof Fence
I'm sorry, Skyring, but I've read Keith Windschuttle's page, 'The Ten Big Fictions of Rabbit-Proof Fence', you've cited and I find it to be dubious at best. I'm not convinced at all by it. It's a series of claims written by someone with an agenda to undermine and downplay the history of atrocities done to Indigenous people by European settlers. This movie was confronting for many people in Australia and internationally, and I know there are those who refuse to take responsibility in the 21st century for what happened, but that doesn't entitle them to spread false information. Most of Windschuttle's claims relate to the artistic license that the director took with including minor characters, which he obviously had to in order to add longevity and interest to the movie, but these points are largely irrelevant and in no way derail from the main story - that these were half-caste Indigenous girls removed from their mothers, in keeping with government policy, to assimilate them into white society based on a misguided and colonial attitude that Indigenous people were uncivilised.

Additionally, Windschuttle's research and claims have a history of being discredited and questioned by many people in the research field and elsewhere; I can link you if you want. I don't know where this "consensus" of your citation you claim is coming from but it's a consensus based on misleading info. Windschuttle is on par with Andrew Bolt with his attempts to mislead and downplay the darkness in our country's past. It's rubbing salt in an already gaping wound suffered by a people who still receive little recognition and compensation for what happened to them.

Shower nymph (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You should discuss this on the article's talk page. Your personal opinions hold no weight here - we rely on reliable sources. The material has been part of the article for a long time and may not be removed without gaining consensus on the article talk page. I also direct you to our neutral point of view policy, which ensures that views from all sides are presented, commensurate with their weight.


 * Our Bold, Revert, Discuss protocol helps keep things civil. Bold edits are welcome, but if they are Reverted by an interested editor, then they should be Discussed on the article talk page. If you follow our policies, then you will be a better contributor here, and very welcome. If you go against them, things will become difficult.


 * As I see it, you are removing well-sourced, longstanding content for no good reason beyond your own personal opinion. This is effectively vandalism, and if you persist in blanking the material, you will be warned, and if you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.


 * Please look around some of our help pages to see how things operate here. --Pete (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)