: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).