Talk:Waterloo Creek massacre

message: 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)
replies: text: See some updates and additions below ... Invisi Bletv (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed facts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where are theses places? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Hint from JarrahTree 

message: @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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube primary source