Talk:Forrest River massacre

message: The interesting thing about this massacre is that we really don't know if it did or did not occur. A Royal Commision concluded that it did, however the subsequent trial of the alleged killers failed to find fact that it ever did. There's also allegations about the persons involved in the crime and the reporter of the crime. A book written in the 1990's alleging it did not happen, and a extremist right wing organisation the IPA making a fuss over the book in their magazine Quadrant. I'm not a very well practised editor, so I hope that others can fill outthis article NPOV of course better than I.petedavo 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: See Neville Green: 'The Forrest River Massacres' (1993) for a far better treatment of the history of these events. Rod Moran's distortions and false claims are dealt with briefly in Bryce Moore's comments on Graham Milner's post of February 20th, 2005 to Marxmail, concerning Moran's political evolution. See also Ron Brunton's 1999 article in IPA (Institute of Policy Affairs)journal. Moore's and Brunton's pieces may be found by Googling 'Rod Moran'. 21:51, 2 September 2007 graham milnerPreceding comment added by petedavo 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: counterpoint

message: The subjects - gribble and his contemporaries are now deceased - however writers of the articles/books/arguments are living - however the wpbiography tag is for subjects of the article.  So the living tag is specifically for the subject - however in a readers perception  Moran and Green are considered subject of the article as well- any comments to clarify appreciated SatuSuro 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPBiography

message: Per WP:UNDUE is there any need for an entire section on one journalists opinion when it's contrary to that of the historians? It might warrant coverage if many people noticed, but as it is it's only sourced to his book. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, ok Loos has responded specifically, but still can it just be cut down to mentioning it? Misarxist (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Moran's book, and he appears to be a 'denialist', since he is cited as dismissing other 'alleged massacres' that is, massacres that are just vaguely alluded to in contemporary white documentation but recalled in Aboriginal oral history, is mainly important for the influence it had on Windshuttle. But still, he did write a full book on the massacre to which this page is dedicated. There's room for improvement and finessing, clearly. His conclusions as they were cited, were cited as though they were objectively established facts. That was the problem.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yes, that was the impression I got, didn't know he'd inspired Windy though. (Can you guess where I stand in that debate?;) The publisher () appears to be more or less a self-publishing outlet, and explicitly disclaims any responsibility for fact-checking. So possibly the whole thing can go unless it has to be mentioned (via 3rd party sources) as "there has been some controversty" etc? Misarxist (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't check that. If it is a self-published book, one could raise that at WP:RS. Technically I dislike anything on wikipedia that doesn't come from  quality presses or the specialist literature, i.e. things that, to get published, have to survive peer review. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be written from news reports. I think you are right that this sort of stuff should be accessed via secondary literature therefore, namely works by specialists who refer to his analysis. Loos is one such source.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: As I had not read his book I was prepared to give Moran some credibility but the more I read the more it seems Moran is not a reliable source at all. Some of his claims are ambiguous at best and others are refuted by the very records he cites. I'm now more inclined to treat him as another David Irving and limit the false claims section to maybe two paragraphs at most. Comments?Wayne (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case then it probably shld be treated as you (I think) said below with mainly others talking about his claims. Certainly agree it needs cutting down. I'll have a look at the Studies in Western Australian History volume maybe tomorrow or within the week, it might be useful on that score as it seems to be more about the Moran kerfuffle than the massacre itself. Misarxist (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He cannot be treated on a par with professional historians, since strong doubts exist that he is RS, and in any case, in arguing against a solid academic consensus, his view verges on fringe on this specific incident, and thus must come under WP:Undue. I.e. a brief synthesis of his general theory and claims in a paragraph, at most two.  One would appreciate it if Misarxist or anyone else can get to a library, and comb relevant bibliographic surveys and the volume he cites, to  get further imput on academic work on the massacre, and academic responses to Moran's book.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently mentoring a student going for his masters in Indiginous studies and Anthropology so I'll let him do the leg work and see what he can dig up for me.Wayne (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Massacre Myth is briefly reviewed (along w/ Browns work) at  pp 145-7 not critical but observes Moran relies on ignoring oral history. It's slammed by Ron Brunton in a newspaper review . Other reviews are ABR 2000, and I assume more usefully Aboriginal History 1999. Summary of newspaper pieces before book publication  pp 35-40. Windshuttle rather likes it, I couldn't be bothered collecting the refs. Will check the WA History thing within the week, sorry. Misarxist (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to a few of those sources lol. One thread that is common is that Moran, Windschuttle et al require beyond reasonable doubt evidence to the exclusion of balance of probabilities. This source is quite good. Biased but it discusses some excellent issues. Wayne (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moran 

message: Wayne has proposed  to deal with Moran, given the almost complete academic consensus (except for one person noted, Flood working out of her field of expertise) it seems to be along the right lines. Note Choo above even refers to Moran's work as "apologetics" and the kindest thing anyone else has to say is Bolton observing that a sane person could accept Moran's work. I don't see why there shouldn't be a short summary of Moran from his own work, but the quote from Bolton about standards of proof is irrelevant as history doesn't use such a (legal) standard anyway. Misarxist (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarising Moran 

message: I don't want to get involved in what's going on above, but I do want to comment that some of what is being presented as evidence is pretty thin. For example, because Hays gun was found with a spent cartridge in it, it's evidence that he shot at someone? At that time it was pretty much standard practice to carry revolvers with only five live rounds and a spent cartridge under the hammer for safety. U didn't want a live round under the hammer because if U dropped the gun or it knocked up against something while U were riding or walking through the bush, the hammer could strike teh cartridge and shoot yourself or your horse. A spent cartridge was used rather than leaving the chamber empty because letting a hammer drop on an empty chamber can damage the hammer. It might mean something if there were 2 spent cartridges.    The evidence of empty cartridge boxes is meaningless because it was standard practice to transfer cartridges from boxes to bandoleers or pouches asap. Boxes are awkward things to load from on horseback. The amount of ammunition taken is also meaningless as when U divide it up between the number of people with guns, it is about right for the standard amount carried per man on police and military patrols, specially if they supplemented rations with fresh game. Cheers. Pistol Pete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.54 (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We can of course comment here on what our own impression are, which all have done. But unless these comments find a sourced basis in the relevant literature by qualified experts, they can't influence the way the page is edited. As to ammo, rules are rules. The rule was, account for ammunition, and the responsible authority ignored his duty, in a way that aroused justifiable suspicions. That is what the sources say.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thin evidence 

message: what's a pastoralist?  i begin to get distracted when trying to read this article, from encountering that in the first sentence.  then it is used many times. A shepherd?  A poet? --doncram (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given a provisory link to clarify, but note that the wiki page on the subject is defective, since it omits to note that pastoralism was the term used in Britain's overseas colonies for free range cattle and sheep raising.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  pastoralist 

message: I came here looking for info after I saw a reference to this event on-line.  What I found appears to be some sort of contest as to who can get the most refs.  The article is way to long, and is drowning to death (i.e. hard to read) in minor and/or trivial details.  I am all for detail, especially when it comes to historical events, but I think this article should provide more of an overview and general breakdown of what happened, and let the reader go to the linked sources for the minor details. The Eskimo (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem we have is that a handful of fringe historians refute that the event took place so more detail is required than would be normal if everyone was in agreement. It can be rewritten and trimmed down quite a bit now that a substantial amount of fringe material has been removed. Wayne (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement with both of the above. Orderinchaos 06:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise I would have to agree with the above comments. Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed also.  Perhaps a split to Forrest River massacre investigations and Royal Commission.  Try to keep the main article to the point.  –Moondyne 06:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at trimming probably after the weekend and will see how the article can be split if I cant shorten it enough. Wayne (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got around to splitting the article. The new article is Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission. This has reduced this article from 8700 words to around 5700. The new article is around 5500 words. The extra words are due to some neccessary duplication but feel free to modify as required. Wayne (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Reader's Perspective

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Forrest River massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905174157/https://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=350 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=350
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904212302/http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=237 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=237
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is a referencing mess, to speak of a minor problem. The whole article requires working over recontrolling every source, with the principle that a generic Elders pp.. repeated over and over, without a specific page indication for each point is useless as tits on a bull.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  referencing