Talk:Pinjarra massacre

message: I plan to edit this page extensively. Consider it a placeholder.--Cuomo111 01:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:OWN.  Whatever "placeholders" means, anyone is welcome to edit a Wikipedia article as long as they are improving it. —Moondyne 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: This article had substantial deletions on the 20th March after someone had added extensive improvements last year to give it a neutral point of view. It is now no longer of a neutral point of view and many important pieces of information have been removed. They would be good starting points for someone looking for primary references.
Could somebody explain why much of this article has been deleted and why it now has a biased point of view?
Could we revert it and try and work towards a neutral article that presents the case from both the point of view of local settlers and local Aboriginals?
86.151.26.52 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heavily edited and reorganised this article to provide a more detailed and accurate coverage, including references.  Hope it now meets with people's approval.  Does it still rank as a stub?  John D. Croft 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greatly improved.  Stub tags removed.  —Moondyne 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View 

message: The article does not yet rate on the quality scale.  What do you people think? John D. Croft 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well its currently rated "B" which I think is about right per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment.  As a narrative, it reads really well but there a lot of stuff in there that a reader or reviewer would have no way of verifying: ie. needs lots more inline citations.  There's a few statements which are possible original research. For example: "In the late afternoon, they camped at Jinjanuk, 10 miles from the mouth of the Murray River, so that they could begin the attack early next morning when they judged the Aboriginal group would be least prepared." (my emphasis). Peacock terms "Stirling gave the natives a terrifying warning".  True, but needs to be in a more neutral tone.  I hope this helps. —Moondyne 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments Moondyne.  I'll have a go at ammending appropriately in the next few days.  Must get back to Green's "Brokjen Spears" where most of the content I believe comes, including maps which would be good to get into the article.  I'll have a go at doing them soon. John D. Croft 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality Scale

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support clearly justified. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly the current name absolutely smashes the proposed name by an order of magnitude. The principle of following reliable sources is written into policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming, and there is a vast body of precedent, for example Black Hole of Calcutta, Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, etc. Hesperian 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.westaustralianvista.com/pinjarra-massacre.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Misarxist 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I have a another source for massacre broadcast on government radio today, it says it was called  a battle to disguise the truth of the massacre. I have read the article and would like to know what refs were removed.?oygul (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  another source for massacre of pinjarra 

message: This title is not neutral it gives to much weight to one interpretation of the event.I suggest we change the title to The Pinjarra Incident can I please have some opinions.?oygul (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not about interpretations its about the most commonly used name in reliable sources. See #Requested move above.  Nothing has changed. Moondyne (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above RM is deadlocked between two non-neutral titles. Modern use of both terms seem about equal in sources.  The title should be neutral and not give any weight to either term.
Until it becomes clear in modern sources which term is more in use. Titles are based on a number of different criteria. Neutrally should overweigh the most common usage.
Pinjarra Incident is one suggestion of a neutral title. It favours no particular name. ?oygul (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that the title may be non-neutral, but thats missing the point: Read WP:POVTITLE: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Moondyne (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready to reassess whether "Pinjarra massacre" has become the more accepted name for this event, but "Pinjarra incident" is a travesty of euphemism. Hesperian 12:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree with hesperian - incident does not reflect what happened - it certainly wasnt a tea party SatuSuro 13:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the current sources, the use of these terms seems about equal. So wiki is giving undue weight by having one or the other as the tittle. It should be nether until such time as it becomes clear which one is the most in use by current sources. That is why I suggested a different title, to find a neutral title. It seems you lot are more interested in discussing why it must be either battle or massacre and not suggesting alternatives, I’ll just put this one on my watch list and come and join the discussion if there is an RC or RM. ?oygul (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgest name change  

message: The introduction of the article suggests that Aboriginal people lived in tribes.  They did not.  This is in error.  Secondly that they had "warbands", when this is also wrong.  There were small groups who may have come together to inflict what they saw as a "payback" from time to time but there was no such thing as a warband.  This is a racist view based upon North American Amerind useage.  Thirdly, as Neville Green shows in "Broken Spears", by the early 1830s Swan River people, dispaced by European settlers were moving into areas north and south of the river.  This would have led to so called Whadjuk people encroaching upon areas traditionally Binjareb.  The article suggests that it was Calyute/Kalyute who was responsible for the "massacre" - i.e. unexpected attack upon Aboriginal people.  It was clearly a way to systematise the land grab that was already proceeding by Peel's settlers in the Pinjarra region. 
Finally to call it "a batttle" is also a misnomer and a misleading use of the word battle (See here.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle).  A battle is something that leads to the moral collapse and then the physical distruction of one of two armies.  The Aboriginal people had no army.  Calling it a battle of Pinjarra is again questionable.  An attack upon an Aboriginal settlement that was not expecting such an attack, and was going about its business was only a battle in the eyes of Europeans seeking to justify their actions during and after the event.John D. Croft (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors of Content

message: I know we have been here before, the name Battle of Pinjarra is still common when searching that is because of the written sources are coloured by the written accounts of the time. Its widely accepted that was anything but a battle the event is equally if not more frequently referred to as a massacre its the commonly accepted description in use. Given this I propose that the article gets renamed to Pinjarra Massacre Gnangarra 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly support. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: If you want to write fiction, write a novel. If you want to write in an encyclopedia - even an online one - cite your sources. This article has long been notorious for its inability to back up contentious claims, and three years of 'citation required' has done nothing to allay this. Let's get this article up to an A-grade level and start referencing some sources. 155.143.112.133 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The lack of sources

message: Be sure to keep your language neutral when editing this page. I have removed the contentious term 'so-called' from before the alternate title of this historic event 'The Battle of Pinjarra', and I have changed the language throughout where some thoughtful user had put scare-quotes around every mention of the word 'battle.' Instead of "battle" we now have melee, instead of "battleground" we now have site of the incident. There's plenty of well referenced counter-arguments to the 'battle' narrative in the article already, it does not need your subtle censure. 144.138.156.176 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: The article is currently named "Pinjarra massacre", but the lead sentence says "Battle of Pinjarra", and the infobox says "Pinjarra battle". The three should all be the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title does not match lead sentence or infobox 

message: A revision of the article added an existing ref to an uncited statement, omitted some assetions and removed another from Lyon. ~ cygnis insignis 12:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  revision