This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pinjarra massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to edit this page extensively. Consider it a placeholder.-- Cuomo111 01:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anyone that thinks for a single moment that this is a neutral article needs mental help. This is a decidedly anti-European page written by some white-hating left-wing fanatic (obviously the aborigines wrote nothing at all). A disgrace. 2A00:23C4:B607:CB01:D946:D8AA:F8AB:D8E9 ( talk) 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The article does not yet rate on the quality scale. What do you people think? John D. Croft 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Pinjarra →
Pinjarra Massacre — When well-fed, trained, and mounted men armed with guns and ammunition ambush a nomadic group laden with women and children, lacking both metal and cavalry, the odds are highly skewed in favour of the former. When such a preponderance yields casualty ratios as acute as 1:10::Side A Deaths:Side B Deaths or worse, addressing this inequality ordinarily leads one to consider the term,
w:massacre, far more appropriate than the term,
w:battle. Warmest Regards, :)—
thecurran
Speak your mind
my past 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''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.Battle of Pinjarra | Pinjarra Massacre | |
---|---|---|
Google Web | 33k ("Battle of Pinjarra" -wikipedia) |
3.7k ("Pinjarra Massacre" - wikipedia) |
Google Scholar | 68 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
19 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Books | 689 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
64 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Search Field | Battle of Pinjarra | Pinjarra Massacre |
---|---|---|
Google Web+WP Past year |
94 (Battle of Pinjarra) |
84 (Pinjarra Massacre) |
Google Scholar Since 2000 |
26 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
12 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Books Since 2000 |
221 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
47 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Web-WP Past year |
57 ("Battle of Pinjarra"-Wikipedia) |
75 ("Pinjarra Massacre"-Wikipedia) |
NB: The web searches only go for the last year because it's the longest range that's easy to replicate.
thecurran Thoughts? my past 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that massacre is a description of the outcome, whether the term 'battle' is justified or not, however, I think this has been decided elsewhere. This is from the national broadcaster:
"The incident is referred to by many people as the Pinjarra Massacre, but not by all -- traditional white history teaches us that this was in fact the Battle of Pinjarra. And this is the point, because language and labels are powerful and an event's meaning in history can be summed up in a single name."—21 March 2010 Artworks Feature: "The Pinjarra Massacre" Radio National
and "Pinjarra Massacre Memorial" fremantleprison.com.au/whatson or even "Pinjarra Massacre Site Research and Development Project". see NLA record for authors
The distinction between these examples, and the ghits above, is they are titles, not just names, and we can cite that. We could defer to a source like the state government's Heritage Council of Western Australia Place No: 03957 which says, "Name: Pinjarra Massacre Site; Other Names: Battle of Pinjarra; Pinjarra Battle Memorial Area" Cygnis insignis ( talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The block quote discusses how these terms flavour the names applied to the incident. Unless other sources contradict my selection, they acknowledge the dilemma in choosing a name and favoured 'massacre' over 'battle' for a title. Attempting to resolve this by analysis of ghits and reference to policy or guidelines is unnecessary, neither can be used as a source in the article! The sources that google brought me could be used, the last is compelling: the state government's heritage register acknowledges the various names and gives massacre in the title. What the Nyungar people thought about that description was not a consideration, it became one later. The 'official' title of the registered site emerges from the same authority that implemented the campaign (approximately), knowingly selected over the systematic bias of the name given by the earliest reports. I s'pose I am suggesting that maintaining the military term was reactionary, or polarising, and invested with a conceptualisation of 'war' or 'resistance'. I reckon those notions have been out-moded by the historically descriptive term, a steady trend since the 1960s; the choice of title in other sources, not google hits determining most common, might show that to be wrong. Cygnis insignis ( talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly seven days after the move above was proposed there was clear consensus for the move. By the time somebody closed it though there was almost a clear consensus against the move. At that point, the right decision was to leave well enough alone but, seeing how much change occurred after the seven day mark, i have to ask why was there such a delay? Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Starting with the assumption that the appropriate sampling size is reached not when our standard week elapses but only when the tide just barely turns in favour of what U hold to be the correct choice in the first place, refusing the move, intimates that U may have carried a bias in that direction before U took action. This concept is compounded further as a super-majority against the move was not demonstrated and the move was repeatedly opposed on substance but simultaneously supported in essence. Of course i WP:AGF that no such bias existed since it behooves decent admins to recuse themselves from action once they find themselves to hold such prejudices. As it is no longer determinable which direction may have ended in majority if the survey had been allowed to vacillate further, i strongly suggest that U take care not to add insult to injury with such unsubstantiated claims on sample size in the future. I reiterate that i agree with your decision to forgo the move at that stage because surveys are somewhat of a sounding-board for whether further deliberation is needed and, when neither side holds a super-majority, it is often best to leave "well enough" alone. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Simply put, i found the sentence "I suppose in this case the delay was somewhat helpful, because the first week of discussion apparently was not a large enough sampling." both unnecessary and slightly misleading; i would like to see it struck through or otherwise amended. Should that happen, i would gladly strike my paragraph through.
Your immediate and perhaps disproportionate response here however, compared with your long inattention to me challenging your sentence "Battle of Pinjarra" is by far the most commonly used name, makes me less comfortable and hints that U might be willing to contact your mates to help if U were losing a discussion. I again repeat that i will tolerate the current name for many months or longer because i am respecting this outcome. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I implore you to step back and consider whether, after three false and baseless assumptions of bad faith in a row, it might be possible that you are the problem here. Hesperian 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Thecurran. It is true that I was alerted to the discussion from the note you left on Hesperian's talk page, but it is also true that I have made several edits to this article in the past and it is one that I know a little about and therefore interests me. I missed the initial discussion only because the article had dropped off my watchlist for reasons that are unimportant. FYI, I frequently disagree with Hesperian on various matters and no doubt will do so (and !vote accordingly) again in the future. Your ongoing insinuations offend me. – Moondyne 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why not call it the Pinjarra Massacre and just have Battle of Pinjarra redirect to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.83.109 ( talk) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
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. /info/en/?search=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)
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 Gnan garra 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
disagree. rename to "Pinjarra Incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 ( talk) 04:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting article which names two members of the Binjarep group. Nunan was identified but escaped. Munna was killed. The article also entertains the idea that warring factions could be useful against each other [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pinjarra massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I plan to edit this page extensively. Consider it a placeholder.-- Cuomo111 01:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Anyone that thinks for a single moment that this is a neutral article needs mental help. This is a decidedly anti-European page written by some white-hating left-wing fanatic (obviously the aborigines wrote nothing at all). A disgrace. 2A00:23C4:B607:CB01:D946:D8AA:F8AB:D8E9 ( talk) 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The article does not yet rate on the quality scale. What do you people think? John D. Croft 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Pinjarra →
Pinjarra Massacre — When well-fed, trained, and mounted men armed with guns and ammunition ambush a nomadic group laden with women and children, lacking both metal and cavalry, the odds are highly skewed in favour of the former. When such a preponderance yields casualty ratios as acute as 1:10::Side A Deaths:Side B Deaths or worse, addressing this inequality ordinarily leads one to consider the term,
w:massacre, far more appropriate than the term,
w:battle. Warmest Regards, :)—
thecurran
Speak your mind
my past 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
*'''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.Battle of Pinjarra | Pinjarra Massacre | |
---|---|---|
Google Web | 33k ("Battle of Pinjarra" -wikipedia) |
3.7k ("Pinjarra Massacre" - wikipedia) |
Google Scholar | 68 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
19 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Books | 689 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
64 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Search Field | Battle of Pinjarra | Pinjarra Massacre |
---|---|---|
Google Web+WP Past year |
94 (Battle of Pinjarra) |
84 (Pinjarra Massacre) |
Google Scholar Since 2000 |
26 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
12 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Books Since 2000 |
221 ("Battle of Pinjarra") |
47 ("Pinjarra Massacre") |
Google Web-WP Past year |
57 ("Battle of Pinjarra"-Wikipedia) |
75 ("Pinjarra Massacre"-Wikipedia) |
NB: The web searches only go for the last year because it's the longest range that's easy to replicate.
thecurran Thoughts? my past 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that massacre is a description of the outcome, whether the term 'battle' is justified or not, however, I think this has been decided elsewhere. This is from the national broadcaster:
"The incident is referred to by many people as the Pinjarra Massacre, but not by all -- traditional white history teaches us that this was in fact the Battle of Pinjarra. And this is the point, because language and labels are powerful and an event's meaning in history can be summed up in a single name."—21 March 2010 Artworks Feature: "The Pinjarra Massacre" Radio National
and "Pinjarra Massacre Memorial" fremantleprison.com.au/whatson or even "Pinjarra Massacre Site Research and Development Project". see NLA record for authors
The distinction between these examples, and the ghits above, is they are titles, not just names, and we can cite that. We could defer to a source like the state government's Heritage Council of Western Australia Place No: 03957 which says, "Name: Pinjarra Massacre Site; Other Names: Battle of Pinjarra; Pinjarra Battle Memorial Area" Cygnis insignis ( talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The block quote discusses how these terms flavour the names applied to the incident. Unless other sources contradict my selection, they acknowledge the dilemma in choosing a name and favoured 'massacre' over 'battle' for a title. Attempting to resolve this by analysis of ghits and reference to policy or guidelines is unnecessary, neither can be used as a source in the article! The sources that google brought me could be used, the last is compelling: the state government's heritage register acknowledges the various names and gives massacre in the title. What the Nyungar people thought about that description was not a consideration, it became one later. The 'official' title of the registered site emerges from the same authority that implemented the campaign (approximately), knowingly selected over the systematic bias of the name given by the earliest reports. I s'pose I am suggesting that maintaining the military term was reactionary, or polarising, and invested with a conceptualisation of 'war' or 'resistance'. I reckon those notions have been out-moded by the historically descriptive term, a steady trend since the 1960s; the choice of title in other sources, not google hits determining most common, might show that to be wrong. Cygnis insignis ( talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly seven days after the move above was proposed there was clear consensus for the move. By the time somebody closed it though there was almost a clear consensus against the move. At that point, the right decision was to leave well enough alone but, seeing how much change occurred after the seven day mark, i have to ask why was there such a delay? Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Starting with the assumption that the appropriate sampling size is reached not when our standard week elapses but only when the tide just barely turns in favour of what U hold to be the correct choice in the first place, refusing the move, intimates that U may have carried a bias in that direction before U took action. This concept is compounded further as a super-majority against the move was not demonstrated and the move was repeatedly opposed on substance but simultaneously supported in essence. Of course i WP:AGF that no such bias existed since it behooves decent admins to recuse themselves from action once they find themselves to hold such prejudices. As it is no longer determinable which direction may have ended in majority if the survey had been allowed to vacillate further, i strongly suggest that U take care not to add insult to injury with such unsubstantiated claims on sample size in the future. I reiterate that i agree with your decision to forgo the move at that stage because surveys are somewhat of a sounding-board for whether further deliberation is needed and, when neither side holds a super-majority, it is often best to leave "well enough" alone. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Simply put, i found the sentence "I suppose in this case the delay was somewhat helpful, because the first week of discussion apparently was not a large enough sampling." both unnecessary and slightly misleading; i would like to see it struck through or otherwise amended. Should that happen, i would gladly strike my paragraph through.
Your immediate and perhaps disproportionate response here however, compared with your long inattention to me challenging your sentence "Battle of Pinjarra" is by far the most commonly used name, makes me less comfortable and hints that U might be willing to contact your mates to help if U were losing a discussion. I again repeat that i will tolerate the current name for many months or longer because i am respecting this outcome. Warmest Regards, :)— thecurran Speak your mind my past 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I implore you to step back and consider whether, after three false and baseless assumptions of bad faith in a row, it might be possible that you are the problem here. Hesperian 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
@Thecurran. It is true that I was alerted to the discussion from the note you left on Hesperian's talk page, but it is also true that I have made several edits to this article in the past and it is one that I know a little about and therefore interests me. I missed the initial discussion only because the article had dropped off my watchlist for reasons that are unimportant. FYI, I frequently disagree with Hesperian on various matters and no doubt will do so (and !vote accordingly) again in the future. Your ongoing insinuations offend me. – Moondyne 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why not call it the Pinjarra Massacre and just have Battle of Pinjarra redirect to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.83.109 ( talk) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
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. /info/en/?search=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)
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 Gnan garra 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
disagree. rename to "Pinjarra Incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 ( talk) 04:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting article which names two members of the Binjarep group. Nunan was identified but escaped. Munna was killed. The article also entertains the idea that warring factions could be useful against each other [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)
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)