Talk:Yagan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yagan article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Portal	Yagan is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Yagan is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 17, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result January 31, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

WikiProject Echo has identified Yagan as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Statue location 2 Burial location 3 Murder site 4 Featured article? 4.1 Another reference 5 Bibbulmun 6 Exhumation of Yagan's head 7 Some peer review 8 LinkFix dump 9 Image placement 10 Wrong word? 11 Pronunciation 12 Word of appreciation 13 Appreciation and query 14 'they?' 15 Bias 16 POV 17 Why is this a featured article? 18 Problems with article 19 Yagan's gravesite location 20 Entwhistle

[edit] Statue location

• Does anyone know the whereabouts of the statue now? I read somewhere it's in storage. - Moondyne 01:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Also, does anyone know the location of Yagan's murder. I had understood it to be in the Bullcreek area. - Moondyne 01:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was in the Bullcreek area. If I remember correctly it was on the road from Fremantle to Armadale. I'll consult Westralian Portraits tonight and let you know. Hesperian 02:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. What I've written above refers to the location of Yagan's ambush of the Velvicks. There is a "Yagan Park" in Bullcreek; possibly this marks the precise spot. I believe that Yagan was murdered somewhere near Bassendean. As I said above, I'll consult Westralian Portraits tonight and let you know. Hesperian 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Drew, it'd be good to include this in the article. Moondyne 03:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burial location

Regarding the burial location, the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Dept. of Aboriginal Affairs jointly published a document entitled "Yagan's gravesite master plan" in 1998. From the introduction:

The Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have commissioned this Master Plan in order to guide matters of ownership, management, development and future use of Lot 39, West Swan Road, Upper Swan.

I haven't actually seen the document; this quote is from the document's entry in the State Library database. But given that this document exists, I find it a little strange that there is so much uncertainty about the burial location. Hesperian 02:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You would assume that given the head was removed for the express purpose of keeping it, that the body would have been buried at the murder site. It's hard to imagine a grizzly affair like a beheaded body being carted very far in those days, given difficulties of transport and that by 1833 there would have been no more than maybe a thousand settlers in the Perth region. - Moondyne 03:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Murder site

Westralian Portraits refers to the murder site as

... in a small clearing in the hills behind Guildford...

and

... along the banks of the Swan River near Guildford....

I had a look in the street directory, and it seems the location may have been near Lilac Hill. West Swan Road is right there, so probably Lot 39 marks the spot exactly.

The description of the location of the murder of the Velvicks is

near the Canning River beside the road from Kelmscott to Fremantle.

The location of Yagan Park (off Leach Highway, on the boundary of Bull Creek and Rossmoyne) is about the only place that fits that description.

I will try to work this information into the acticle. Hesperian 01:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article?

Ian has suggested that this article is just about ready to be a featured article status, and I most enthusiastically agree. Is there anyone out there other than us two who would be willing to get involved?

I think there are a few things that need to be done before we even think about peer review. I've started a to-do list at Talk:Yagan/to do (transcluded below).

• Are the sections okay? I like it the way it is, but one could argue for breaking up parts of the Yagan's life section, or for collapsing the status and cartoon bits into cultural references.

Hesperian 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

{{todo}}

• • I would personally prefer the "Relations with settlers" be split up into sub-sections just to break up the text. The subsection that I can see are as follows:
    • First Aboriginal Resistance
    • Outlaw and Capture
    • Yagan and Lyon
    • Dead or Alive (for Lieutenant-Governor Frederick Irwin declaration as outlaws)

- Matthew kokai 09:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] Another reference

I've just found another reference:

• Fforde, Cressida (2002). "Chapter 18: Yagan", in Fforde, Cressida, Hubert, Jane and Turnbull, Paul (eds): The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice. London:Routledge, 229–241. ISBN 0415233852. 

This chapter focusses on the process by which Yagan's head was located and repatriated, which is an area of the article that is a bit weak. There is a copy in the Alexander library. I'll get to it eventually if no-one beats me to it. Hesperian 05:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibbulmun

There seems to be a lot of contradictory information about the relationship between "Bibbulmun" and "Noongar". Some sources speak of the "Noongar people of the Bibbulmun nation", while others speak of the "Bibbulmun tribe of the Noongar nation". Green writes:

Early in the 20th century, Daisy Bates brought all the groups together under the popularised named of Bibbulmen [sic] which was never totally accepted by the south-west Aborigines. More recently the Aboriginal descendents of the south-west groups have accepted Nyungar as the generic term for themselves...

The situation is sufficiently confusing that I have decided to remove references to "bibbulmun" from the article altogether. If anyone has a clearer understanding of how Yagan, Noongar and Bibbulmun relate to each other, feel free to reinsert it. Hesperian 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exhumation of Yagan's head

I've got the full story of the exhumation of Yagan's head, and a heap of good images; see Commons:Yagan. I intend to write it up, but probably at Exhumation of Yagan's head, rather than directly into Yagan. Hesperian 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some peer review

Great work on the article. On Hesperians request I have a few suggestions

1. Personally I don't like the use of Harvard style referencing in encyclopedia text- you might want to try the new system for numbering refs as described here m:Cite/Cite.php which is a numerical footnoting system, and use one of the other footnoting systems for the two explanatory notes you have - or work them into the text somehow. This is really a preference thing on my part- but most recent FAs do use a numbered note system.
2. You might want to check the MoS for quote sytle - I'm pretty sure quotes aren't supposed to be italicised. Same does with caps in section headings, in all the heading with Head, have the word capitalised but it is not capitalised in the text- so choose one and stick with it.
3. The sections Alas poor Yagan, Yagans statue and cultural referces are in a sense all discussions on the impacts of Yagan on contemporary Australian society and could be brought together under one H2, with H3's if required.
4. Americans don't seem to understand that the european settlers of Australia had to do very little to take the land of the Aborigines (in most instances) - so anything that you could add to state that the settlers had no legal obligation to be nice to the Aborigines - would be useful for the non-Australian reader.
5. The lead could have a bit more detail, the name of his tribe, how he died and specific mention of the exhumation wouldn't hurt, and in the interest of being a comprehensive summary it should also mention that his impact extends beyond folklore into aspects of popular culture.
6. Merge sentence long and two sentence paragraphs into longer paragraphs where practical.
7. Get someone else to copy edit it, Cyberjunkie, Wayward or Tony1 are usually willing to lend a hand - and a fresh pair of eyes is useful.
8. Image:Alas Poor Yagan (2 panels).jpg needs a fair use rationale added for use in this article and should be tagged with {{fairusein}} for all the articles where it meets the fair use requirements.

These minor things shouldn't take long to address, and I think the article should have a smooth run through FAC.--nixie 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LinkFix dump

For more background on this topic, see User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump.

================================================================================
LinkFix Dump
Yagan
2006-01-09.18-09-20
================================================================================
2   [[Indigenous Australian]] -> [[Indigenous Australians]]
12  [[Bush]] -> DISAMBIG
28  [[Execution (legal)]] -> [[Capital punishment]]
48  [[Egyptian]] -> DISAMBIG
57  [[London University]] -> [[University of London]]
57  [[Archaeologist]] -> [[Archaeology]]
66  [[Electromagnetic]] -> [[Electromagnetism]]
72  [[Palaeontologist]] -> [[Paleontology]]
72  [[Bradford University]] -> [[University of Bradford]]
74  [[Government of the United Kingdom]] -> [[Her Majesty's Government]]
76  [[Princess Diana]] -> [[Diana, Princess of Wales]]
84  [[Dreamtime]] -> DISAMBIG
90  [[Racial discrimination]] -> [[Racism]]
98  [[Intimate parts]] -> [[Intimate part]]
# DONE

Three links to disambiguation pages. Get to work! — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks again Edward. All fixed. Drew (Hesperian) 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement

Does anyone else find a picture of Yagan's disembodied head a little disturbing? A couple of other articles with unusual pictures (eg nudity) tend to have a "safe" image at the top, and the unusual pictures later on. Perhaps the first image should be swapped with one of the staue images? Andjam 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not censor offensive content.--cj | talk 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for censorship! Andjam 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As the article describes, the statues nudity caused some controversy of its own! It is a bit macabre, but I'd prefer to keep the head at the top of the article. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the photographer of the statue has released the photo under the GFDL, there is also copyright in the statue itself. Using the photo of the statue to illustrate the statue is fair use, but using the photo of the statue to illustrate Yagan himself would not be fair use and would infringement the copyright of the sculptor. I appreciate what you're saying but given the paucity of extant images of Yagan I don't think we have the luxury of rejecting the best image on those grounds. Drew (Hesperian) 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion above seems to ignore what anybody trained in anthropoplogy would find quite problematic - for significant sections of the australian aboriginal community, any image of a deceased person is simply not on.

It's intriguing to think that a non aboriginal might find a head a problem, when in fact the images verge on being offensive to the people who have the greatest interest in the story, but who are denied a voice in the issue - the question has to be asked - if a nungar finds the image offensive, but you have an international encyclopedia that is values free (which is problematic in probably most countries in the world), does the encylopedia tower above local sensitivities and ignore them? I would strongly suggest that an editor with this article should in actual fact contact either a member of anthrop staff at Curtin, Edith Cowan or UWA who has dealings with nungar's and actually ask them to review the article, simply to ascertain what I have just written - at least out of respect for the nungars who potentially might end up reading the article at some point. To not do so would smell of arrogance. Good article guys, just do some checking! SatuSuro 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

SatuSuro, I realise that some indigenous Australians object strongly to images of people who are dead; indeed some will not even speak the names of the dead. However, Wikipedia's content disclaimer clearly states that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors is a core plank in Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not official policy. The issue you are raising is not related to the protection of minors, but the principle is the same: we don't censor factual information to avoid offense. If vagina can contain photographs in blatant contravention of social norms, then certainly Yagan can contain a painting of a Noongar head. Official policy aside, my personal view is that Wikipedia content should be judged on the extent to which it is factual and verifiable, not on the extent to which it is unoffensive. I would oppose any alteration of the article for the purposes of making it inoffensive to Noongars or any other person or cultural group. Drew (Hesperian) 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The censorship protection is of course vital to Wikipedia. But with that said, simply because articles may contain content offensive to indigenous groups doesn't oblige you to keep a picture of human remains as if any removal would be a censorship. It would be a much easier argument for you to make if this were an article on the practice of "anthropological curiosity". However, this is about Yagan, and I personally fail to see how the current image represents the topic better than the statue used later or any other number of images that could be used. The preserved head makes no unique factual contribution here. I feel like where other images are just as suited to represent the topic as much effort as possible should be made not to unnecessarily offend indiginous groups to whom this topic has the most relevance to in many ways. With that said I appreciate the excellent work you guys have done here! WellesShapiro 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above:

Although the photographer of the statue has released the photo under the GFDL, there is also copyright in the statue itself. Using the photo of the statue to illustrate the statue is fair use, but using the photo of the statue to illustrate Yagan himself would not be fair use and would infringement the copyright of the sculptor.

This situation applies also to the cartoon and Durack's book cover. The only images of Yagan in existence are Cruikshank's painting and Moore's pencil sketch. The latter looks absolutely awful. We simply don't have enough images to be able to pick and choose. And I feel strongly that the should be an image in the article. Hesperian 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that useing a image of his Yagan's as the top image and as the image on the fount page is disresectful and not in keeping with the fact that generally we do not use unflatering images of people for the lead picture in bi-og's. However, I appreciate what you are saying about the copyright stuff. I am probally wroung but dosen't the fact that the statue is publically displayed mean that people have the right to create their own images (in this case photo) of it under their own copy right? --JK the unwise 09:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong word?

"the exhumation would be of great personal significance to Yagan's ancestors, and great national importance to Australia." Should this read as descendents not ancestors - I don't see how anything can be of significance to a dead persons dead ancestors. Giano | talk 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Right you are. Thanks. Drew (Hesperian) 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could someone add the pronunciation of the name Yagan? Both the usual anglicized pronunciation and the original Noongar, if possible. Thanks. --Ptcamn 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're asking because you want to make a spoken word version of the article ;) . I don't have time right now to look into Wikipedia's method of specifying pronunciation, but I'll get to it on Monday if no-one beats me to it. For now, I can tell you this:

• The current anglicized pronunciation is Ya-gan with enphasis on the first syllable, "Ya" rhyming with "day", and the 'a' in "gan" barely pronounced, like the "gain" in "bargain".
• There is no certain knowledge of the original pronunciation, but contemporary documents sometimes spelled the name "Eagan" or "Egan", from which it is now thought that the first syllable was probably pronounced "Ea" to rhyme with "bee".

Drew (Hesperian) 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done the best I can, but I don't have a reference on the correct pronuncation. I have request a review from User:Dougg, a linguist with an interest in Indigenous Australian languages. Drew (Hesperian) 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed two things: the stress marker from an apostrophe (') to a vertical line (ˈ), and I added a schwa before the /n/ (the /n/ is not syllabic for all speakers, and that's a phonetic, not phonemic, detail anyway). Plus I added the note that it rhymes with pagan for the non-IPA knowers. --Ptcamn 08:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Contemporary documents sometimes spelled Yagan's name Egan or Eagan, which suggests that the correct pronunciation may have been closer to /'iː gən/ than the now widely accepted /'jæɪ gən/.

Most Australian languages don't allow words to begin with phonemic vowels, although the sequences /ji/ and /wu/ may sometimes be reduced to [i] and [u]. And since most Australian languages also don't distinguish between [i] and [e], or [o] and [u], it's quite possible that both [iːgən] and [jeːgən] (≈[jæɪgən]) were within the valid range of variation for an underlying /jiːgan/, which would be spelt Yiigan by a linguist today.

But this is original research. --Ptcamn 00:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word of appreciation

Great featured article, never heard of the guy before personally, but learned a lot reading a smooth-flowing article that touched all the bases and all. Great work to the contributors who helped! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sherurcij. Greatly appreciated. Hesperian 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation and query

I'd never heard of him before either (never having been to Australia), and wouldn't dream of altering a featured article on its day in the limelight, but the word "murdered" in the second sentence jarred. I read the rest of the article (off the main page) and it seems that although white settlers were killed, it is doubtful if all these cases were murder, at least from Yagan's point of view. "Murdered" is a strong and specific word, and casts a bad light on someone who could also be seen as a resistance fighter; I think "killed" would be more in keeping with NPOV. But I am prepared to be told I am wrong. BrainyBabe 16:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, the white settlers that were trying to bring civilization to Australia were murdered by the savage Yagan. Silly comment, typical chick comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

• The change from "killed" in the article to "murdered" on the main page is definitely not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.143.116 (talk • contribs).

• The word "killed" has been restored. - Gobeirne 19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'they?'

"... they suggested he remain with them to avoid arrest" -- Does this mean the Keats brothers? The sentence is ambiguous. Brainhell 18:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's fixed now. Hesperian 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

In the first paragraph there is a sentence that says "It should be noted that this group chose a brutal murderer as it's hero". This is a very biased, and possibly racist comment, not to mention innacurate, as anyone killed in this period should be considered a casaulty of war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Importantthings911 (talk • contribs).

It's not racist, it's a realist comment. A racist comment would not be rooted in fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

I've never heard of Yagan before, so I don't really know the specifics of what happened, but it seems to me that if one person makes an edit that replaces killed with "savagely murdered" and "note that this group chose a murderer as a hero", that it is not NPOV, to say the least. Especially when the only person that defends it is the same one that switched it in the first place and in a discussion just above this one engaged in some racism and added some sexism too...Salur 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No one engaged in "racism", merely realism. Racism is not based on facts, therefore it is wrong. Realism is based on facts, so it is fine, unless you consider truth to be evil? I didn't "defend" anything, as rigtheous statements don't need defending. As for the "Sexist" charge, it would be "sexist" if I wrote that it was typical of ALL chicks, but I did not write that. I left that one open to interpretation. Thanks for the PC comments though, have fun listening to emo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

I also feel that the comments were racist. What is more clear is they were editorialising. They have been removed. Hesperian 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what you feel? You are wrong. They were realist comments and not racist comments. If they are based in fact they are realist and not "racist." Please learn the distinctions before posting how you "feel."

A group that extolls the virtues of someone that murders innocents should be noted as such. That is not racist, it is a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

It's only murder if it's proven to be murder (as opposed to, for example, manslaughter), and no court of competence has adjudicated the issue. Calling it "murder" is therefore POV. --Nlu (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Murder" is a culturally defined term. Some cultures think state-sponsored executions are murder; some cultures don't. Some cultures think abortion is murder; some don't. Some cultures think euthanasia is murder; some don't. In this case, the Noongar culture did not consider retribution under tribal law to be murder, whereas the white settlers did. Therefore to define Yagan's actions as murder is to impose a single cultural viewpoint upon the article.

Having said that, you have made me recognise a slight POV with respect to this issue. The fact that the Noongars would have considered the killing of Entwhistle to be retribution under tribal law is explicitly stated, whereas the fact that the white settlers considered it the unjustifiable murder of an innocent man is left unstated. I left it unstated because I assumed that this would be understood by readers of the article but this is making an unacceptable assumption about cultural assumptions of readers. I will now insert an explicit statement that the killing of Entwhistle was considered murder by the settlers. Hesperian 02:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

there is clearly still a major POV problem with this article -- especially the opening paragraph!

J. Crocker 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this a featured article?

This article is a stain on the face of wikipedia. It was laoded with imperialist slanted bias when it was featured.

Murder is a LEGALLY defined term. Not a culturally defined term. It's a term that is often mis-used in propaganda and rhetoric though as has been pointed out with examples such as abortion. If ship loads of aboriginies landed on the shores of england with superior weapons, killed a bunch of innocent civilian residents and proceded to occupy the land, would you consider attempts made by the british armed forces to stop them to be murder? Factoid Killer 13:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Then by your logic a citizen of the United States has the right to kill any illegal immigrant in the country, as they are not permitted to be there legally. That same applies for illegals anywhere. Also, beheading an innocent civilian in Iraq might not be considered murder then, as under your moral relativism this might not be considered such.

Nice thinking! The joys of moral relativism. Sandra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

This is just about the worst attempted use of the straw man fallacy i've ever seen. Should I now suggest you are wrong because most grass is not blue???

On my logic the US millitary has a right to protect its borders by killing an insurgence of foreigners who are shooting at them as they attempt to occupy the country. Yagan was a warior trying to protect his land and freedom from an invading foreign force. Factoid Killer 18:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How is that the "worst attempted use of the straw man fallacy?" Might help if you backed up your hyperbole. This is definitely my favorite wikipedian tactic, to debase someone's argument by linking their own tactic to a pre-established one.

In reality, you didn't disprove the logic that was presented in my last post.

Yagan was not protecting his land and freedom from an invading foreign force as he killed innocents and not combatants. Many US citizens feel their land and freedom being impinged upon in the Southwestern United States by an illegal foreign force. Under your logic they would be allowed to kill the invading force. A lone bandit calling himself a warrior can go on a spree similiar to Yagans, and be hailed as a hero by a group for killing this invading foreign force. Your logic is faulty, and is one of the worst attempts at moral relativism I've ever seen. Sandra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

Sorry dude but your analogy is comparing apples with oranges. Your analogy is in no way compatible with my suggestion in a number of ways. First and foremost, I didn't in any way suggest or imply it was 'OK to kill people'. What I said is that killing doesn't always amount to 'Murder' which is a 'Legal' term. What you have done is refute a weaker argument than the one I put forth. I put forth an argument suggesting that the word murder is being used innapropriately and you argued against a claim that it's ok to kill illegal immigrants. This method of arguing is called the Straw Man Fallacy which is a Logical fallacy. And secondly i'd like to say that your suggestion that blue giraffs eat pink bunnies is completely and utterly ridiculous. Factoid Killer 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and found three misuses of the word "murder", two referring to killings of a settler by Aborigines and one referring to the killing of an Aborigine by a settler. These misuses have now been corrected. These three minor issues hardly add up to "imperialist slanted bias". Factoid Killer, can you tell me exactly what parts of the article you feel are biased?

Having already been accused of "left wing bias" in favour of Aborigines, I find your accusation of "imperialist bias" quite encouraging. If the article is being attacked from both sides it must be fairly close to neutral, right? Hesperian 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't incorrect use of the word murder enough to qualify my statement? As I said, the word 'murder' is used in propaganda and rhetoric frequenly because it represents huge bias. That word says a lot about the POINT OF VIEW of the author too. Factoid Killer 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok "dude", or I could use your Christian name, "Factoid Killer" -- quoting a debating tactic you learned from wikipedia, the "strawman" fallacy, then linking to it and quoting parts of it verbatim does not in any way refute my point. It is interestign how you lazily chose use a link, and then cut and paste the definition of this tactic as a "logical fallacy," when in fact it is your logic that is faulty. Perhaps a re-read of your thesis and then mine would help. Sandra —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.104.94 (talk • contribs).

Well i'd refer to your handle if you used one. Quoting what verbatum? If the straw man article is worded in a similar fashion to the way I write, perhaps that's because I wrote it. Perhaps you should check the history of that article. Not sure what that does for your theory that I learned about logical fallacies from wikipedia. However, I see that you didn't refrain from using the same tactic again. This is the summary so far... 1) I made a statement 2)you refuted something I didn't write in an attempt to make it look like a credible argument 3) I caught you out and explained why your fallacious argument was irrelevant 4) with a lack of a better argument you mocked me and accused me of copying and pasting... Is that the best you can do? Factoid Killer 21:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, noticed how I refrained from using the ad-hominem fallacy in my arguments? Would have been very easy to carry out on someone who has been blocked as many times as you have for racist behaviour Factoid Killer 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You needed two laughable posts in a misguided attempt to discredit my perfectly logical arguments. All you did in the first post was claim that you wrote that strawman fallacy entry, and then list a bizarre group of fantastic statements and claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Please explain how my refutation was not following the same line of logic as yours? You haven't done that, all you've done is write some odd rants that I somehow misunderstood your delicate genius.

The second is even worse, since you appear a fool calling my statements "Racist" when in reality they were realist statements. If someone is shot by Stalin does that make them evil? Of course not, therefore the power mad dictator that blocked me is not exactly someone you should look up to, nor point to as some sort of evidence that you are morally superior. Weird choice of tactcics "Factoid Killer." I also find it entertaining that someone is supposedly taken more seriously here when they have names like "Factoid Killer" instead of "unsigned comments." -- Sandra

And when you referred to Indigenous Australians as "ABos" on the talk page (now reverted) here? Are you unaware that that is an offensive term? Personally I find it virtually impossible to accept that a person who would make such a comment is not racist. Hesperian 07:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK lest analyse this. I know ppl like you don't like this sort of thing because it makes it difficult to confuse the issue through logical fallacy but tough bikkies I don't care...

You said 'Please explain how my refutation was not following the same line of logic as yours?'

In my original statement I equated the settlers as an armed invading force and stated that killing people whilst at war does not equate to murder. You might have been able to suggest they were not an armed invading force and that would have been a valid argument for me to refute. What you instead said is that you can apply the same logic to conclude that it is ok to kill illegal immigrants.

There are two very major things wrong with this statement.

1. As soon as you remove the armed invading force and replace it with illegal immigrants you are NOT following the same line of logic.
2. Suggesting that the word 'murder' is the incorrect word to use does NOT equte to saying 'killing people is ok'.

• I put forth an argument suggesting that murder isn't the correct term to use
• Instead of refuting my suggestion you refuted the weaker argument that 'it is ok to kill illegal immigrants'

Your reasoning was fallacious. You used the straw man fallacy.

This clearly refutes your original argument making it irrelevant. I provided the same reasoning in my original refuation to your reply.

YOu Said 'The second is even worse, since you appear a fool calling my statements "Racist" when in reality they were realist statements.'

OK now you've just resorted to out right lying. I didn't at any point suggest your arguments were racist. I merely pointed out my good faith by suggesting that if I wanted to I could resort to your dirty tactics (using logical fallacies). All I did is state the fact that you ahve been blocked on a number of occasions for racism. It is a LIE to suggest that I said your comments here were racist. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy and as such it has no place in any debate.

You said 'I also find it entertaining that someone is supposedly taken more seriously here when they have names like "Factoid Killer" instead of "unsigned comments."'

I have nothing to say to this since the sentence is incoherent and I have no idea what you are implying.

Factoid Killer 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you said 'quoting a debating tactic you learned from wikipedia, the "strawman" fallacy, then linking to it and quoting parts of it verbatim does not in any way refute my point.'

Now I'm saying go to the Straw man article, view the history at 11/11/2005 17:01 where I wasn't logged in but used this ip address. Furthermore, if you consider logical fallacies to be 'debating tactics' then you have some serious reading to do. 62.254.168.102 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with article

Factoid Killer, what objections do you have to the article content as it stands now? Hesperian 22:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

None what so ever. I'm happy with the current state of the article. Factoid Killer 13:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hesperian 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yagan's gravesite location

Hello all,

I experimented with overlaying this image on the corresponding geographical features on Google Earth. For a pretty close match, the co-ordinates for the overlay were as follows:
North: 31°46'8.97"S
East: 116° 1'25.72"E
South: 31°47'21.42"S
West: 115°59'25.40"E
These co-ordinates give the approximate location of Yagan's burial as 31°46'49.38"S 116°0'56.89"E. Sound about right? - Gobeirne 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. You might like to try this using the original maps provide by the [www.dia.wa.gov.au Department of Indigenous Affairs] Aboriginal Heritage Inquiry System. Just do a search for "Yagan". Hesperian 07:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entwhistle

In Westralian Portraits ISBN 0855641576, Enion Entwhistle is referred to as the spearing victim and the father of the two boys which were hidden under a bed. The boys are unnamed. The citation is Perth Gazette 25 May 1833. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I had another look over the literature. Both of the Neville Green references refer to the speared person as Enion Entwhistle. Hallam refers to him as Erin. Other references don't give a name. I'll look into it properly when I have time. Meanwhile, my gut feeling is I trust Hallam slightly more than Green, so I'll leave it as is unless you want to change the article to flag the uncertainty on that point. Hesperian 05:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I won't change the article. I just thought it better to flag it as a possible typo here. -- Moondyne ≡ talk 05:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)