Talk:Forrest River massacre
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Forrest River massacre is within the scope of 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history. | ||
| This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia. | |||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] comments
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)
[edit] counterpoint
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). I have now added the full links to those references within the article now. petedavo 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WPBiography
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)
Both Moran and Green have had two critiques each within Quadrant of each others works and the article is probably by default an article about that debate by default, however there is absolutely no reason to have any living nor bi tag associated with this article. PS The redundant links you took off are different articles within Quadrant than the two in the references. All told there should be four different Quadrant links not two.petedavo 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Beg to differ re WPBio - the article mentions writers (living people) and subjects (Gribble and Hay). - will revert the edit re the quadarnt links - it all looks the same :) SatuSuro 14:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I bunged them in references and fixed their order. The bio thingy I don't think is important as the article is not a bio of either author nor deals with the authors other than to cite their work and opinions. Would be like having a bio tag on an article about physics beause it might cite Steve Hawking etc.petedavo 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
