Talk:Convincing Ground massacre

"Accounts vary, but the number of Aborigines killed is believed to be between 60 and 200." There is no evidence from original source material that it is anywhere near 200, and where did these numbers come from? They are made up. Original sources from around the time should be referenced. Not made up opinions. This is also referencing a news paper, not source material. Ian Clark's Scars in the landscape describes this possible altercation in some detail pages 17-22, but has multiple options in it as nothing is 100%.

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

Some points to improve the article:

• Coverage: The Background (or "Causes") is weak. So the fight started over a whale. Is anything else known? Had there been confrontations between the white and the aborigines before this inceident? What were relations like between the two groups in the general region? Do we know who found the whale first? Or, what kind of whale was it?
• In the "Origin of 'Convincing Ground'": Put the footnoted story back in the text. It says that there is a story promoted by the Rotary Club that isn't true, and then the reader has to scroll down to find out what the story is.
• Supporting materials: Photos would help, of: the Convincing Ground beach (even if it's modern), or of Walter Saunders or one of the others mentioned by name. A pushpin geographical map in the infobox would also be helpful.
• General copyedit for punctuation and style. Also, the format of paragraphs, quoted text, and references changes several times; it should be consistent.

Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Falsities from single purpose accounts’ interjections

• User:Convincing_ground (talk) : Special:Contributions/Convincing_ground:

Diff.– This single purpose or false account only worked on falsifying the reference’s URL, removing the same key word of the title from some other contents that their fringe propaganda opinion’s agenda didn’t agree with and adding a quotation from a source, of a different view from a, historical—of that period—, politically loaded, colonial policeman’s letter to a powerful politician (that cannot be used as an excuse, but was used as if an excuse, for falsifying the URL and key word occurences), as follows:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Anger-over-plans-to-build-on-massacre-site/2005/01/27/1106415738613.html is the correct URL.

"Anger over plans to build on massacre site" is the correct title of the article in the The Age newspaper.

The correct full reference citation contents is: Martin Boulton, http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Anger-over-plans-to-build-on-massacre-site/2005/01/27/1106415738613.html "Anger over plans to build on massacre site", The Age, 28 January 2005.

The falsified full reference contents citation (see further details below) was: Martin Boulton, http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Anger-over-plans-to-build-on-site-site/2005/01/27/1106415738613.html "Anger over plans to build on conflict site", The Age, 28 January 2005.

The URL devil in the detail was the tampering with it by substituting: "…to-build-on-massacre-site…" with "…to-build-on-site-site…".

• User:Melbourne333 (talk) : Special:Contributions/Melbourne333

Diff.– Subsequently this single purpose or false account continued to build on the fringe propaganda opinion’s agenda started by the previous above single purpose account.

They erased, or substituted conflict for, every last occurrence of massacre.

Including that they removed the key word from the title of the The Age newspaper article that their fringe propaganda opinion’s agenda didn’t agree with.

"Anger over plans to build on massacre site" is the correct newspaper article title.

"Anger over plans to build on conflict site" was their falsification of the correct newspaper article title.

Including furthermore, that they disrupted a wikilink to the key word massacre (diff.). The wikilink was provided within a quotation from a scholarly source containing that key word massacre: "The Convincing Ground is probably the first recorded massacre site for Victoria". They did this by tampering with the wikilink to falsely make it a redlink of massacre ? causing the quotation to be misleading and to appear falsely (version); for non–Wikipedia–expert readers, such as for example that think of red text as school teacher’s red pen corrections. It was disrupting the quotation of that cited scholarly source, which contains the word massacre in its texts.

Clearer, more obviously motivated, fringe propaganda agenda edits, trying in vain to appear only to be in the less serious breach of trying to get away with civilly pushing their point of view, i have not seen before.

Now reverting, these clear non-neutral edits, clearly consisting of agenda edits, in particular detailed in their agenda–driven lying substitutions of content, done with their use of clearly single purpose or false accounts : Special:Contributions/Melbourne333 and Special:Contributions/Convincing_ground. Administrators reading this please do further investigations of these two single purpose accounts. ——--macropneuma 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 03:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 03:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, is the conclusion, now that rv of nearly all of the article’s worst examples is done.

There’s more to do, and better, scholarly, sources to add,—overall, for the purposes of bettering it. ——--macropneuma 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

References

——--macropneuma 08:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC) ——--macropneuma 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to using infobox civilian attack instead of event?

The whalers went away and returned with guns. In my mind that isn’t an “event” but a “civilian attack”. Are there any objections to call it that? Betterkeks (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)