Talk:Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission

Review of Morans book

As an anonomous editor has made serious accusations of fraud regarding an edit I made containing a review of Moran's book I post the review in it's entirety for comparison with the edit. The only error I could find with the original edit was a missed sentence break.

Reviewed by Sylvia Hallam, University of Western Australia, (email redacted)
[redacted copyright material per my following post].

This page has instructions on how to cite the review. Wayne (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As the review is copyrighted and requires payment to access I will delete the review from the above post when the accuracy of the disputed edit is accepted. Wayne (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just found out that the Hallam source does exist and your revised text does accurately reflect what she wrote. But as I have pointed out on the Noticeboard where I have conceded that I have since found out that the source exists, the review itself is fraudulent. Hallam makes claims about the book she's reviewing that anyone who actually read Moran's book can see are fraudulent. In particular, the section that you quote in this article: "Moran states explicitly that he is following the example of Keith Windschuttle’s recent book, The fabrication of Aboriginal history."

Moran doesn't state anything of the kind. The only mention of Windschuttle that I can find anywhere in the book is in Professor Geoffrey Bolton's introduction where he writes that Moran has been bracketed with the Windschuttle school of controversy but that Moran comes at the issue from a different perspective, i.e. that it is unfair to brand people as murderers when there is no credible evidence that anyone was killed (and the chief accuser was a pathological liar).

As for the reliability of Moran's work; he's been mentioned favourably by Professor Geoffrey Bolton (historian) who agreed to write the introduction, he's been cited favourably by Josephine Flood who is an archaeologist and author of number of books on aboriginal history and Professor David Day has incorporated changes to the latest edition of his book Claiming a Continent: A New History of Australia based on Moran's research. So far all you have produced, aside from Hallam's false claims, is Nigel Loos' speculation as to Moran's motive, which is what is known as the "motive fallacy", i.e. claiming that someone has a motive for doing something is not the same as proving them wrong.

So, although your source does exist and I accept that you did not commit a fraud on Wikipedia and its readers by eventually putting in an accurate version of what she wrote, you've cited a source which is itself extremely unreliable. So I question its use as justifiable under the circumstances. And it doesn't say much for the peer review process at the Australian Aboriginal Studies journal. 121.208.25.30 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As the source is peer reviewed we must accept that it is reliable. Of course, you are free to find a rebuttal of Hallams claims if she did indeed make any incorrect claims. Windshuttle and his supporters are critisized for cherry picking. Bolton is entitled to his own views, Flood has a history of speaking outside her area of expertise and I would suggest that Day should not rely too heavily on a partisan journalists research if he wants to maintain any credibility. Please keep in mind that Moran is supporting a fringe view. Be that as it may, I have deleted mention of Windshuttle. Wayne (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What does it take for you to decide that a view isn't a 'fringe' view? Bolton, Flood and Day get dismissed out of hand and you just accept Hallam's POV. Even her review ends: "As one view in an ongoing controversy, it makes fascinating reading."

If you have ever been through a peer review process, as I have when publishing in my field of expertise, you must know how little it means. I once wrote something that directly contradicted the work of someone well-known in the field. He was selected by the journal as a peer reviewer and raised no problems with my article with the editor. Speaking to him later at a social function, I was curious to know why he hadn't raised the issue and asked him. It turned out his peer review was little more than a rubber stamp. He'd skimmed my article so quickly that he missed the section where I contradicted him and was extremely annoyed about it.

Unfortunately reviews like Hallam's, i.e. ones that misrepresent the book that they are reviewing and use false claims about it as a substitute for a genuine examination of the evidence presented, have been all too common in this particular field of history. They count on their readers not having actually read the book and being unaware that they are not getting the truth. The chances of a rebuttal of the review actually being published is slim even if the author being reviewed is aware of it, takes the time and goes to the trouble of writing one. 121.208.25.30 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the revisionists views entirely, it's a question of weight. Per WP:RSUW Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Per both WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight. I remind you that Moran is not an expert in the field and is self published, per WP:SPS self-published media, such as books... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article. At 8% of this article, Moran already carries too much weight. If Moran's views were widespread then there should be reliable sources on the subject published by experts in the field. As you appear to work for the taxation dept, what is your field of expertise? Wayne (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to interject here, where do you get the idea that I work for the taxation dept?? Way way off base there, epic fail as they say. I'll give you a hint. I work in the biological sciences field, not going to narrow it down any further than that. Back to you Sherlock! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.25.42 (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I cant remember which, but either you or the other anon edits from the Australian Taxation dept offices in Canberra during working hours. Must be the other then. Wayne (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Geez, you take one day off and it all happens! Have taken a look at the Sylvia Hallam review. There's much more wrong with it than is pointed out above. It's deeply deceptive. The evidence that Moran provides is extensive and completely destroys the case for the massacre. The fact that she pretends that he hasn't produced a crushing weight of evidence is extremely deceptive.

As is your claim that Moran is self-published. It is yet another false claim. The Wikipedi rules relate to self-publishing which is where an author pays for printing and then has to sell (or give away) copies of the book himself. The printing houses that do such work will print any rubbish because they don't have to sell the book and they don't have a reputation as a quality publisher to protect. I am very familiar with Access Press, the publisher of Massacre Myth and Sex, Maiming and Murder. They do NOT provide self-publishing services and they DO sell the books published. Massacre Myth and Sex, Maiming and murder are available for purchase from them today, you can't buy the books off Moran. Access Press have a very good reputation for publishing quality work which they do protect by being very selective about what they print. The claim that Moran is self-published is a false one being used to justify your constant attempts to keep an adequate representation of Moran's work out of this article.

As for him not being an expert. On what basis do you make that false claim? He has made himself an expert in the case of the Forrest River and on Gribble. If you bothered to read the books instead of relying on what Hallam and Co say about it you'd know that. He is a local amateur historian and it is arguable that he is THE expert on Forrest River and on Gribble. How many other people have made a speciality of the study of Forrest River and Ernest Gribble? How many people do you think are out there writing about what happened at Forrest River in 1926? As far as I can tell,the ONLY people to do any kind of serious research on the Forrest River, instead of just going with what someone else has written, are Green and Moran. And you have been making sure only Green's poorly researched opinion is represented in the article. Even Green has revised his views since Moran raised issues with his work. He now claims that the alleged massacre is probable although his previous published work presented it as something that definitely happened.

As for other reliable sources, as mentioned above, you reject every one and go with a deceptive review and Loos' theorising about Moran's motivations. I notice that you are particularly eager to knock Burt's comment out of the article, aren't you. Can't let the Wikipedia readers' know that it isn't just Moran who disputes it, can you?180.149.192.132 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's get Burt out of the way. Burt is a jurist giving his quasi-legal opinion of the evidence. The article already says that the commission based it's findings on the balance of probabilities as does Green which makes Burt's opinion irrelevant and undue as he is refering to evidence a court would accept. The article does not claim the evidence would support a conviction.

While Access press claim they are not a vanity press or self publishing service, they also point out that the difference is that they only publish books they believe will sell. Access paid for distribution but Moran still paid for the book to be printed. Having said that, editors have accepted the Moran as a source despite being self published, such sources generally not being considered a RS. The editors here rely on WP:UNDUE instead.

As you say...Moran is "a local amateur historian" which does not make him an expert. I myself am a local amateur historian and have even received credit as a co-writer on an Indigenous project but I would never claim authority over qualified academics. Moran is primarily a journalist and poet. I find it interesting that you have rejected a recognised expert on the subject who has the relevant academic qualifications for what you call giving a "poorly researched opinion".

What is most important is that Green's "opinion" is the majority view while Moran's is a minority view considered fringe and revisionist by academia. Due weight is the guideline, regardless of our personal views. Wayne (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If I can add my 2c here. I have to agree with the above assessment of Green's work as 'poorly researched'. He seems to have relied almost exclusively on the Royal Commission records, Gribble's memoirs and the mission journals which were totally under Gribble's control as head of the mission and he seems to have paid much closer attention to Gribble's memoirs than anything else. He repeats assertions made by Gribble that, if he went through the documents of the Royal Commission, he had to know were contradicted by the evidence there. Moran's research went a lot further than Green's seems to have, he cites documents containing crucial evidence which Green doesn't even mention. Either Green didn't do the basic research, find and read those documents, or he suppressed what was in them because they shot the case he was making to pieces.

Aside from strong evidence that Gribble was personally telling a pack of lies, Moran also came up with pretty strong indicators that Gribble was making back-dated entries into the journals to back up the claims that he made. It also became clear in the cross-examination of the witnesses at the Royal Commission that he was 'leaning' on the Mission staff and on Aborigines associated with the mission to make statements which supported his claims. When they were cross-examined at the hearings (Aldoa's testimony was a good example) it became obvious that they were simply repeating what Gribble had told them, not what they knew independently of him. Since Gribble ruled the mission not with an 'iron hand' but with a leather strap that he called Black Tom and he wasn't above using it or a horsewhip on the mission staff as well as the Aborigines under his control, it's not too surprising that they did as they were told.

As for Green's 'relevant qualifications', his PhD thesis on the Forrest River massacres contains the same research as the book (which is basically his thesis anyway). He's in an awkward position. Moran's research destroys the foundation of his thesis.

Aside from one fraudulent review, you still haven't produced any evidence that "Moran's is a minority view considered fringe and revisionist by academia" whereas you have been provided with respected academics, Bolton, Day and Flood who do support his view. There is another respected academic, Christine Halse, who got her PhD on a thesis that was an examination of Gribble's life and she also argues that Gribble was a deeply disturbed man who relished telling lies about what happened at Forrest River and about people he perceived to be his enemies. And of course there are Burt's comments, which are not about whether there was evidence acceptable to the courts but whether there is any evidence at all. You can go on merely asserting that "Moran's is a minority view considered fringe and revisionist by academia" but that is all that it is, mere assertion by you.

As for UNDUE, even if it is a minority view, it should still be shown in adequate detail so that it can be understood by the readers. You keep editing out anything but tiny amounts about Moran's arguments. You chose to split the article about Forrest River into two and you seem determined to keep any adequate explanation of the contents of the Moran books out of either. The only explanation for that appears to be that you know that an adequate representation of Moran's book will make the Green account look as questionable as it is and you are determined to prevent that. 121.208.25.42 (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you want to know how I know that Moran's research is sound. The best evidence for that is the responses by Green and others like Hallam. If he was wrong they would be able to produce a valid rebuttal. they wouldn't have to avoid the issue like Green, speculate about his motives like Loos or resort to falsehoods like Hallam. It would just be a case of producing evidence that Moran is wrong. The fact that they can't do that validates Moran. 121.208.25.42 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Green did write a rebuttal and shot Moran down in flames.

Where do you get "no evidence" from? Why do you think the Wood Royal Commission was called, certainly not on the claims of Gribble. Are you claiming Mitchell and Douglas both lied about what they found? Why did McGillivray and Mackenzie believe they needed to commit perjury before the commission? Why did Overheu tell his brother that the massacres did occur? Lydy had no contact with Gribble but when interviewed by Det sergeant Manning (who was chosen by Connell specifically because he could be relied upon to be neutral) stated that Overheu was continually pressuring the patrol to kill the Aborigines and that the patrols trackers had told her that they were killing them. St Jack and Regan were never aquitted of the charges so it was accepted by the court that there was evidence albeit insufficient.

Do not throw up strawman arguements.

Christine Halse "it seems indisputable that many more died than the white historical record officially acknowledges."

Anthropologist Phyllis Kaberry collected accounts of the massacre in 1934.

Geneological research in 1968 found that 80 to 100 Aboriginal people from the mission went missing in 1926. Mission records say two died of influenza, St Jacks diary says that nine died while Gribble says six. The rest are unaccounted for although a few may have died in the bush. This number does not include any missing from an unknown number who were not registered at the mission. Wayne (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read Green's fairly feeble attempts at rebuttals, he's had several goes at it. He studiously avoids the main evidence raised by Moran, evidence that you'd be aware of if you bothered to read Moran's book. As per the Hallam review, it all sounds very damning if you haven't read Moran's work in full and know what evidence Green doesn't mention, what he skews slightly and then responds to and the flaws in his attempts to rebut Moran based on the few selected points he does make a pretty poor attempt at addressing.

And yes, it was Gribble's letters and reports to the Church, to A. O. Neville and to anyone else who would listen that did result in the Royal Commission. First Mitchell and then Douglas were sent to look into Gribble's allegations. Gribble led them both around by the nose to various sites that he said were massacre sites and showed them masses of fragments of bones scattered around. They were suitable horrified and believed that killings had occurred because Gribble was telling them of killings and that the bone fragments were human. Distinguishing human bone pieces from animal is pretty much impossible for anyone other than a highly trained expert when the bone is fragmented and Douglas reported that the bone he saw was no bigger than a thumbnail. He and Mitchell based their opinions about people being killed, their numbers and sex on the fragments, on what he was being told by Gribble and by Gribble's 'trackers' like Noble who hadn't done any actual tracking for 25 years.

In the end, Douglas reported there was no evidence to support a charge against anyone but because it was an allegation against police, he didn't believe that an investigation by himself, a police officer, should end the matter. To remove doubts about the police investigating themselves, he recommended a Royal Commission. Because of all the national and international press Gribble's claims had received, the Government agreed.

Neither Mitchell nor Douglas were able to testify to having found anything incriminating, they found ash and bone fragments and marks on trees that they thought were where people had been chained or tied and both Mitchell's and Douglas' testimonies were actually quite damning of Gribble, ie that he was spreading rumours, was untrustworthy and Douglas testified to past false claims Gribble had made. Douglas, in particular, appeared to become increasingly sceptical as the evidence unfolded, as it became clear to him that it was increasingly likely that all those bone fragments that had horrified him were most probably the remains of kangaroos, etc from Aboriginal meals and as he found out how he'd been misled by Gribble on other issues.

Why did McGillivray commit perjury.? The simple answer is that he didn't. As Chief Pathologist in the Health Dept in Perth he wound up being required to examine the bone and teeth fragments sent to him and determine whether they were human or not. That was one of the many mistakes that Wood made as Royal Commissioner. He should have insisted that they be sent to a specialist in the eastern states especially as he was told that there was no-one properly qualified in WA at the time to examine them. Instead McGillivray, as the Chief Pathologist but whose specialty was as a bacteriologist, was the highest government medical expert available in WA to check the samples over and it was his opinion that the bone and teeth fragments didn't appear to be human. (He didn't get to examine the whole teeth that Gribble supposedly 'found' until after the RC ended and he did report later that they were human.)

On the stand, when McGillivray was being asked about the fragmentary teeth, he indicated at first that he thought that they were animal but then accepted that they might possibly be human but he was no expert on teeth fragments, human or animal, either.

Wood made an even bigger mistake with regard to the testimony of McGillivray, however. Although McGillivray was in medical terms the best qualified person to examine the bone fragments; Mitchell, Douglas and Gribble were laymen with no medical training and Dr Adams was a country doctor who admitted on the stand that he had absolutely no experience in determining whether burnt and fragment bone was human or animal, Wood had the evidence that McGillivray gave, ie that they weren't human, placed into evidence and then basically ignored it and went with the opinions of Adams and the others who believed or thought they were or might be human but had no qualifications to say so.

As for Mckenzie's supposed perjury, that would be where he talked about Dr Golden's experiments with cremation in Wisconsin. As Green reports, he can't find any evidence of a Dr Golden or his Wisconsin experiments. Which may mean that Mckenzie was out of his depth when being asked about cremations and made up Dr Golden in order to make it appear that his guesswork about cremations was based on some kind of research. Or he may have consulted someone about the issue of cremations who told him about some obscure and possibly fanciful experiments that someone told them about over a few drinks. It may mean that it was a Dr Silvers in Winnipeg that did the experiments or that it was just a piece of unreliable medical gossip being passed around. There is no way of knowing if Mckenzie was deliberately lying about the cremation experiments or just passing on bad information that he got elsewhere.

Why did Overheu tell his brother that the massacres occurred?

Well, did Overheu tell his brother that the massacres occurred? Or did Overheu's brother realize that Neville Green was out to write the 'true' story of the alleged massacres and wasn't going to interested in any denials that he made about his brother, however true? So did he instead tell a ridiculous story about the patrol killing over 300 Aborigines to see if Green was gullible enough to treat it as the 'truth'? You might like to read up on Margaret Mead and her research on sex in Samoa regarding this sort of thing, ie people telling some researcher eager to hear the dirty secrets just what he/she wants to hear.

Lyddie had a motive for lying to Manning about Overheu. Manning testified that she was convinced that Overheu had killed her man Tommy Doort. So telling the police that Overheu wanted the patrol to kill Aborigines was possibly a way of getting even with him. Her statements about the trackers telling her that they were killing Aborigines were all over the place. First she said that they had, then she said that they hadn't. She knew their names but didn't pass that on, at first she claimed that they had taken Aborigines away from the camp, killed and burned them but she didn't see smoke or hear any screams, shouts or shots. She said Tommy had told her about it but also said Tommy hadn't left the camp so he couldn't have seen anything that she didn't. Basically it reads like she was saying whatever she thought her interviewer wanted to hear.

That Regan and St Jack weren't acquitted is true. They weren't convicted of anything either and the presumption is that you are innocent unless proved guilty. The magistrate Kidson ruled that the evidence produced didn't show that the person they'd been charged with killing was dead. No prima facie case. Simple as that.

Regarding Christine Halse, the statements that I attributed to her were accurate, try reading what I said, and not read into it what you think is a strawman argument. She describes Gribble as a liar but, yes she believes that there is some kernel of truth to the stories about the killings although her reasons for believing it are pretty thin.

Kaberry collected accounts of the alleged massacres in 1934, AFTER Gribble has been spreading the stories for years. Hardly surprising that the Aborigines at the mission spread around what Gribble told them in his sermons at Sunday services.

Regarding the influenza epidemic, a lot more Aborigines died from it than you mention. It was a particularly nasty strain. The 1918 strain, not long before, killed at least 50 million worldwide. The police patrol recorded that virtually every Aborigine they encountered was suffering and many were in very bad shape from the epidemic. The mission records actually show 6 died in a single week at the mission and that was where there was some medical care available. Influenza didn't have to kill Aborigines outright. It could also debilitate them to the point that they couldn't care for their small children, gather food or get to water. At the Royal Commission, testimony was given that Aborigines were dying in the bush in considerable numbers from it, not just a few. Added to that was the Aboriginal custom of wives and immediate family leaving an area after the death of a man, traditionally for 3 to 6 years, but sometimes never coming back for a variety of reasons. Plus there were a lot of other ways for Aborigines to die and leave no trace. Aside from all that, a lot of Aborigines avoided the Forrest River mission because they didn't like being under Gribble's control. 121.208.25.42 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just on what's mentioned above about Lydie saying what they wanted to hear, as I recall, several witnesses at the the royal commission testified regarding cultural difficulties in interrogating aboriginal witnesses (though they didn't put it that nicely). What was said was that interrogators had to be very careful not to let on in any way what answers they wanted to get, because if the aboriginal person being questioned worked out that you wanted them to say something, that's what they'd say, true or not. Probably just to avoid any sort of conflict or to get the interrogator to stop questioning them and just go away asap.180.149.192.132 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right on that. Inspector Douglas did put it fairly politely. He seems to have had great understanding of and sympathy for the Aborigines. Gribble however, the great 'friend' of the Aborigines, put it something along the lines of 'you can get a blackfellow to say anything you want'. He would have known since he seems to have got some of them to say what he wanted. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who cares, it appears that Telstra has just reconfigured my IP address and I'm no longer User: 121.208.25.30. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice bit of selective quoting from Green's rebuttal there, especially the bit about Tinsdale being thoroughly discredited. The only thing that Moran reported about Tinsdale was that he testified he'd seen fires lit by aborigines in the area, testimony that was corroborated by at least one other witnesses, plus the fact that it is well established that aborigines used fire for hunting purposes. What Tinsdale was thoroughly discredited on was his claims about himself. He claimed academic qualifications and other things about himself that weren't true. Pretending that this was a significant blow to Moran's case is a good example of how to write a disingenious rebuttal. Similarly Green simply doesn't mention all the other evidence presented about the alternative explanations for the presence of bone. 180.149.192.134 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet here you are including claims that require ignorance to accept. The evidence is clear that all the bone fragments were found with charcoal and that after the rains both the fragments and charcoal were washed away. Any archaeologist could refute the claim that they must be old in their sleep. Are you suggesting that the police who found the bones couldn't tell the difference between centuries old remains and freshly burnt? Wayne (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That bit about the rains was another of Gribble's deceptions. He took Wood to an alleged massacre site in March 1927 where Wood was able to see where fires had been burning with ash and bone fragments lying around. When heavy rain fell while they were out there and Wood observed the ash and bone being washed away, Gribble quickly told him how lucky it was that the rains had been late that year so that it had all been there for the Commissioner to see it. Green draws a fanciful depiction of that event in his book. Pity neither Wood nor Green did what Moran did, ie check the meteorological records for the area which still exist. There had been heavy deluges of rain which fell well before Wood got to the site. In November 1926 3 inches, December 8.5 inches, January 1927 6 inches, February 4.75 inches, March 6.75 inches, all (except for some of March 1927) before Wood inspected the site. That's one of the reasons that Moran argues that what Wood saw had to have been left by people using the sites long after the police patrol had been there months before.

On the cannibalism issue, 180.149.192.134 left out part of what Kaberry reported about it, which was that the body was propped up on sticks and a FIRE lit underneath it to cook the body, which is why Moran mentioned it as another potential source of burned bone fragments. I mean what do you think that they did with the bone after they'd eaten the flesh? Of course some of it at least went into the fire. Yes, bone fragments were found with charcoal, some out in the open but Gribble is also reported to have had his Mission Aborigines wading in the pools and bringing bone and charcoal out of them.

How is a police officer without any scientific training going to tell from a visual examination if a thumbnail sized piece of charred bone has been lying around in the sun and rain for a few months or a few decades? I couldn't do it and I do have scientific training. I do know that it's not uncommon for bones to be accidentally found, the area declared to be a potential crime scene and taped off only for an expert to find that the bones were scores even hundreds of years old (and often not human as well). If you know of an archaeologist who did examine those bone fragments and said that they were recent, please present that evidence otherwise don't edit out other user's contributions based on your wild speculation about what an archaeologist would do. User 180.149.192.134 accurately reported Moran's argument about there being fragmented bone and teeth all over the Kimberleys. Your opinion that it is a moronic claim is based on what? Are you arguing that Aborigines haven't inhabited the Kimberley's for thousands of years or that they could disperse and dispose of human remains above ground for those thousands of years and none of it would remain, that none of it would be washed around by heavy rains, broken up underfoot and still be lying around? It would require a moron to accept that!

Moran also commented on Wood's ridiculous claim that the burned bone could have nothing to do with bushfires. He noted that Wood simply pulled that preposterous claim out of the air after hearing a considerable body of evidence which supported just that possibility. He cites it as yet another example of the mistakes that Wood made as Commissioner, possibly because he came to the case with his decision already made either from personal preferences or because he had political instructions to make the finding that he did.

It is a real pity that you keep making judgments about a book you haven't bothered to read, based on deceptive reviews and rebuttals. Makes it impossible for you to know what you are talking about. No-one who wants to be accurate and unbiased only reads the work of one side of an argument. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Meteorological records are irrelevant because there was no station at the massacre sites. Any idiot knows it can be raining buckets in one area and be bone dry with sun shining only a few km away. On the cannibalism issue, there is not a single authenticated instance of cannabalism in Australia that involved cooking or would result in bone being exposed. Wood's "ridiculous claim" was based on finding discrete piles of ash and bone with no evidence of bushfires nearby. I have read Moran and a lot of his evidence consists of unsupported claims or outright distortion of sources. Anyway, why are we arguing? Neither of our opinions matter, Moran is not an academic, is fringe, due weight applies and he is now getting too much mention in this article. Wayne (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Very strange, you claim to have read Moran, so you should have known that the only mention of Tinsdale in his book was that he had testified that he had seen fires lit by aborigines. Yet you used selections from Green's claims about Tinsdale, which you didn't mention were that he had made claims about himself, his education and so forth that were false, to claim that his evidence had been thoroughly discredited. And I repeat the only mention of Tinsdale in Moran's book was about him seeing a couple of fires and that was corroborated by de Lancourt (and by common knowledge of aboriginal hunting practices). If you have read Moran, either you know that the selection from Green's rebuttal that you were quoting from was disingenuous or you weren't paying attention when/if you read Moran. You claim Moran made unsupported claims and distorted sources: is that your personal opinion or do you have a specific example where someone has given credible evidence and not mere assertion that he did it? The bone fragments were not all found in discrete piles of ash, some were collected from the ground and as mentioned above, some of it was pulled out of pools where the action of the rain and running water mixed bones, ash, charcoal and mud together. But some were found in what were obviously cooking fires and were most probably animal remains. As for no signs of bush-fires nearby, once again, since the bones were not all pulled from discrete piles of ash and particularly that some came out of the pools, Wood's dismissing past bushfires as a possible source of charred bone does appear to be very poor logic or a deliberate attempt to ingore evidence that was inconvenient to the findings he was planning to give. Kaberry received 2 reports of cannibalism which involved cooking. I've never heard any reports of ritual cannibalism that didn't involve cooking and therefore the likelihood that bone would burn. It's not really credible that, given the rainfall cited above over a period of months, that none would have fallen at the spot Wood was taken to. If you've ever been in the far North you would know that when the rains come, as they obviously did with figures like November 1926 3 inches, December 8.5 inches, January 1927 6 inches, February 4.75 inches, March 6.75 inches, everywhere gets wet, there are no dry spots.

As for fringe, once again, you been cited sources which show that he isn't, your only response to that has been Hallam's dishonest review and Green's disingenuous rebuttals. You keep trying to keep material out of the article based on that false claim about 'fringe' and your own interpretation of what is undue weight. 180.149.192.133 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Im not a meteorologist and even I know that claiming "everywhere gets wet" is garbage. The records say the wet season was late and no rain at all fell in the region until February 1927. Those figures you just quoted come from the Wyndham meteorological station (45km from Forrest River). Also the readings were taken at the port and it is not unusual to record rain on the coast and none at all 10km inland. For example, there was another station at Carlton Hill, 44km east of Wyndham, that recorded 2.7" in October (Wyndham recorded 0"), 0" in November (Wyndham recorded 3"), 2.9" in December (Wyndham recorded 8.5"), 11.4" in January 1927 (Wyndham recorded 6") and 0" in February (Wyndham recorded 4.75"). Most interesting of all is that Nulla Nulla station had it's own official meteorological station. This station recorded 0" of rain during the period late May to 21 December 1926 when it was closed permanently by the W.A. Meteorology dept. How reliable is Moran now lmao. Wayne (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to check for yourself, this site will give you the daily rainfall readings since settlement for every meteorology station in W.A. Wayne (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nulla Nulla station's very 'own official meteorological station' was the station owners (ie the deceased Fred Hay and his partner Leo Overheu and any of their employees who could write that they drafted into it) recording the rainfall and mailing it off. Standard procedure across Australia at the time. After Hay was killed in May 1926 and Overheu was accused of mass murder, Overheu had other things on his mind while trying to keep the cattle station going single-handed, and stopped keeping the rainfall records or kept them so intermittently that it's not surprising the W.A. Meteorology Dept. closed it down. 60.225.253.231 (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you bother to check the records you will find that the nearest met station that used employees of the met dept was Halls Creek some 400km from Wyndham. Nulla Nulla's records are as reliable as Wyndhams. Shoots Moran out of the water though and making such a rediculous claim (one of many in his book) proves he is not a reliable historian. Wayne (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong yet again. The rainfall records kept by places like cattle and sheep stations were notoriously unreliable because the station owners often forgot or were fixing fences all day or were away on cattle droves or as in Overheu's case were away earning income elsewhere to keep the cattle station going, to check the rain gauges and to keep the records. Whereas in towns like Wyndham, the rain gauges and records were generally kept by the post office and were very reliable. It was apart of the normal routine of the local postmaster or postmistress to check the gauges and update the records and because they were town-based and weren't away on cattle drives or fixing fences, it was easy for them to keep it up regularly. It was regarded as a public service and if the postmaster or postmistress neglected it, the Meteorological Dept contacted the head office of the Post Office and the head office of the Post Office got in touch with the postmaster or postmistress and let them know to pick up their game. 60.225.253.231 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Twist it all you like but that's called cherrypicking. And Wyndhams met station was not the post office, it was located on the coast 14km outside of Wyndham. Even conservative academics like Brunton who is on Windschuttles side of the history wars fence rejects Moran as fringe and unreliable. Moran is not a RS for anything but his own personal views, end of story. Wayne (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but Ron Brunton does not say anywhere that Moran is a fringe historian though he obviously doesn't like Moran's assessment. BTW Brunton is an anthropologist speaking outside his area of expertise (remember your claims regarding Josephine Flood?). As for the Met station being on the coast, the gauges may have been sited there but they were not something that required constant monitoring and who did you say operated it? On what basis do you claim that Wyndham's rainfall records are as unreliable as those kept, or rather not kept, at Nulla Nulla by Overheu? You don't have a legitimate basis for disputing the rainfall readings taken at Wyndham. Talk about twisting or cherrypicking or rather desperate scrabbling for something to support your position! 60.225.253.231 (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Also saying Wyndham Port (which is where the met station was) is on the coast is a big stretch. It's at the end of a long inlet that comes down from the coast. It is pretty much as far inland from the coast as Wyndham is.60.225.253.231 (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that the old Post Office, built around 1900, is at Wyndham Port not Wyndham. 60.225.253.231 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Brunton is an anthropologist and a massacre is definitely within his area of expertise. I didn't say who operated the Wyndham station because I dont know. The Western Australian Bureau of Meteorology specifically states on their website that Wyndhams readings before 1951 are not reliable. The closest reliable readings for the 1920s were taken 400km from Wyndham. If you have three rainfall readings taken in the area it is cherrypicking the data to reject any that do not support a claim. Eyewitness accounts support that no rain fell until after the sites were inspected (even footprints made months earlier were clearly visable) so we have to accept those accounts over unreliable rainfall readings from areas up to 50km from those sites. Your arguments are becoming more tendentious the more they are discredited. Let's move on. Wayne (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A massacre might conceivably be in Brunton's field of expertise if he had actually studied it rather than relying on Green's account, apparently because he knew Green from a project that they'd worked on together. The only 'eyewitness' who claimed that there had been no rainfall was Gribble. As for footprints made months earlier being clearly visible, one tracker Frank Wallace testified that there was no chance of seeing tracks if they were 2 'moons' old. Douglas described how footprints made just a few days before were gone by the time he revisited a site. There was also testimony about how 'expert' Aboriginal trackers who were supposed to be able to identify people from their tracks, tracked the wrong person when they were searching for someone separated from their group. Douglas described the tracking in the case as 'purely imaginary'. The whole point of the examination of tracking evidence at the Royal Commission was that it raised the likelihood that they had followed tracks (when there were any actual tracks and it wasn't just imagination) left behind by parties who'd traveled through the area months after the police patrol was there and ascribed those tracks to the patrol. The Wyndham Port rainfall readings are the most reliable ones there are, even if they may not be up to modern standards. If you don't like my arguments, stop making bogus claims about the evidence to try and justify excluding material from the article.60.225.253.231 (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of the rainfall, I was wrong when I said that Gribble said that there had been no rain. It was actually Neville Green who makes that claim in his book but he doesn't give a source for it. I heard years ago that his source was supposedly Rev. Gribble but rereading the Wood Royal Commission report, I see that at p21 of the report, after a comment at Q570 by Buckland who was being examined about how he'd been told by John Gribble that he wouldn't see much at Dala when he was there on 22 Jan 1927 because of the rains, at Q571 Ernest Gribble said there was 14 inches (of rain) in December and at Q575 he said there had been 4 inches in November.121.208.25.71 (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I've always assumed that Gribble was the source myself. He may still be. If anyone can get hold of Gribble's memoir, I wonder if it is in it? Wouldn't surprise me if Gribble forgot he was on record at the RC about the high rainfall and put something different in the memoir. It doesn't look good that Green doesn't provide a source for such a significant claim, though, and also doesn't mention what Gribble said on the RC record. Claiming that the rains were late is what 'justifies' the proposition that the ash, etc found at the sites was preserved by dry conditions from mid 1926 to March 1927. If Green had acknowledged that there had been heavy rain at the sites, he would have been admitting that key 'evidence' his case relies on was most probably from use of the sites much later than the time of the patrol.180.149.192.133 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at my copy of the RC (Page 21 is the page number of the evidence, Q570 is on page 43 of the full report). There had been no rain when Douglas and Gribble visited the sites and apparently it was them who originally noted tracks. Sergeant Buckland, who visited the sites on 22 January, testified that the rain had washed the tracks away at the camp but that 100 yards from the camp the tracks were not only not washed away but that the soil was identical to the campsite. It appears that tracks were still visible after the rain in many areas. Greens claim of late rains was in regards to it raining the day after Wood visited the site which washed the remains in the river away. Looks like I need to read the report in it's entirety. Wayne (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Gribble said there was 4 inches of rain in November and 14 inches of rain in December. I've never encountered any soil type that would retain, in any identifiable form, tracks or footprints through that much rain. Aside from which, it's highly doubtful that tracks, footprints, etc found there were evidence of anything because, as Moran points out:

1. It's questionable whether the supposed Dala site that Buckland and Wood visited (and there is no evidence that they were both led by the Gribbles to the same 'Dala' site) was actually a place that the patrol ever visited. The patrol indicated they went much further afield than Wood put on his map. At least 2 members of the patrol, Jolly and Murnane said at the RC that Wood's map of the alleged locations of the patrol's campsites was wrong and subsequent comparison with accurate maps showed Wood's map had a lot of locations wildly out of their correct relative positions.

2. There was evidence at the RC of a number of different groups travelling through the area and that was just the groups they had some knowledge of. What Buckland and Wood found at the supposed Dala site, be it horse tracks, footprints or ash, cans, tobacco packets, etc could have been left by any number of people at any time in the months between the patrol going out and their visits. The fact that Wood regarded Buckland as 'lying about Dala', that is, about what he had seen there in January, shows that he never gave proper consideration to the possibility that what he found later may have been deposited there between January, when Buckland was there and March when Wood visited (and that what Buckland had seen in January may also have had nothing to do with the patrol).180.149.192.134 (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis of Moran's books

The section on Moran's books is getting to be a bit of a mess. It could be a fairly simple synopsis of Moran's book's just stating the most salient points and might not even take up as much space as it currently does. The current problem, IMHO, is that every time something is added about Moran's case, a user puts in something that he thinks 'proves' Moran wrong, which in turn creates the necessity of putting in something that shows that the proof he's inserted is a misrepresentation, not by that user mind, but by the source(s) he's using. Eg the claim by Wood that there were no trees of sufficient size to have contained tree burials where the bone fragments were found. Wood simply ignored the fact that Mitchell had testified that the burned tree had a diameter of 12 inches, easily big enough for a tree burial. If we go on trying to 'prove' our respective cases by editing bits into and out of the article, it is going to continue to be a mess. How about just a simple, clear, reasonably complete synopsis of Moran's work? 180.149.192.132 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The mainstream view must always be given more space than alternative theories and all fringe claims must be rebutted if possible. The rebuttals must be considered accurate as they come from the primary sources. For example, Green interviewed St Jack who refuted some of Morans claims regarding his journal etc. Wood visited the "12" tree site and maintained none were big enough for a burial. Trunk size has no relationship to suitability. The more you add to Moran the more you make him look stupid, ie: the evidence excluded the possibility of "scattered" remains, so saying they were is clutching at straws in the extreme. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are now two articles on this event. The amount of space taken up by the Moran material is miniscule compared to that given to Green's position. One of the issues that Moran raises about Wood is that his findings were contradicted by the evidence before him. You say that the evidence excluded the possibility of "scattered" remains, actually it didn't but Wood simply ignored the evidence of that in his findings. You keep using the term 'fringe'. Fringe historians are people like Irving, von Daniken and Hancock with claims that are just way out there. Someone like Moran who does not dispute that there was conflict and violence against Aborigines in the Kimberleys but argues that this particular incident is a myth based on tales told by Gribble, doesn't qualify as fringe, esp as he has support from mainstream historians like Bolton, Day, Flood. Green's rebuttals are pretty deceptive, he's desperately defending his reputation. If you compare what he claims Moran wrote against what Moran actually did write, it just doesn't stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. And that is the problem here. If you put in what Green claims about Moran, that will force a response in which someone puts in what Moran actually wrote to show that Green's claims are distortions or just outright false and the section just keeps growing. I'd like to try and avoid that by putting together a proposed replacement for the section on the talk page that we can agree is a reasonable accurate synopsis of Moran's books and avoid the rebuttals and counter rebuttals that are getting us nowhere.180.149.192.132 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the Commission report it says that the remains were found in "discrete heaps" which does not lend itself to meaning scattered. The noun mainstream means holding the "prevailing current of thought" and that position is that the Royal Commission findings were sound which means that Bolton, Day and Flood are not mainstream historians. Wikipedia articles must follow the mainstream viewpoint and that is not Morans'. I use the term fringe because from what I've read of Moran he is in the same category as Irving. Wayne (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read the report. It says and I quote: "At Gote-gote-merrie there was an improvised oven and bone fragments were found in a pool. At Dala fragments of bones were found in heaps in the creek. Sergeant Buckland said the boy Herbert threw them out of the creek in handfuls and there seemed to be any quantity of them." It goes on to talk about bones being found in distinct heaps at Mowerie. So yes it does talk about some of the bones being in heaps in the creek at Dala (though how much of that is due to them being thrown into the creek together and how much of it is due to water washing bone fragments down the banks and into the creek is undetermined) and in 3 heaps around a tree at Mowerie. But it does not characterize the bone fragments found at Gote-gote-merrie as being in heaps, just that they were in the pool. Wood then tries to discredit the idea that the bones could be the remains of kangaroos by asking: "What object there would be in burning kangaroo bones?" Here he displays his ignorance about Aboriginal tribal life. When they were finished eating, Aborigines virtually always threw the bones in the fire. It was the easiest means of keeping their camps relatively hygienic, practically the only means available to them short of digging holes and burying the bones and that wasn't Aboriginal practice. I've seen Aborigines pick up bones that their dogs were finished gnawing on and toss them into the fire in practically an automatic action to clean up the camp. Leaving partly gnawed bones around makes a camp area stink and attracts flies and other vermin.

The evidence of Inspector Douglas as Wood quotes it in the report: "There were small fragments of what appeared to be charred bone, and at the edge of a pool of water, some 30 yards farther away I saw some charcoal cinders and two or three little fragments of bone..." Sounds like scattering to me.

Do you seriously want to argue that Professor Geoffrey Bolton, pro-chancellor and senior scholar in residence at Murdoch University, emeritus professor at Edith Cowan University and adjunct professor at Curtin University of Technology, a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (London), Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, and Fellow of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society, isn't a mainstream historian? You are seriously suggesting that? Let's not bother to go into Day's and Flood's CV's. Bolton alone is enough to show that argument for what it is.121.208.25.71 (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just on the initial suggestion about reworking the section into a 'simple, clear, reasonably complete synopsis of Moran's work'. I agree that it needs it, it's is getting out of control but it will require the willingness to co-operate of all the users currently editing this article. Otherwise it is going to continue to be a mess, as you put it.121.208.25.71 (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section and just need to tweak it a bit before making any change to the page. It shortens Moran by around 600 words and the rebuttals by around 400 words without losing any main points. Wayne (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would post your proposed changes on this page first so that it can be discussed and tweaked before changing the article itself. I've been working on a some material for a rewrite of the section myself and there are certain matters that are key to Moran's arguments that should go into the article. In particular, there is the very important issue of how Wood got himself confused over the various accounts of where Regan's section of the patrol joined up with St Jack's and how this influenced Wood to regard ALL the patrol's evidence as untrustworthy. Wood decided that the patrol were lying because some said that they met up at Nulla Nulla or Nulla Nulla Station and Murnane, in particular, said they met at Jowa. What Moran points out, and reading the report confirms, is that Wood and apparently Douglas also didn't realize was that Jowa is a small spot on the much larger Nulla Nulla Station. If someone said they'd met up in London and another said that they'd met in Trafalgar Square or changes from saying one to the other, you wouldn't say that one or both were lying, you'd say one was being more specific than the other. If you read the section of the report where Wood discusses it, no-one says that they joined up at the NN homestead and several say definitely that no-one was at the homestead. Another very important point I'd like to see covered is the fact that the patrol allegedly murdered a number of Aborigines while two Aborigines associated with the Mission, Aldoa and Herbert, were travelling with them. The constables allowed both Aldoa and Herbert to return safely to the Mission, although they were undoubtedly aware that they could report any misconduct by the patrol to Gribble who they knew was antagonistic to the police. Regan testified that he'd withheld from Gribble the fact that they'd found out from an Aborigine the identity of Hay's killer before Gribble told them Lumbia's name because he knew Gribble was antagonistic to the police. If they'd committed mass murder while Aldoa and Herbert were along, what kind of idiots would they have had to be to allow Aldoa and Herbert to keep breathing?121.208.25.71 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should be working out the proposed changes here first, rather than on the article page. 180.149.192.133 (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed sentence.

I’ve removed the following sentence from the article: “Moran's claims regarding the reliability of Gribble were examined by Green and found to rely almost entirely on unreliable sources, and where reliable sources are cited the claims are misinterpreted, false or cannot be found in them at all.” This had as its source Green, Neville: Ahab wailing in the wilderness Quadrant June 2003 Pg 30-33.

1. The claim that Moran relied “almost entirely on unreliable sources” isn’t in the source article nor is that an accurate summary of what it claims.

The other claims in this sentence appear to be based on the following examples in the article by Green, and the claims he made about those examples.

2. Discussing Moran’s account of the patrol’s movements and actions in the first chapter of Massacre Myth, Green reproduces a section of the text and implies that it is based solely on Moran’s “interpretation of St Jack's patrol journal entry for May 21, 1926” and then claims: “This is most curious! St Jack's journal, now in the State Records Office in Perth, made no mention of ………”. In Massacre Myth, Moran clearly states on page 1, in Note 1 that “The account given here of St Jack's patrol is based on his journal, which is extant and held at the State Archives Office in Perth, as well as on testimony he gave before the Wood Royal Commission, which will be analysed in detail in subsequent chapters. It also draws upon the journal of Constable Denis Regan, who led the investigation of Hay’s murder, as well as his testimony at the subsequent commission. In addition, the testimony of other members of the police party has been consulted to reconstruct the patrol’s movements.” Green claims that there was only one source for the account, St Jack’s patrol journal, when Moran clearly states that there were multiple sources and identifies those sources.

3. Green claims that “In the Quadrant review Moran wrote that from a deconstruction of Commissioner Wood's report, "I adduced suggestive evidence that his [Gribble's] motive in the Forrest River affair was connected to his sexual transgressions there." This is pure fantasy and I challenge him to quote the sections of the report that enabled him to adduce, that is to bring forward as fact, such evidence. “ This is another false statement. In the review, Moran states “In Massacre Myth, my deconstruction of the 1927 Royal Commission into allegations from Gribble of mass murder by the police, I adduced suggestive evidence that his motive in the Forrest River affair was connected to his sexual transgression there. ” Clearly, Moran does not state that he adduced it from Wood's report but that he adduced it in Massacre Myth which has many sources. Green has to be aware of those other sources since he discusses some of them in his article.

As discussed above, the claims that the text is based upon are false and misleading and it is therefore inappropriate to include it in Wikipedia. No other encyclopaedia would include text/commentary on a source which can be shown to be false by a simple comparison between what is in the commentary and what is in the source commented upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.25.28 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just checked this and you are absolutely right. Amazing that Green was able/willing to publish such a deceptive review. Certainly it has no place in the article.180.149.192.139 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea where to start. Do you read what you write before posting?
1. The exact wording is Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable. I've removed the words almost entirely if that is what you are complaining about although that leaves the sentence even more comdemnatory of Moran.
2. You said; Green claims that there was only one source for the account. He did no such thing, he cited Moran's sources and showed he misinterpreted them. For example, Elkin called the mission "Gribbles stud farm" which Moran claimed indicated sexual misconduct on Gribbles part. In fact Elkin, in a letter to his wife, stated that the name refered to Gribble's practice of forcing Aboriginal couples to marry contrary to tribal law.
3. This paragraph is very confusing. First you claim that Green quotes something Moran wrote and then go on to say the Moran quote is pure fantasy and then in the next sentence you cite Moran saying the exact same sentence you have just claimed he didn't say! You appear to have omitted some quote marks which changes the entire meaning. Then in the next sentence you claim Clearly, Moran does not state that he adduced it from Wood's report but that he adduced it in Massacre Myth which has many sources which contradicts what Moran said!! Moran wrote: In Massacre Myth, my deconstruction of the 1927 Royal Commission...I adduced. In that sentence Moran claimed that the book Massacre Myth was a deconstruction of the Royal Commission so Green is correct. Whatever Moran meant, if he didn't mean what he wrote then he should have learnt to write better English.
The claims are accepted by the mainstream academic community where Moran's views are considered fringe. If you find them false and misleading, that is call original research. Wayne (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Where do I start with this?

With regard to point 2: the issue that 121.208.25.28 raised was the phoney claims made by Green about Moran's accounts of the patrol's actions on 21 May 1926 on page 2 of Massacre Myth. Your 1st comment was: "You said; Green claims that there was only one source for the account. He did no such thing, he cited Moran's sources and showed he misinterpreted them."

I've checked what 121.208.25.28 argues above against Green's "Ahab" review, Massacre Myth and Moran's review and he is correct and you are not. On page 1 of MM, Moran lists at least 5 sources for his reconstruction of the police patrol’s movements and actions at that time, actually more than 5 if the individual testimonies of each of the other members of the police party are counted as separate sources:

1. St Jack's journal,

2. St Jack's Royal Commission testimony

3. Regan's journal

4. Regan's Royal Commission testimony

5. The testimony of other members of the police party

Have you actually read what Green says about the account of the patrol's action in his review? Green pretends to the reader that the only source was St Jack's journal,i.e. he expressly claims that this is Moran’s “interpretation of St Jack's patrol journal entry for May 21, 1926” and that the journal does not contain all the details of Moran's account. Green does not mention at all the existence of the 4+ other sources which Moran used to reconstruct the patrol's actions. So the claim that Moran's claims "cannot be found in them" is obviously false.

Where does the issue of what Elkin wrote come in with regard to the account of the patrol's actions on May 21, 1926? It has nothing to do with it and frankly the fact that 1 clergyman put an 'innocent' spin on the behaviour of another clergyman in a letter to his wife isn't evidence that Moran misinterpreted anything. A child would have trouble believing that.

With regard to point 3, I can't see what you find so confusing. It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Green claims in his review, that "....Moran wrote that from a deconstruction of Commissioner Wood's report....". Green claims that Moran used the word REPORT and that he adduced the evidence from a deconstruction of the REPORT! Moran's review does not mention the REPORT or claim that he adduced anything from a deconstruction of the REPORT. In the review, Moran DESCRIBED his book as "a deconstruction of the 1927 Royal Commission". He does not say that he found the suggestive evidence of Gribble's motive in the Forrest River affair in the REPORT itself. Does not say it. That much should be obvious to anyone who can read English. So, for Green to claim that it is "fantasy" and challenge Moran to quote the sections of the report that he adduced the evidence from is, as 121.208.25.28 said, false and misleading.

This isn't about original research (OR), it is about responsible editing of the encyclopedia. It would be OR if 121.208.25.28 went into the archives and found documents to refute Green's claims. No need to. It was all there on the face of the sources. It would be irresponsible editing to allow what is obviously incorrect to remain in the article and 121.208.25.28 was right to remove it.

It would be very inappropriate to make any use of Green's "Ahab" review that included the obviously false claims. The best that could be extracted from Green's review without making use of the false claims that he makes, would be something along the lines of "Moran's arguments (or claims) regarding the reliability of Gribble were examined by Neville Green who argues (or claims) that, on this issue, Moran relied on sources which Green considers to be unreliable or misinterpreted." Frankly, when a review is as deceptive as Green's, it seems inappropriate to base anything on it.

As for "mainstream academic community" regarding Moran's views as "fringe". This isn't the first time that claim has been made about Moran. I've yet to see anyone provide anything to back that up whereas academics including, as I recall, David Day and Josephine Flood have mentioned his work favourably. This looks like desperation to include something, anything, in the article to dismiss Moran's book.180.149.192.139 (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As an act of good faith (only because two editors are supporting Moran) I'll answer your concerns.

• Green pretends to the reader that the only source was St Jack's journal

What Green said was: "Moran placed great reliance upon St Jack's journal." This is hardly pretending it was the only source and Green was only referring to the claim that Dinah was married to Unbah, used by Moran to support claims of sexual misconduct:

Moran's interpretation of St Jack's patrol journal entry for May 21, 1926 and St Jack's interview in 1989, 63 years after the event: The party left there at seven the next morning and later arrested two Aborigines, Ernest Unbah and his female companion Dinah, for being in what was known as the Prohibited Area which included the Government pumping station on the King River. They were put on the chain, as was the practice with black prisoners at that time, and taken with the police party. Late in the afternoon they arrived at Doughnut Creek.

St Jack's entry for May 21, 1926: Left the Pumping Station at 4am arrested the native Oombah @ Ernest at the King River charged on the Prohibited area, arrived at Doughnut at 4.40pm. Camped. Distance 20 miles.

Moran couldn't even get the time of day right when he had the original source in front of him.

• Green does not mention at all the existence of the 4+ other sources which Moran used to reconstruct the patrol's actions. So the claim that Moran's claims "cannot be found in them" is obviously false.

Green briefly mentions the other sources in the paragraph following the claim: "Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted." Green was not referring only to the patrol and cannot be found in them does not refer to the journal alone. Moran claimed "Dinah" was mentioned in Sylvia Halse's thesis and was Unbah's wife. Green found that Dinah is not mentioned in the journal or Halse's thesis and that Unbah was married to Nancy.

• Where does the issue of what Elkin wrote come in

Elkin was used as an example by Moran for Gribbles sexual misconduct.

• Green claims that Moran used the word REPORT and that he adduced the evidence from a deconstruction of the REPORT! Moran's review does not mention the REPORT or claim that he adduced anything from a deconstruction of the REPORT

Moran wrote" "In Massacre Myth, my deconstruction of the 1927 Royal Commission...I adduced" as the Commission's report is the source for what happened at the Commission, report is correct usage.

• This isn't about original research (OR), it is about responsible editing of the encyclopedia. It would be OR if 121.208.25.28 went into the archives and found documents to refute Green's claims.

It would NOT be original research if 121.208.25.28 found documents to refute Green's claims, they would be sources we could use.

• It would be very inappropriate to make any use of Green's "Ahab" review that included the obviously false claims.

They may be "obviously false claims" to you but that is WP:OR. Besides, Moran's book has been shown to be full of false claims by many reliable sources yet we still mention it. Do you want Moran's book deleted as well? Let's keep in mind that Moran is only a journalist. Green's book was his Ph.D Thesis as was Halse's book so they carry considerably more weight than a book considered fringe by the community.

• As for "mainstream academic community" regarding Moran's views as "fringe". This isn't the first time that claim has been made about Moran. I've yet to see anyone provide anything to back that up whereas academics including, as I recall, David Day and Josephine Flood have mentioned his work favourably.

Of course it's not the first time. Moran's book has been debunked by the academic community. If you haven't "seen anyone provide anything" I suggest you read works from the mainstream community at large. As for Josephine Flood, a review of the book where she supported Moran's findings (by saying he "may" be right) generally found it well written and researched, except for the part where "Flood goes too far in [supporting] Moran’s narrowly focused research." That Windschuttle supports Moran should tell you something.
Wikipedia must give prominence to the mainstream view and restrict fringe views. Moran already get's far more mention than deserved. If you want the Green paragraph deleted you need to take it to the reliable sources board, you can not delete a reliably sourced mainstream view first and argue later. Consider this a warning. Delete it again and I will consider reporting you for user conduct. Wayne (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The following is an extract from Green’s review ‘Ahab wailing in the wilderness’ - it contains the claims made by Green that I referred to in issue number 2 above.

Start of extract:

"Constable St Jack's first encounter with Unbah was in May 1926, and his brief visit to the mission where he may have met Unbah's wife was a month later. It is therefore remarkable that on page 2 of Massacre Myth Moran could bring Ernest, Dinah and St Jack together. In his interpretation of St Jack's patrol journal entry for May 21, 1926, Moran wrote:

The party left there at seven the next morning and later arrested two Aborigines, Ernest Unbah and his female companion Dinah, for being in what was known as the Prohibited Area which included the Government pumping station on the King River. They were put on the chain, as was the practice with black prisoners at that time, and taken with the police party. Late in the afternoon they arrived at Doughnut Creek.

This is most curious! St Jack's journal, now in the State Records Office in Perth, made no mention of Dinah or any other woman being arrested in May 1926, nor did he record chaining Unbah when he arrested him. St Jack's brief entry for 21 May was:

Left the Pumping Station at 4am arrested the native Oombah & Ernest at the King River charged on the Prohibited area, arrived at Doughnut at 4.40pm. Camped. Distance 20 miles.

In his attempt to vilify Ernest Gribble and denigrate Christine Halse, Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted. Gribble did not spread rumours of a massacre to hide his sexual indiscretions and Halse, by making this public knowledge in A Terribly Wild Man, casts a shadow over the analysis and conclusions that underpin Moran's massacre myth paradigm."

The article ends there. So when you state “Green mentions the other sources in the paragraph following the claim: "Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted." I have to ask just where is this brief mention of the other sources you claim Green made “. Where? There is no ‘mention’ of them at all in that paragraph and there are none following it, it doesn’t exist. Other sources Moran used in his book are mentioned by Green earlier in the review but claiming that it was in the context of his claims about Moran’s reconstruction of the patrol’s actions regarding Unbah is disingenuous. You have misrepresented what was in Green’s review by claiming that “Green briefly mentions the other sources in the paragraph following the claim: "Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted." And anyone who reads it can see that.

Moran states on page 1 of Massacre Myth, in Note 1 that “The account given here of St Jack's patrol is based on his journal, which is extant and held at the State Archives Office in Perth, as well as on testimony he gave before the Wood Royal Commission, which will be analysed in detail in subsequent chapters. It also draws upon the journal of Constable Denis Regan, who led the investigation of Hay’s murder, as well as his testimony at the subsequent commission. In addition, the testimony of other members of the police party has been consulted to reconstruct the patrol’s movements.”

Those are the sources that Moran cited and Green does not ‘mention’ them except for St Jack's journal, the one he pretends it is all supposed to be in.

Your claim “Moran wrote" "In Massacre Myth, my deconstruction of the 1927 Royal Commission...I adduced" as the Commission's report is the source for what happened at the Commission, report is correct usage.” is nonsense. The 1927 Royal Commission was about the alleged massacres. Moran’s book was about how wrong the Royal Commission got it and he used sources other than the report to do it. Are you seriously suggesting that no other document, no other record is relevant to the outcome of the Commission? We should just forget about all the other documents and sources Green referred to in his book? And about all the other sources that Moran consulted including the ones where he found the references to Gribble’s sexual ‘issues’? Green was being deceptive by pretending that report was the source that Moran claimed to have relied upon for information about Gribble’s sexual motive when he wrote: “In the Quadrant review Moran wrote that from a deconstruction of Commissioner Wood's report, "I adduced suggestive evidence that his [Gribble's] motive in the Forrest River affair was connected to his sexual transgressions there." This is pure fantasy and I challenge him to quote the sections of the report that enabled him to adduce, that is to bring forward as fact, such evidence. “

You are the one claiming that Moran’s is a fringe view, the onus is on YOU to produce verifiable sources that say that he is regarded as such but you once again you have dodged the issue and not cited a single source that says that. Yes, there are those who disagree with his interpretation but there is a difference between disputing someone’s interpretation of the historical record and labeling them as a fringe historian. If you had such a source you would have used it, I have no doubt.

There are 2 users with an interest in this article who know that you are wrong and if you want to report my deletion of the false claims you are using to try to discredit a book on the Forrest River massacre, go ahead. I am sure that my actions will stand up. Will yours, considering your own false claims about what was in Green’s review? Once again, just where are Green’s brief mentions of “the other sources in the paragraph following the claim: "Moran relied upon sources that have been shown to be unreliable or misinterpreted."”?? The other user is right, this looks like desperation on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.253.126 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting wikipedia policies. What I or anyone else believes regarding the credibility of the edit is totally irrelevant, you CAN NOT delete peer reviewed material written by a respected academic, which is supported by other academics, just because two anonomous WP editors have called them "false claims." Especially when those claims are supported by a majority of academics. If you dont want to use the word fringe then we can say without arguement that there are two views regarding the massacre, the majority opinion and the minority opinion. Moran is indisputedly in the minority and a very small one at that. Be that as it may, you have no valid reason to delete Green's claim regarding Moran's research. Wayne (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewed material?? Green's claims about Moran's sources were published in a book review in Quadrant and they were not peer reviewed.

Which academics have supported Green's specific claim that Moran used only St Jack's journal as a source for his account of the patrol and not the other 4+ sources? Where can we find your verifiable source for that? Which academics have supported Green's specific claim that Moran source for the suggestive evidence about Gribble's sexual motive was the Commission's REPORT? Where can we find your verifiable source for that?

Face it! Green went off his head and made wild, false claims about Moran in his review because Moran had shown up Green's foolish reliance on Gribble's account of Forrest River for what it was. That those claims are false are clear to anyone who can read. How can any responsible editor introduce or leave clearly false material in Wikipedia simply because the source happens to have a PhD? 180.149.192.132 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As per my comments on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: The objection to the deletion of the text seems to be based on a very narrow interpretation of Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources. Just because you have a source for something doesn’t override the fundamental need for whatever you put into the articles to be correct, to be accurate. Very strong reasons have been supplied why this wording introduces incorrect information into the article. I’ve just pulled Moran’s book from the stacks, looked at the relevant pages and can confirm that Green’s article does grossly misrepresent Moran’s sources. Misrepresentations like those Green makes have no place in Wikipedia where, I would hope, most editors strive for accuracy.The Schoolteacher (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Break

Per WP:RSUW Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Per both WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field must not be given undue weight. I remind you that Moran is a journalist and poet, not an expert in this field of research and is self published, per WP:SPS self-published media, such as books... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article. Moran is not an established expert. At 10% of this article, Moran already carries too much weight. If Moran's views were widespread then there should be adequate reliable sources on the subject published by experts in the field to show that his view is not fringe. If you would like a more authoritative source regarding Moran's reliability, I direct to an article published by the National Museum of Australia called Review of Exhibitions and Public Programs by historian Cathie Clement. The article discusses the controversy generated around it's "First Peoples" exhibit that was generated by Keith Windschuttle's denials that the Forrest River, Mistake Creek and Bedford Downs Massacres had ever happened. While acknowledging that the museums exhibit should include that there is a controversy, the article critisizes Moran's poor research skills regarding both the Forrest River and the Bedford Downs Massacres. Wayne (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've sent the edit to the Reliable sources noticeboard for discussion. Wayne (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Later criticism of Commission evidence

Regarding Neville Green's claim that the cremation experiment, reported at the Royal Commission as having been conducted by a Dr Golden, was never conducted and that Dr Golden did not exist. I have recently checked newspaper archives for the 9 June 1906 edition of the Oshkosh Daily Northwestern at www.thenorthwestern.com/ and can confirm that the article referring to Golden and the experiment is on the front page. This is a pay-for-access site however, so I haven't put a link in the Wikipedia page. For anyone who may want to check for themselves, you can get access to the site and therefore the newspaper archives on a free 7-day trial basis. It seems Moran's research on this subject was more thorough than Green's. 2001:8003:654B:CE00:4D24:64FD:FE58:B393 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905174157/https://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=350 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=350
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904212302/http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=237 to http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)