The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the second Australian Frontier Wars article I've brought to ACR. Like the Waterloo Bay massacre, a pioneer legend built up around this incident, but unlike that massacre, this one was investigated, documented and the main alleged perpetrator brought before the courts (although it didn't go to trial for several reasons). Hopefully I have done it justice. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"in late 1848, part of the Australian frontier wars." ---> in late 1848 during the Australian frontier wars
"terrorising Aboriginal people to stop them interfering" ---> to stop them from interfering
A brief explanation of the office of the Protector of Aborigines or why it was established would be useful.
"Reports were received in January 1849". Are there any details as to where these reports came from i.e. rumours from other settlers or complaints from Aborigines?
"The presiding judge considered that the evidence presented was insufficient, and gave the prosecution another week." Another week to investigate?
"By the November sittings of the court, Brown's case had been removed from the listings," The supporting source is used in the manner of a primary document, and this could count as original research. Unless a secondary source can establish the significance of Brown's exclusion from the listings, I think this information might have to be removed. Of course, if you just added the source in addition to the other secondary sources cited in the paragraph than by all means just confirm this and ignore this comment.
"despite poisonings having occurred in the southeast" Poisonings of aborigines by white settlers?
Wergon says that Brown committed the murders due to the theft of sheep. Is this motive significant enough to be included in the lede? Otherwise the massacre seems quite spontaneous.
G'day Indy beetle. Thanks for the review! I've addressed all your points, except that the sources aren't clear on who initially reported the murders to the authorities. The newspaper court listing was just there to support Foster et al., who themselves observe that the case had fallen off the court lists, so I moved the footnote to make that clear. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "and his overseer": should the overseer be named here?
Done, unfortunately, only his surname is recorded in the sources.
"The court could weigh the weight and credibility": slightly repetitious, perhaps replace "weigh" with "determine"
Done.
in the References, in relation to the two ordinances, suggest adding an author (possibly Government of South Australia), and/or a publisher (e.g. Government Printing Office for No. 4, and John Stephens Printers for No. 3?). The publication date for No. 4 appears to be 25 July 1849, while No. 3 appears to be from 21 July 1848
Added full dates, unfortunately the cite act template doesn't have a field for author or publisher.
This article is in good shape, and provides a good summary of the differing versions of this event and how they are interpreted by modern historians. I have only minor comments:
"Reports were received in January 1849" - who received these reports? The government?
The implication is the colonial authorities, so I've added that.
"Two white men were present, Leandermin identified Brown as one of them, and stated that Brown had a gun in his hand" - this wording is a bit unclear: it implies that they were present in January 1849, not at the massacre
added a bit.
I'd suggest introducing Eastwood earlier (was he the second of the two white men Leandermin said were present at the massacre?)
Done.
Am I right in thinking that a memorial hasn't been erected to mark the site of this massacre? Googling didn't return anything.
Not to my knowledge. Perhaps because the location is a bit vague, obviously on or near his property holdings at the time, which were quite large.
I note that a memorial trust established in honour of the perpetrator is still a going concern ([1], [2]). Has there been any proposals to re-name it or similar? Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick-D There has been some low-level controversy about it I believe, they have recently rebranded themselves as Kalyra Communities, but I haven't been able to find any news articles about it. I've added a bit about the rebranding and that they still operate. Thanks for taking a look at this one, I'm hoping to work on a few more Frontier Wars article in future. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I presume that the change to what appears to be an Indigenous Australian name isn't a coincidence. I note that the organisation's website still includes a prominent link to the James Brown Trust which has a rather airbrushed biography of the man: [3]Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
