This article had substantial deletions on the 20th March after someone had added extensive improvements last year to give it a neutral point of view. It is now no longer of a neutral point of view and many important pieces of information have been removed. They would be good starting points for someone looking for primary references.
Could somebody explain why much of this article has been deleted and why it now has a biased point of view?
Could we revert it and try and work towards a neutral article that presents the case from both the point of view of local settlers and local Aboriginals?
86.151.26.52 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have heavily edited and reorganised this article to provide a more detailed and accurate coverage, including references. Hope it now meets with people's approval. Does it still rank as a stub? John D. Croft 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Greatly improved. Stub tags removed. —Moondyne 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone that thinks for a single moment that this is a neutral article needs mental help. This is a decidedly anti-European page written by some white-hating left-wing fanatic (obviously the aborigines wrote nothing at all). A disgrace. 2A00:23C4:B607:CB01:D946:D8AA:F8AB:D8E9 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The use of 'murdered' for the settlers and 'were killed' for indigenous people is a problem with neutrality. Leaving aside whether, under legal definitions of the day, the settlers were 'murdered', the use of active voice for the killing of white people and passive voice for the killing of black people shows a clear bias in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31283-53 (talk • contribs) 5 November 2025
- @~2025-31283-53: I agree, and won't oppose you changing this. Elrondil (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
