Talk:Pinjarra massacre

Editing

I plan to edit this page extensively. Consider it a placeholder.--Cuomo111 01:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Whatever "placeholders" means, anyone is welcome to edit a Wikipedia article as long as they are improving it. —Moondyne 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

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)

Quality Scale

The article does not yet rate on the quality scale. What do you people think? John D. Croft 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well its currently rated "B" which I think is about right per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment. As a narrative, it reads really well but there a lot of stuff in there that a reader or reviewer would have no way of verifying: ie. needs lots more inline citations. There's a few statements which are possible original research. For example: "In the late afternoon, they camped at Jinjanuk, 10 miles from the mouth of the Murray River, so that they could begin the attack early next morning when they judged the Aboriginal group would be least prepared." (my emphasis). Peacock terms "Stirling gave the natives a terrifying warning". True, but needs to be in a more neutral tone. I hope this helps. —Moondyne 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Moondyne. I'll have a go at ammending appropriately in the next few days. Must get back to Green's "Brokjen Spears" where most of the content I believe comes, including maps which would be good to get into the article. I'll have a go at doing them soon. John D. Croft 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Battle of Pinjarra → Pinjarra Massacre — When well-fed, trained, and mounted men armed with guns and ammunition ambush a nomadic group laden with women and children, lacking both metal and cavalry, the odds are highly skewed in favour of the former. When such a preponderance yields casualty ratios as acute as 1:10::Side A Deaths:Side B Deaths or worse, addressing this inequality ordinarily leads one to consider the term, w:massacre, far more appropriate than the term, w:battle. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support clearly justified. PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support It appears, after reading the article, there isn't much doubt that massacre is a better description than battle. However, it also looks, from a very quick Google search, that Battle of Pinjarra is a far more common term than Pinjarra Massacre. Of course, the problem here is that the victors spoke English, and were therefore able to skew the adopted name to make it sound more "acceptable" (whether consciously or subconsciously); whereas the vanquished spoke a language probably only spoken by a few hundred. Which route do we go? Do we support our overriding principle of having a neutral point of view, or do we support our policy of using the most common term in the English language? In this case, I think the neutral point of view wins out. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as per Skinsmoke & the reasons above. _thecurran Thoughts?^{my past} 10:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, no way. We follow reliable sources. "Battle of Pinjarra" is by far the most commonly used name:

	Battle of Pinjarra	Pinjarra Massacre
Google Web	33k ("Battle of Pinjarra" -wikipedia)	3.7k ("Pinjarra Massacre" - wikipedia)
Google Scholar	68 ("Battle of Pinjarra")	19 ("Pinjarra Massacre")
Google Books	689 ("Battle of Pinjarra")	64 ("Pinjarra Massacre")

Clearly the current name absolutely smashes the proposed name by an order of magnitude. The principle of following reliable sources is written into policy at Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming, and there is a vast body of precedent, for example Black Hole of Calcutta, Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper, etc. Hesperian 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-neutral but common names actually states:
  • When a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston massacre and Tea Pot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental.
• The problem here is that there is not a single common name. There are two common names, one of which is more common than the other. In that case we have to decide which is the more appropriate. The guidance specifically does not tell us to use the most common name even though this may be non-neutral. It's also worth noting that if you look for items within the last year, the Google web search pulls up 78 items for Pinjarra Massacre and 57 for Battle of Pinjarra. Refine that search to Australian items (as this is an article which falls under the Australian English tag per Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English) and Pinjarra Massacre gets 60 hits, against 38 for Battle of Pinjarra. It looks very much that usage has changed, especially in Australia. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Using terms like the Boston Massacre belies the fact that "only" five people were killed but it accurately conveys the pivotal role the event played in galvanizing the populace towards the American (Revolutionary) War (of Independence). According to my US history teachers, the "Teapot Dome scandal" was to some extent blown out of proportion but it was so historic because it imprisoned a sitting US presidential cabinet member for the first time ever and, through McGrain v. Daugherty, it cemented Congress' right to compel testimony. Using these two terms is somewhat like making a mountain out of a molehill of an event by making notorious what would have been less significant if the fallout had not been so great. Calling the Pinjarra event the euphemistic term "battle" does not make it more notorious though; it whitewashes the event. _thecurran Thoughts? ^{my past} 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

    The examples above serve to point out that we should not shy from gritty realities. Fifteen months after Yagan was killed, the Pinjarra event served ultimately as the death-knell to Noongar self-determination. Proximately it caused many further deaths because contemporary Noongar law was to not eat the totem animal of the deceased for a whole year afterwards. That law sufficed during skirmishes where five or less died but at the scale involved it induced a wide-scale cascading famine. _thecurran Thoughts?^{my past} 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Living ten kilometres from the midpoint between Pinjarra and its state capital Perth (86 km from Pinjarra), we heard this event discussed on radio daily around its 175th anniversary last year.ABC It was universally called the Pinjarra Massacre or Bindjareb Pinjarra, the analogous Noongar term. By simply filtering for the third millennium to reflect modern usage as opposed to cumulative historical usage one finds much less than an order of magnitude's difference:

Search Field	Battle of Pinjarra	Pinjarra Massacre
Google Web+WP Past year	94 (Battle of Pinjarra)	84 (Pinjarra Massacre)
Google Scholar Since 2000	26 ("Battle of Pinjarra")	12 ("Pinjarra Massacre")
Google Books Since 2000	221 ("Battle of Pinjarra")	47 ("Pinjarra Massacre")
Google Web-WP Past year	57 ("Battle of Pinjarra"-Wikipedia)	75 ("Pinjarra Massacre"-Wikipedia)

NB: The web searches only go for the last year because it's the longest range that's easy to replicate.

_thecurran Thoughts?^{my past} 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have you excluded Wikipedia from those search parameters? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  Good point, Skinsmoke; that's now listed above too to follow Hesperian's check. These last data suggest "battle" is not only inaccurate but also outdated. _thecurran Thoughts?^{my past} 13:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the policy is the most common name is used for the article title, so clearly "battle", euphemistic as that is. The fact that the other title is used is accounted for by redirects and mention in the lead. That's all there is to it. Misarxist (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  According to the data above on the web outside of Wikipedia, "Battle of Pinjarra" was the most common term but now "Pinjarra Massacre" is the most common term. It appears WP provides the bulk of current pressure back towards the former term. By the way, i just corrected my one-click-checkable figures; Hesperian's still seem off a little. _thecurran Thoughts?^{my past} 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't agree that "massacre" is the most common term in the published literature - what it is on the web is neither here nor there. The term "massacre", furthermore, is not neutral, although it is pretty much what happened. Orderinchaos 09:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I've always had the impression that contemporary accounts and non-web references mostly referred to it per the current name. I agree that current useage does seem to have moved slightly but I see no good reason for a move here. –Moondyne 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I suppose that massacre is a description of the outcome, whether the term 'battle' is justified or not, however, I think this has been decided elsewhere. This is from the national broadcaster:

"The incident is referred to by many people as the Pinjarra Massacre, but not by all -- traditional white history teaches us that this was in fact the Battle of Pinjarra. And this is the point, because language and labels are powerful and an event's meaning in history can be summed up in a single name."—21 March 2010 Artworks Feature: "The Pinjarra Massacre" Radio National

and "Pinjarra Massacre Memorial" fremantleprison.com.au/whatson or even "Pinjarra Massacre Site Research and Development Project". see NLA record for authors

The distinction between these examples, and the ghits above, is they are titles, not just names, and we can cite that. We could defer to a source like the state government's Heritage Council of Western Australia Place No: 03957 which says, "Name: Pinjarra Massacre Site; Other Names: Battle of Pinjarra; Pinjarra Battle Memorial Area" Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think what you are trying to say is that traditionally the event was known as the Battle of Pinjarra and that this should be mentioned in the article. That is perfectly legitimate, and for the article to be comprehensive it should mention the naming controversy and how perceptions have changed in recent years. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but feel free to improve the article. Both terms refer to an event and have been used interchangeably, both have been used for some time. The earliest reporters of the event targeted the colonists or potential buyers in England as an audience, they were selling the idea that the traditional owners were not an issue when considering whether to invest in Stirling's venture.

The block quote discusses how these terms flavour the names applied to the incident. Unless other sources contradict my selection, they acknowledge the dilemma in choosing a name and favoured 'massacre' over 'battle' for a title. Attempting to resolve this by analysis of ghits and reference to policy or guidelines is unnecessary, neither can be used as a source in the article! The sources that google brought me could be used, the last is compelling: the state government's heritage register acknowledges the various names and gives massacre in the title. What the Nyungar people thought about that description was not a consideration, it became one later. The 'official' title of the registered site emerges from the same authority that implemented the campaign (approximately), knowingly selected over the systematic bias of the name given by the earliest reports. I s'pose I am suggesting that maintaining the military term was reactionary, or polarising, and invested with a conceptualisation of 'war' or 'resistance'. I reckon those notions have been out-moded by the historically descriptive term, a steady trend since the 1960s; the choice of title in other sources, not google hits determining most common, might show that to be wrong. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why was there such a delay?

Exactly seven days after the move above was proposed there was clear consensus for the move. By the time somebody closed it though there was almost a clear consensus against the move. At that point, the right decision was to leave well enough alone but, seeing how much change occurred after the seven day mark, i have to ask why was there such a delay? Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is frequently backlogged, which is unfortunately why many move discussions are closed after the seven day minimum. I suppose in this case the delay was somewhat helpful, because the first week of discussion apparently was not a large enough sampling. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Starting with the assumption that the appropriate sampling size is reached not when our standard week elapses but only when the tide just barely turns in favour of what U hold to be the correct choice in the first place, refusing the move, intimates that U may have carried a bias in that direction before U took action. This concept is compounded further as a super-majority against the move was not demonstrated and the move was repeatedly opposed on substance but simultaneously supported in essence. Of course i WP:AGF that no such bias existed since it behooves decent admins to recuse themselves from action once they find themselves to hold such prejudices. As it is no longer determinable which direction may have ended in majority if the survey had been allowed to vacillate further, i strongly suggest that U take care not to add insult to injury with such unsubstantiated claims on sample size in the future. I reiterate that i agree with your decision to forgo the move at that stage because surveys are somewhat of a sounding-board for whether further deliberation is needed and, when neither side holds a super-majority, it is often best to leave "well enough" alone. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is about time you either make a case for your theory that something nefarious happened here—i.e. start by showing that this closure was in any way unusual, compared to other move requests at the time, or compared to other requests handled by Arbitrarily0—or withdraw your insinuations. Because from where I sit, it looks like Arbitrarily0 is being attacked for helping to clear a WP:RM backlog. That is not how we treat our fellow volunteers. Hesperian 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, i found the sentence "I suppose in this case the delay was somewhat helpful, because the first week of discussion apparently was not a large enough sampling." both unnecessary and slightly misleading; i would like to see it struck through or otherwise amended. Should that happen, i would gladly strike my paragraph through.

Your immediate and perhaps disproportionate response here however, compared with your long inattention to me challenging your sentence "Battle of Pinjarra" is by far the most commonly used name, makes me less comfortable and hints that U might be willing to contact your mates to help if U were losing a discussion. I again repeat that i will tolerate the current name for many months or longer because i am respecting this outcome. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, more bad faith accusations. You just can't control yourself; how embarrassing for you. Ironically, it was you who brought my "mates" here by needlessly posting about this on my talk page. Considering their eagerness to contribute here, perhaps I did them a disservice by not letting them know about it; but you rectified that, for which I thank you. Hesperian 04:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thecurran, let me explain my "sampling" comment quick. I can see how you would have thought that this implied I had a bias about the subject, but in truth, I had never heard of this subject before seeing this request. What I meant by this comment was, if the community was in full was in agreement with this move, than an extended discussion period wouldn't have changed anything. I hope you both are doing well, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You kindly, Arbitrarily0, for all your hard work; i apologize for any aspersions You may feel i have cast upon your good name.

User:Hesperian, it seems You have just stated that, when i asked You to amend your slight misprint because You had not replied here, those of your stalkers who share your view that titles need not reflect NPOV disproportionately responded; tipping the scale against what probably was a reflection of the average Wikipedians view. I hope things continue to turn out well for You. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Strike three, you're out. If you'd bothered to query who I believe came here via your message on my talk page, I would have listed Moondyne and Orderinchaos, both of whom opposed the proposed move, and Cygnis insignis, who supported it. That's right, my "stalkers" have no qualms in disagreeing with me, and the net effect was just one oppose.

I implore you to step back and consider whether, after three false and baseless assumptions of bad faith in a row, it might be possible that you are the problem here. Hesperian 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• If thecurran thinks there has been an injustice, or a failure of NPOV, they should add the references I brought to this page. The ref from the museum site discusses how the naming is problematic, the one from the Heritage council gives the names of the site. I see no consensus to move, and excellent contributors being slandered, but there is an opportunity to improve the article with facts on the same issue. Adding them would be a good outcome, the user is able to demonstrate whether they are interested in improving content or arguing on talk pages. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

@Thecurran. It is true that I was alerted to the discussion from the note you left on Hesperian's talk page, but it is also true that I have made several edits to this article in the past and it is one that I know a little about and therefore interests me. I missed the initial discussion only because the article had dropped off my watchlist for reasons that are unimportant. FYI, I frequently disagree with Hesperian on various matters and no doubt will do so (and !vote accordingly) again in the future. Your ongoing insinuations offend me. –Moondyne 05:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for offending You, Moondyne. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 00:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.westaustralianvista.com/pinjarra-massacre.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Misarxist 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

another source for massacre of pinjarra

I have a another source for massacre broadcast on government radio today, it says it was called a battle to disguise the truth of the massacre. I have read the article and would like to know what refs were removed.?oygul (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Surgest name change

This title is not neutral it gives to much weight to one interpretation of the event.I suggest we change the title to The Pinjarra Incident can I please have some opinions.?oygul (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not about interpretations its about the most commonly used name in reliable sources. See #Requested move above. Nothing has changed. Moondyne (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The above RM is deadlocked between two non-neutral titles. Modern use of both terms seem about equal in sources. The title should be neutral and not give any weight to either term.

Until it becomes clear in modern sources which term is more in use. Titles are based on a number of different criteria. Neutrally should overweigh the most common usage. Pinjarra Incident is one suggestion of a neutral title. It favours no particular name. ?oygul (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the title may be non-neutral, but thats missing the point: Read WP:POVTITLE: "Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." Moondyne (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ready to reassess whether "Pinjarra massacre" has become the more accepted name for this event, but "Pinjarra incident" is a travesty of euphemism. Hesperian 12:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with hesperian - incident does not reflect what happened - it certainly wasnt a tea party SatuSuro 13:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the current sources, the use of these terms seems about equal. So wiki is giving undue weight by having one or the other as the tittle. It should be nether until such time as it becomes clear which one is the most in use by current sources. That is why I suggested a different title, to find a neutral title. It seems you lot are more interested in discussing why it must be either battle or massacre and not suggesting alternatives, I’ll just put this one on my watch list and come and join the discussion if there is an RC or RM. ?oygul (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not call it the Pinjarra Massacre and just have Battle of Pinjarra redirect to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.83.109 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors of Content

The introduction of the article suggests that Aboriginal people lived in tribes. They did not. This is in error. Secondly that they had "warbands", when this is also wrong. There were small groups who may have come together to inflict what they saw as a "payback" from time to time but there was no such thing as a warband. This is a racist view based upon North American Amerind useage. Thirdly, as Neville Green shows in "Broken Spears", by the early 1830s Swan River people, dispaced by European settlers were moving into areas north and south of the river. This would have led to so called Whadjuk people encroaching upon areas traditionally Binjareb. The article suggests that it was Calyute/Kalyute who was responsible for the "massacre" - i.e. unexpected attack upon Aboriginal people. It was clearly a way to systematise the land grab that was already proceeding by Peel's settlers in the Pinjarra region.

Finally to call it "a batttle" is also a misnomer and a misleading use of the word battle (See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle). A battle is something that leads to the moral collapse and then the physical distruction of one of two armies. The Aboriginal people had no army. Calling it a battle of Pinjarra is again questionable. An attack upon an Aboriginal settlement that was not expecting such an attack, and was going about its business was only a battle in the eyes of Europeans seeking to justify their actions during and after the event.John D. Croft (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

rename

I know we have been here before, the name Battle of Pinjarra is still common when searching that is because of the written sources are coloured by the written accounts of the time. Its widely accepted that was anything but a battle the event is equally if not more frequently referred to as a massacre its the commonly accepted description in use. Given this I propose that the article gets renamed to Pinjarra Massacre Gnangarra 13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly support. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

disagree. rename to "Pinjarra Incident" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.90.232 (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The lack of sources

If you want to write fiction, write a novel. If you want to write in an encyclopedia - even an online one - cite your sources. This article has long been notorious for its inability to back up contentious claims, and three years of 'citation required' has done nothing to allay this. Let's get this article up to an A-grade level and start referencing some sources. 155.143.112.133 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Be sure to keep your language neutral when editing this page. I have removed the contentious term 'so-called' from before the alternate title of this historic event 'The Battle of Pinjarra', and I have changed the language throughout where some thoughtful user had put scare-quotes around every mention of the word 'battle.' Instead of "battle" we now have melee, instead of "battleground" we now have site of the incident. There's plenty of well referenced counter-arguments to the 'battle' narrative in the article already, it does not need your subtle censure. 144.138.156.176 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Article title does not match lead sentence or infobox

The article is currently named "Pinjarra massacre", but the lead sentence says "Battle of Pinjarra", and the infobox says "Pinjarra battle". The three should all be the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Another citation

Interesting article which names two members of the Binjarep group. Nunan was identified but escaped. Munna was killed. The article also entertains the idea that warring factions could be useful against each other

References

revision

A revision of the article added an existing ref to an uncited statement, omitted some assetions and removed another from Lyon. ~ cygnis insignis 12:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)