> how in the hell is "University of the Sunshine Coast" an author?

It isn’t — it’s an affiliation! The authors are Patrick Nunn and Roselyn Kumar, both at the University of the Sunshine Coast. The formatting on the paper is admittedly a bit confusing though; at least in my field affiliations are usually printed as footnotes or similar.

In the case of phys.org, they just repost (or maybe re-host is a better word?) University press releases, among other things, verbatim, so this probably is just the press release from the University of Sunshine Coast or the authors or something, which is probably why the university is credited in the article.

What in particular constitutes "an easy stab"? Is it the idea that oral histories face skepticism, or the idea that Western accounts face insufficient skepticism? The former seems to be plainly true, and in many cases justifiably so. The latter, if it were true, would be a more serious accusation. To refute it, I'm trying to think of a Western historical narrative that has faced enough skepticism that it has been replaced with a more accurate narrative... perhaps you can help me?

Or perhaps you would defend the latter idea as a good thing? I want to assume better of an HN interlocutor, but that would fit better with your mention of copying and original sources.

If we must "stab" something as vast and varied as "Western history", ISTM the most common choices of focus and emphasis are more questionable than the accuracy.