Talk:Port Arthur, Tasmania

Australia: Places / Tasmania / Crime High‑importance

	Australia portal Port Arthur, Tasmania is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noelamb7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier conversations[edit]

OK, any plans for a format--ZayZayEM 23:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map looks odd. I don't know why - any ideas? -- Chuq 07:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It could perhaps be a tad smaller in general. The inset map of the whole of Tasmania looks decided skewed to be extra "skinny" --ZayZayEM 08:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, well I've shrunk it down a fair bit, hopefully it should be readable still. I'm still not exactly sure how best to do maps as a whole. The state map looks ok to me - it might just be that there isn't much of a border around it that looks strange? -- Chuq 09:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may just be that the dimensions of the inset aren't the same as the whole image (ie. its an oblong inside a square). Did you make it yourself, could a legend/scale bar thingy be incorporated?--ZayZayEM 02:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I made it myself. A scale could be handy. I'll try to re-do it within the next week! -- Chuq 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Photo Copyright[edit]

Two of the photos have no copyright info. This would make getting featured article status difficult. Martyman 05:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dropped a line on Mayht's talk page, but his/her last edit was July 2004, so i'm not sure on reply. We should be able to replace those photos readily enough with ones from Me and Chuq.--ZayZayEM 14:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update, probably won't get my photos till post-ACOTw, dad's away this week.--ZayZayEM 04:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I quite like the historic photo of Port Arthur at it's height available here does anyone actually understand how copyright works? Are we freely allowed to download and use this image because it is from the 1860s? Martyman 02:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a book which shows the growth of the town from 1847-1859. However i don't think its copy-safe. A 50+ year old photo doesn't count if its in a <50yo book, right? The good pics I've been seeing are from the National Library of Australia [1].--ZayZayEM 03:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The photo iteself if it over 50 years old will be out of copyright but I am not sure about the reproduction of it that appears on the book or webpage. Anyway we aren't allowed to use the 50 years rule for wikipedia as things may still be under copyright in other more controled countries. I think the US rule is 75 or 100 years? anyone? Martyman 05:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The best bet may be to contact the National Library and request the copyright status of any good photos on their website. Martyman 05:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are some more historic photos available here. [2], [3], [4], etc. Might be worth contacting the State Library of Tasmania about re-using them. Martyman 06:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

I am going to break the article up into headings, if anyone feels it should be done differently feel free to revert my changes. Martyman 00:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks good--ZayZayEM 02:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is starting to look better now, but we actually haven't increased the content much yet. Martyman 02:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I spoke to soon. ;-) Martyman 03:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You don't mind the title changes? Other articles seem to have "interesting" titles, I feel we should try to incorporate these into our Australian projects--ZayZayEM 03:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think they look good. Martyman 03:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

murder punishable by death??[edit]

Some tales suggest that prisoners committed murder (an offence punishable by death)...

Is this right? Sounds rather odd! -- Chuq 02:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what so odd? It could probably be worded better. Murder was punishable by death. Life at Port Arthur was so horrible, that a friend might kill someone so they could both get out quicker. The one doing the killing also got a free trip to Hobart or Sydney for his hanging as well.--ZayZayEM 03:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course.. I don't know, saying prisoners "committed murder" just sounded more like "committed suicide" rather than "murdered other prisoners".. yes, I know it *says* murder and not suicide... never mind! -- Chuq 06:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, I'm not quite so sure who they actually murdered (inmates, guards, sailors, wenches), the point was they commited capital offences because it was an seen as an easier way out. Maybe all that church-going managed to get them off straight-out suicide.--ZayZayEM 09:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In 1833 whilst diging the foundations of the church, convict Reily swung a pick axe into another convict (Suttleworth). It is belived this may have been a suicide pact. one covict murdered, one hanged. Ghostieguide 15:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links and References[edit]

I was under the understanding that External Links and References should be seperate sections. "References" for any material that was used in the creation of the article, and "External Links" for further reading that may not have actually been used in the production of the article. Martyman 05:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those weblinks were already under "references" so I felt it was best to leave them there.--ZayZayEM 09:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

they should be sorted out from the references creating the article, it looks like they are fairly generic links, so they really are more just other websites to see rather than true references for the article content. clarkk 10:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They where under references because I put them there, because I was using them as references for the article. The official webpage for Port Arthur is not a "generic link", and can probably be asumed to be fairly authoratitive. Martyman 11:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Massacre details[edit]

I think a small reference shoudl be made to the resultant Howard ban on self-loaders. and also mention the towns resultant kinship with Dunblane.--ZayZayEM 13:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Martin Bryant. He does not belong in this article. I have also removed the reference to John Howard. The implemented gun-controls were widely accepted, and of little political significance. If you disagree, please discuss.--Grinning Idiot 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the article protection police force is on patrol. Bryant belongs in the page about the shooting - not in the Port Arthur page itself. You should not be able to shoot your way into history. And I repeat, the name of the PM that changed the gun laws IS NOT RELEVANT! Please discuss if you disagree!--Grinning Idiot 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grinning Idiot that it would be helpful to have 1996 in the title of the section about the more recent massacre, to highlight (in this article, particularly its TOC) that the event was a modern-era event, not a convict-era massacre. However, since we know the name of the gunman (and he has an article), I agree with Rebecca and see no reason not to link his name from the Port Arthur page, the same as Martin Cash is linked higher up in the history. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's noteworthy enough to warrant an article, he's noteworthy enough to mention here. Whether one should or should not "be able to shoot your way into history" doesn't change the fact that one can and, in his case, did. Dropped the name back into the article. MrZaius^talk 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. I'm not comfortable with it. But I guess that's history.--Grinning Idiot 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, a brief paragraph summarizing the event with a link to the main article (as is standard practice) means that if someone really wants to know the man's name, they can learn it with a simple click. Reporting it in this article isn't necessary. I don't care either way, but I did want to point out that the alternative to posting his name here isn't problematical. Rklawton 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"if someone really wants to know the man's name" - that was my thought. But I think the consensus is keep it, and fairly strongly so. Mr Bryant is pretty well known. I can see the case for keeping his name here. I don't like it nor do I have to. I think this is done. --Grinning Idiot 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed his name again today, it does not belong on the page describing the location - if people want to know about the massacre event, they can navigate to that page. Notice there is no photo of Breivik on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.143.195 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panopticon/Pentonville[edit]

The article currently says this: It contains one of the best examples of a working panopticon based on that at Pentonville prison in London

However, the entries on both Pentonville and panopticon make explicit notes that Pentonville was not in fact a panopticon. -- 142.166.3.82 16:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penal colony[edit]

It is wrong to refer to Port Arthur as "Australia's largest penal colony". This implies that Australia has penal colonies. It doesn't.

New South Wales was a British penal colony. New South Wales was the Britain's largest penal colony in Australia, stretching all the way from Cape York to Wilson's Promontory. Tasmania was also a British penal colony.

Port Arthur was a prison settlement within the colony of Tasmania.

Amandajm 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Port Arthur, Tasmania. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]