Talk:History of Australia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Misc

I tried to put up a little sentence before the article divides; I personally think articles look better if they have an introduction.---Mihoshi 16:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Victoria was first settled in 1835, not 1851

Settled in 1835, yes. It became a seperate state in 1851. Prior to that it was part of NSW.

The post-European history is very weak at present, barely an overview, and needs considerable expansion. Anyone want to take it on? ____

Tannin, check out this diff: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Australia&diff=0&oldid=21828

Also this Google search: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:uktN5pfA_AcJ:www.worldrover.com/history/australia_history.html+The+first+session+of+Parliament+in+that+city+was+opened+by+another+Duke+of+York+(later+%5B%5BKing+George+VI%5D%5D).+Australia+became+officially+autonomous&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

It is very clear that much of the second half of this article still has US government paid for public domain text. At the very least that source should be listed as a normal information reference so I'm putting the cite back in. If you like you can rephrase the cite so that it looks like the CIA and DoS were used a regular references and not as a source for the actual text. --mav 04:26 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Nonsense: a single sentence does not make an article. That CIA attribution is inaccurate and highly offensive, to Australia, and to the Australians who wrote the vast bulk of the entry. This truly is a case of "Yankee go home". Tannin 16:46 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Was not the CIA / DoS information still used? Even rewritten text warrents an attribution. But, I guess, having the attrib on the talk page is enough. --mav

A note for posterity: An earlier version of this article incorporated public domain text from the CIA World Factbook 2000 and the 2003 U.S. Department of State website.

"Advanced" as a description of Aboriginal land management practices is vastly more accurate than "rudimentary" - the term that was use to replace it. The evidence for this is conclusive: since traditional Aboriginal land management practices were brought to an end (by European settlers from 1788 on) there has been a vast wave of land degredation and many species extinctions in Australia. Australia has the worst record in the entire world for mammal extinctions, with 22 species recently wiped out. Aboriginal land management practies were complex and often subtle; their cessation is directly implicated in the extinction of a number of mammal species. The land management practies of Europeans, in stark contrast, have been an unmitigated disaster. There may be a better word than "advanced" to indicate the extraordinary sensitivity that Aboriginal people had to their environment, and their ability to work with it rather than against it. "Rudimentary", however, is certainly not it. Tannin 00:36 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Excised text -- Tim Starling 14:28 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

much more about early history, including rum rebellion, beginning of free settlers, wool, the French ship that almost claimed us etc.*

Dot points for further discussion

The Gold Rush, bushrangers
World War II and the realignment away from Britain and towards US. War in general could do with elaboration, starting with the Boer War, then World War I, World War II, Vietnam War, Korean War, Malayan Emergency. Some mention of ANZACs would be worthwhile also.
The Stolen Generation and treatment of Kooris more generally.
Postwar immigration, the beginning of the end of the White Australia Policy.
WA attempt to succeed from the rest of Australia ~1930.
Economic expansion and cultural sleepiness of the Menzies years.
Vietnam war, protests and other clashes.
Whitlam government and the dismissal.
Arrival of vietnamese boat people, non-discriminatory migration policy
Economic deregulation of the 1980s.
Australian participation in project Echelon and US military bases in general.
Mabo case and Native Title
Republic debate, Howard's 1996 win, contemporary events, struggles for future
Also could do with links to subpages (eg. the aus foreign relations page wasn't linked to directly, bound to be others).
Environmental degradation and the adaptation to the Southern Oscillation.

My eventual goal for this article is to continue expanding for a while, then split the current material into a number of subsidiary articles, leaving a 2-3 page summary here. -- Tim Starling 12:55, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Some comments

I agree that the post-settlement section is weak and I might have a go at writing some text when I have time. Most noticeably there is nothing on constitutional development and the growth of democratic institutions, or on the labour movement.

A couple of small errors in passing:

> Quiros called the islands he discovered Australalia del Espiritu Santo, not Australia del Espiritu Santo. (by the way, what is a Counter-Reformation Catholic and why is it relevant?)

There's more to that story, and it isn't explained very well here. De Quiros wasn't just a catholic, he was (judging by [1]) commissioned by the pope. From [2]:

Viceroys of Spain's American empire regularly sought new lands. One such expedition left Callao, Peru, in December 1605 under Pedro Fernandez de Quiros, a man of the Counter-Reformation who desired that Catholicism should prevail in the southland. De Quiros reached the New Hebrides and named the island group 'Australia del Espiritu Santo' and he and some later Catholic historians saw this as the discovery of Australia.

The counter-reformation movement is mentioned in Protestant Reformation. -- Tim Starling 02:55, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

> Murrumbidgee River, not Murrimbidgee

> The section on Aboriginal mortality is well-balanced, but the reference to poisoned blankets is gratuitous - this persistent myth is based on ONE reported (but not verified) incident.

> The section on federation is seriously deficient. The plural of referendum is referendums.

> ANZAC Day is not "an annual holiday to remember its [Australia's] military's victories and losses." It is a day to remember Australia's war dead.

> A reference to the stolen generation debate without any discusion of Aboriginal affairs in the recent period, such as the 1967 referendum and the land-rights movement, is seriously misleading.

> An Australian republic was NOT "a subject of discussion for much of Australia’s history since Federation." It was barely mentioned until the 1970s, and became a serious issue only during the Keating government.

Dr Adam Carr Melbourne

Thank you for your help, Adam. Please Be bold in updating pages -- most of the problems here would have taken you less time to correct than to complain about. I know that this article needs much more work, and any contribution you make would be greatly appreciated. I haven't been doing much on it lately, I've been writing MediaWiki code instead. -- Tim Starling 02:02, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Tim: I don't really approve of overwriting other people's work without their permission. That's why I am reluctant to post articles here. If you want to make corrections to your text in the light of what I have said, that is your privilege. I may be wrong after all :)

On constitutional history, I now notice there is a separate page on that. That page has its deficiencies too, but it doesn't need to be duplicated here. I do think a section on the rise of colonial democracy and the labour movement would be valuable for non-Australian readers - it is after all one of the things that makes Australian history distinctive. I might have a go at that when I get time.

AC

You don't approve of overwriting other people's work? That is because you are a newbie :) From Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages:

For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. And of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia the best it can be.

Most common Wikipedia faux pas number 1 is:

Worrying too much that you're going to mess things up. You probably will a little; everybody does, to some extent. But then someone else will probably clean up after you. The community encourages participants to be bold in updating pages.

And number 7 is:

Thinking that there is an "author" of any given article you read. A common misconception of new arrivals to Wikipedia is that there are single authors of articles. This leads people to issue critiques on Talk: pages when they could just as easily make changes to articles themselves. The fact of the matter though is that no article here has just one official author, even if only one person has worked on it. Anyone can work on any article, and if you see a problem with an article, you are encouraged to fix it. Don't bother with the Talk: page unless politeness demands you explain what you've changed, or that you ask a question first. For more information, see Be bold in updating pages and Talk page.

Also, you might want to consider creating a user account. You don't need to supply any personal details, just a username and a password. The benefits are described at Wikipedia:How to log in, but IMHO the greatest benefit is that it provides a method for one Wikipedian to reliably contact another. All that I've written here could have been written on your user talk page, if you had one. -- Tim Starling 04:20, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Australalia del Espiritu Santo" got no Google hits, so I grabbed my copy of Macquarie University's "People of Australia", a book I bought a week ago for the sole purpose of using it in this article :) It's actually "Austrialia".

"The plural of referendum is referendums." Both Mirriam-Webster's and the Macquarie Dictionary say it can be either referenda or referendums. I've heard "referenda".

Of course neither of those things means that you shouldn't have made the change. I (or someone else) would have checked the facts when you made the change, and we would have duly fixed it. -- Tim Starling 05:10, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Since Tim assures me that it is OK to rewrite this article, I have done so. Anyone who wants to argue with me about anything I have written is welcome to do so :) Dr Adam Carr 13 September

Nice work, Adam. It's improving significantly. Tannin 13:45, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Aboriginal history - prehistory

I reverted the excision of the Aboriginal history section. That is a vital, perhaps the vital part of Australia's history, for that is the period when the whole shape of our continent, and the creatures that live on it, was determined. To attempt to understand Australia without understanding the history of this land is utterly impossible.

I didn't excise it, I moved it to a separate page because this one is over 30kb and I am getting a warning message. In any case strictly speaking prehistory is not the same as history so the division is quite logical.

210.10.32.12 13:50, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

By all means cut something out and move it then, but not the most important part. Tannin

I don't see that it is any more important than any other part. I also don't see any other logical place to divide the piece in two. I am happy to suggest that readers should read the prehistory piece first, but in fact prehistory does not belong on a history page. Australian history, properly defined, begins in 1606.Dr Adam Carr 13:59, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Then tell me this? Where does our fauna come from? Where does our landscape come from? Why can you see eucalypts spread over 70% of the forested part of the continent? Why is the interior so arid? Why are there no Diprotodons browsing in the Royal National Park? And what of the gross insult to our Aboriginal citizens? Honestly, that was a really really bad idea. If the page needs to be split, then so be it, but the Aboriginal history came first, included a number of crucial events to the creation of this nation as it stands today, and cannot be simply swept under the carpet as if it never existed. Whatever else may have to go, it cannot be the 53,000 years of history that occurred before the white man came. Tannin 14:16, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do calm down Tannin - let me explain this as carefully as I can. "Natural history," "prehistory" and "history" are three different things. Natural history is what happened in Australia before humans arrived here. Prehistory is what happened between the arrival of humans and the beginning of recorded history. History is the narrative of human events of which we have records. We have no records of anything that happened in Australia before 1606, so that is the beginning of Australian history. Can you name, let alone date, one of these "crucial events" that happened before 1606? You can't, because we have no record of anything that happened before that date.

Of course the fact that Australia was inhabited by humans for 53,000 (or whatever) years is important, but the study of that period is either palaeoanthropology or archaeology - not history. There is nothing insulting or any other such subjectivity about this, it is a standard division of disciplines. It is not insulting to trees to say that their study comes under botany, not zoology.

So, if the page is too long, as seems to be the case, then the logical thing to do is create a prehistory page. I agree that readers should read that page first, so let's call it Australian history 1 or something, and the other page Australian history 2, ok? This slight terminological inexactitude is permissible in the interests of consensus. Dr Adam Carr 14:38, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(Actually, we can date quite a few events - but that is an aside.) As you correctly gather, I am very concerned to retain the Aboriginal history section in its proper place - i.e., first, because it happened first and everything else that has happened since has been (in part) a result of it. I really do believe that this is vital. Relegating it to a sub-page is just not on.

Apart from its importance as a primary shaping factor of more recent history (and of the present day), it would be a huge mistake to think that Australia began in 1788. (You know all this, of course, just as well as I know the difference between palaeoanthropology and history, but I'll spell it out for all to read.)

This is a shared land, with a shared history. We do not have an "us" (post 1788) and a "them" (pre-1788): we just have Australians. It doesn't matter if you were born in London of Cockney parents or in Brunswick of Vietnamese descent, you nevertheless are the heir to an Australian heritage that goes back 50,000 years or more.

Now, to practicalities. Yes, the page 'is getting too long. (And a good deal of that thanks to your efforts!) Something will need to be done about it fairly promptly. However, consigning the 4 or 5 paragraphs of Aboriginal history to a sub-page will only provide a few weeks grace. As a long-term measure, it won't be nearly enough. The split you propose, in other words, is a good idea and indeed an inevitability, but we need to split somewhere closer to the middle. (Middle as in "middle of text", I mean.) Possibly pre-federation and post federation, that would work, I think. It ain't perfect, but it's roughly in the middle of the text, and it provides a convienient cut-off point.

Title? How about Early Australian history and Recent Australian history? Is that better than "1" and "2"?

Best -- Tannin 16:14, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK Tannin, I don't think it's important enough to have a brawl in our little Aust hist caucus about, so I'm happy to split the file at Federation as you suggest. Eventually we might want to split the file up in a number of ways, either chronologically or thematically, as it gets bigger.

Having said that, I do think it is ahistorical to say that the Aboriginal people before 1788 were "Australians." Surely that is imposing a European construct of nationhood on their very different sense of their own place in the world? 1788 does mark a fundamental rupture in the history of this continent, with the period 1606-1788 serving as a sort of prelude to that rupture. This would be a good topic to explore in a further article, yes?

I am now really keen to know what events in Australian history before 1606 you can name and date. :) Cheers, Dr Adam Carr 04:14, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with Tannin. To call the period up to 1606 "prehistory" is not the best choice of word. There was a very strong history that the Aboriginal people carried in their heads and passed on to each generation through story and song. In order to get initiated and go through law, you needed to prove you wanted to learn these things - that you were interested in history.

I don't think the issue of naming and dating is what this is about. Since Europeans have been on this continent for the last five minutes, it's plain silly and conceited to rule out 40,000 years of history prior to that. Confer History of the USA or History of Canada(and yes, certainly a separate article is necessary, as it is for a number of the subjects on this page).

DRyan

Let's rename the articles to History of Australia before 1901 and History of Australia since 1901 to be more "formal" sounding. --Jiang 07:38, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I was just about to suggest this, it's also more consistent with the other history pages, such as History of Germany and History of the United States. Also we should have summaries from those pages included here, under the subheadings. A suggested template follows. --Lexor 12:47, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

History of Australia before 1901

Main article: History of Australia before 1901

(summary of article here...)

History of Australia since 1901

Main article: History of Australia since 1901

(summary of article here... e.g. Australia was become a federation in 1901 etc.)

seems ok to me - who is going to write it? Dr Adam Carr 13:41, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the suggested changes, actually took the text from the main page just to start things up. I haven't renamed the pages as yet, I didn't want to do that until the currently active contributors to the page such as yourself were aware of it. Can I do the rename now? --Lexor 13:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, rename done now. I've got to go, so I'll change all the links in the tables etc. to avoid the redirects later, if somebody else doesn't beat me to it. --Lexor 14:18, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This article really hasn't had much activity at all since last October. In the meantime, the American article has undergone a massive rewrite, and is now seperated up into small chunks of as little as twenty years per article. I doubt we could get that much, but there's a lot of history not included here. Any thoughts on trying to (at least partly) match the American effort? Ambivalenthysteria 04:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed to breaking this article up into smaller ones. Encyclopaedia readers expect to find a broad synoptic national history. People who have more specialised interests can write feeder articles and link them to this one, eg History of Australian music or History of Australia in the 1890s or Economic history of Australia. Adam 06:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with the American format of doing that? (Summary with link to the larger article) Ambivalenthysteria 06:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please give a link to the American article you are refering to. Adam 06:15, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

History of the United States Ambivalenthysteria 11:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we were to treat Australian history that way, someone would have to do a great deal of writing to create all those subsidiary articles dealing with each period. Once they exist they can be linked to, but there is no point in creating a lot of dead links to articles which no-one has written yet. Adam 14:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know that. I was just proposing that we overhaul this article, and try for the level of detail and formatting seen in the American one. If it's okay with you, I'll start trying to expand it when I get the chance. Ambivalenthysteria 00:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We'll be watching :) Adam 00:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Category:History of the Germanic peoples

The original occupants of Australia were certainly not Germanic, over 1000 years of history had passed between the Germanic tribes coming to England and its colonisation of Australia. A large proportion of the immigrants to Australia, throughout its history, were Irish or Scottish. These days a large fraction of Australia's population are either immigrants from non Anglo-Celtic countries or descended from such. Given all that, listing Australia in the "history of the Germanic peoples" seems like a stretch too far, I would have thought. --Robert Merkel 02:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the side box

How can i edit that little box with the pic of the coat of arms on it. Just cause there is a line put in the middle of the list of the states which seems a little useless. The bellman 12:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice at the top of the article it says {{History_of_Australia}}. This means that a template called "History of Australia" has been included. You can get to this page by going to Template:History of Australia. HOWEVER.. the line in the middle is to separate the city articles (Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney) from the state articles (Tasmania, Victoria, WA) so it does serve a purpose - best to leave it. -- Chuq 12:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat

reorganisation discussion

a heads up on a discussion on reorganisation for people only watching this main article. chime in at: Talk:History of Australia before 1901#Split into smaller articles?. perhaps that discussion should be moved here. clarkk 12:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Note my message to User:Toothpaste here on her merging of the history of Aust articles back together. I think we have had a lot of discussion about this and it's unwise to abruptly undo all the thought and hard work that has been put into separating them. Lisa 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

material added by anon

The following block was added to the top of this talk page by 203.129.47.97. I have moved it to the bottom here, and also point out that it appears to be copied directly from an external site. Please someone advise what to do. Dmharvey 12:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

copied portion

Here's my history of Australia in four short parts:

A Very Quick History of Australia

How much understanding of Australian national history should we all have? One would think as much as possible. Knowing some key events and names, an appreciation of the development of Australia from an isolated island continent inhabited by Indigenous Australians to the commencement of occasional contact with visitors from the outside world, to the point where we started to become a confident player on the world stage, would be an impressive start. To help you, we have compiled a thumbnail sketch of the fundamentals of Australian history. One can recognize FOUR PERIODS. Some of these overlap.

1. BEFORE ANY OF OUR HISTORY WAS WRITTEN DOWN the Original Australians lived here for more than 40.000 years. They may be the oldest continuous population in the world. Many hunted and gathered for their livelihood, some lived in semi-permanent villages. They arrived here from the North, group after group and occupied the continent. Occasionally they had visits from their northern neighbours, who came and went in canoes or other boats. These visits are apparently not linked to the arrival of those Europeans who permanently settled here to help make Australia as we know it today. Our knowledge of these visits are not based on written history but on limited archaeological evidence and Aboriginal traditions, and consequently are imprecisely dated, do neither specify names of individual people who landed here or of their vessels, nor the exact location where they may have landed.

Some, like the visits of Makassans, may have occurred over a long period and continued into the next period. They too will have brought home stories that were passed on to other neighbours and other travellers, thereby feeding the legend that there was a great land 'down under'.

2. THE AUSTRALIAN MARITIME CONTACT PERIOD is a most exciting but not well known period, starting in 1606, when the first European mariners sailed into Australian water, recording their observations of this land and the residents they encountered. Every Australian should know the name of Willem Janszoon and his ship the Duyfken, the first recorded ship and crew to chart an Australian coast as well as the first to meet with Aboriginal people. All Australians should also know the name of Louis Vaez de Torres and his ships San Pedro and Los Tres Reyes that sailed through Torres Strait later in 1606. Both Janszoon and Torres made the world aware of our northern coast, even though they did not realize the extent of the land they had stumbled upon. Although 1606 marks the beginning of Australian written history another 52 European ships from a number of nations would make contact and add to the mapping of our coasts by 1770. Most of these were merchant ships, 41 of them from the (Netherlands) United East Indies Company (VOC) and included the ships Zeehaen and Heemskerk of Abel Janszoon Tasman's 1642 first voyage to our land. He established in 1644 that our continent was an island with a north, west and south coast and, logically, an east coast. An Australian state has been named after him. Tasman has this in common with Queen Victoria. The names of most of these early mariners, their ships, what they observed, and when, are certainly well recorded. Consequently names like Dirck Hartog, Pieter Nuyts, Willem De Vlamingh, Francisco Pelsaert must be considered important ones in Australia’s history. The subsequent charting of much of our east coast was carried out in 1770 by Englishman Captain James Cookin his ship Endeavour. Cook confirmed that Tasman had been correct in his conclusion that Australia was an island continent . Cook relied on the accumulated knowledge contained in the maps and journals of earlier mariners to find the east coast. Subsequently the final outline of the coast of Australia, including the realisation that Tasmania was a separate island, was detailed at the beginning of the Colonial Era by mariners such as Bass, Flinders and Baudin, the first two of these sailing from their 'home' base Sydney, Baudin from France.

3. THE COLONIAL ERA, includes the exploratory expeditions into the interior and the slow and often painful contact history on land. It starts with the arrival of the first fleet on the 26 January 1788, in Sydney, lead by Arthur Phillip, to establish a penal colony. This was the main reason for the initial British settlement. That 'start of colony date' now marks Australia Day. During this period colonies were established around Australia, a process often marked by conflict and struggle. Each colony had its own heroes and key events, many of which have become part of national history. It was during this period that many of our towns and cities begin to appear on our maps.

4. AUSTRALIA SINCE FEDERATION, begins with the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 as an independent nation. (Note it was not an 'end of the colony' where the colonists returned to the home country and left the land to the indigenous people as later happened elsewhere). Shortly after women gained the right to vote. Australia “came of age” through its involvement in World War I, particularly with the Anzacs landing at Gallipoli in 1915. Following World War II, in which Australia came under threat from Japan, massive numbers of migrants arrived to make Australia their home. They have had a profound influence in shaping the modern Australia. Another landmark was the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in a referendum in 1967. In 2001 we commemorated the Centenary of Federation. This most recent period embraces the lives and times of our grandparents, our parents and ourselves. Therefore we are part of history, we are making history, and in 2006 we will be commemorating our history

Edits by Auriong

What are the opinions on the recent edits by Auriong (vide here)? My stance is that they are not worth their while; any benefit that may be gained from the depictions is immediately detracted from by the sheer monstrosity of their organisation. Furthermore, I don't see any need for it, particularly in this article.--cj | talk 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection necessarily to the content but the formatting is probably over the top. The maps need ot be better integrated into the text rather than a table. They probably need to appear only once and in the right article.--A Y Arktos\^talk 12:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the maps are great, probably the best article for them is European exploration of Australia. -- Chuq 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Australian Collaboration

The collaboration covers the entire History of Australia series. If you contribute to other articles in the series as part of the collaboration, please list them below to ensure they are reported at the end of the fortnight. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started by cutting the chronological series up as decided earlier. We now have History of Australia before 1788, History of Australia (1788-1850), History of Australia (1851-1900), History of Australia (1901-1945) and History of Australia since 1945. I've not moved any of the external links or references across, although since none of the references were pinpoint-style I haven't broken anything. It'd be nice now to a) get the links and references and such transferred to their proper new articles, and b) to create lead sections and such for the new articles. Rebecca 01:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The "old articles" were History of Australia before 1901 and History of Australia since 1901, just to help people find what they had that needs to be moved. I've put a banner and explanantion at the top of pre-1901, and deleted the sections that had clearly been moved out. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The series was WP:ACOTF from 2 July 2006 to 16 July 2006

about 8 contributors made about 28 edits to the main article, plus edits and restructuring of the chronological series
See how the summary article changed

--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask, about the discovery of Australia, was there not French Explorers coming into Australia but Australia was already claimed by the British Settlement?

Map Inaccurate

The changing map in the middle of the page is inaccurate. In 1859 when Queensland was established, its western border was at 141 degrees east - which was a continuation of the NSW border. In 1862 the border was moved west to 138 degrees east - that is its current position. I suggest the map be deleted or replaced which an accurate one. There are other not insignificant changes which the map omits, however, on this point it clearly shows the wrong border with the date at 1859.Alan Davidson 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have alerted the authors, Chuq for the original map and Astrokey44 for the animation. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm sure I remember that border being in the correct position before. Maybe my source was correct but I made a graphical transcription error when creating my version. I'll endeavour to fix it, though I may not get around to it soon, feel free to either have a go yjurself, or hassle me about it again in the future. -- Chuq 11:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

After a little research, I believe there should be 13, not 6 maps to represent the changes. In fact there were more - but a couple occurred during the same year. I have placed the correct history on the page. 60.226.76.41 01:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have updated it to include these, except for New Zealand since it is not already shown on the map, and it is the history of Australia after all. --Astrokey44 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The map is excellent, so I have changed the corresponding text. However, as New Zealand was part of NSW until 1840, it is part of the history. Alan Davidson 22:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The new map is very good. But I believe there should be three (or four) more iterations. First it should show New Zealand; although not part of Australia now, it was part of New South Wales until 1840. I would thus include the islands of New Zealand from the beginning - in yellow - and then change it to its own colour in 1840. Second, In 1846 there was a colony of North Australia from February until December. Although short in time it did exist. Third (and fourth) in 1926 the Northern Territory was divided into North Australia and Central Australia. This was reversed in 1931.Alan Davidson 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems, from Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand, that New Zealand was only part of New South Wales until 1835. There are other Australian territories also, such as Territory of Papua (1902-49, and possibly part of Queensland briefly in 1883), Territory of New Guinea (1920-49), Territory of Papua and New Guinea (1949-72) and maybe the Australian Antarctic Territory, plus islands such as Norfolk Island. By the way the map on [3] describes the area between South Australia and Western Australia near the nullabor plain 1837-59 as 'no mans land' - is this correct or was it part of New South Wales? I am working on the other changes.. --Astrokey44 11:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

To be entirely accurate the following would need to be added for the mainland territories. 1911 - the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) is established. 1915 - the Jervis Bay Territory is added to the Federal Captial Territory. 1938 - The FCT has its name changed to the Australian Captial Territory. 1989 - Jervis Bay Territory is separated from the ACT to form its own separate Territory.Alan Davidson 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the comment that NZ was only part of NSW until the Declaration of Independnce of 1835 - I think that declaration made the position muddy. I doubt that the British colonial office would have recognised it. Indeed in 1839 there were new letters patent making NZ part of NSW; in part to clarify the position. Perhaps that was even a significanr factor in the people of NZ wanting certain status - which led to the 1840 treaty. I think it is best to leave the islands of NZ as part of NSW until 1840. Alan Davidson 09:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have remade it to include New Zealand, and some of the other changes suggested at the failed fpc --Astrokey44 02:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work!--cj | talk 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! I almost didn't want to mention it after all the work you have done, but wasn't PNG a territory of Australia at some stage? -- Chuq 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! yes... actually this is the short version. I made a long one with PNG and the other territories shown, but the thumbnail has trouble displaying. --Astrokey44 10:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I am stirring the pot, but what about Macquarie Island and Lord Howe Island :) -- Chuq 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about including Macquarie Island because it was interesting that it was transferred from NSW to Tassie in 1890, but it is practically uninhabited, and would be distracting. Lord Howe Island doesnt really need singling out - it would be like other kiioiikkk etc, and it doesnt have an ISO 3166-1 code, unlike the other territories shown. --Astrokey44 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks absolutely fantastic. However, in 1863 the land annexed to South Australia (now known as the Northern Territory) became part of South Australia. Indeed from 1901 until 1911 the citizens had representatives in the lower house and the Senators also represented them. Today the Northern Territorians who want statehood point out that they lost their state rights in 1911 and became second calss citizens. What I mean is that South ustralia is one all the way to Darwin. Alan Davidson 11:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

but it was often called the northern territory of south australia [4]. I did make them the same colour, what if I took out the line but left the writing "northern territory", or changed it to 'northern territory of south australia'? --Astrokey44 12:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was colloquially refered to as the northern territory (small 'n' and small 't') and only formally become the Northern Territory ('N' 'A') in 1911. I think the whole area was South Australia. There are some maps which refer to it as the northern territory of South Australia - but for all purposes, voting rights etc, it was part of South Australia. There is a map from the National Archives showing this. Alan Davidson 13:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it depicted like that before. I have changed them to show an enlarged South Australia. It does make it easier to see that NT was part of SA then; otherwise you might assume it was separate. --Astrokey44 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I showed the map to a colleague who, as a Queenslander, pointed out that Queensland Day is 6 June as that is apparently the founding date. The Wikipedia page agrees with that date. Your date is 10 December. Alan Davidson 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed differences with the dates the colonies were founded: I think that it is some give the date the letters patent was authorised (in Britain), some give the date the letters patent was actually published in Australia when the colony was proclaimed - I think this is how it worked: they authorise the colony in England (6 June 1859 for Queensland) but it is not actually proclaimed until the documents reach Australia (see [5] - Sir George Bowen arrived on 10 December 1859 to proclaim the colony. I gave it as 10 December because that is what nationmaster gave it. I may switch it to 6 June since that is the more known date, but with some of them, for instance, South Australia, the date everyone remembers is the foundation day - South Australian letters patent authorised 18 Feb 1836, but Proclamation Day is December 28, 1836 --Astrokey44 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This also applies to decisions to move borders etc. - which date should be used? --Astrokey44 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC):

colony/event	authorised/letters patent	founded/proclaimed/published
NSW	25 April 1787 [6]	26 January 1788
Tas	14 June 1825[7]	3 Dec 1825
WA	14 May 1829 [8]	Perth: 11 June, Swan River Colony: 18 June 1829 [9]
SA	19 Feb 1836 [10]	December 28, 1836
North Australia	17 February 1846, revoked in December 1846	30 January 1847, orders arrived to abandon settlement 15 April 1847.
Vic	5 August 1850 [11]	1 July 1851
Qld	6 June (Queensland Day) 1859 [12]	10 December 1859
Qld boundary moved west	13 March 1862[13] or 12 April 1862 [14]	23 June 1862
NT annexed to SA	6 July 1863[15]	?

I think the new map is an improvement. Why don't you put it on the page - although I am unsure whether it should be the long or short version. Alan Davidson 05:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I put the short one up. perhaps it works better as a thumbnail? --Astrokey44 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the map meeds to be bigger than a thumbnail. Perhaps at least as big as the one on this page. Alan Davidson 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have increased it. By the way, here's something we haven't covered yet: South Australia-Victoria border dispute - the South Australian/Vic border was proclaimed at the 141st meridian in 1836, but is now a little west of that. When would this change legally have occured? --Astrokey44 11:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk of New Zealand as part of NSW before 1840 is flawed. The Governor was considered 'responsible' for British citizens in it, but it was not part of the Colony, as it was not part of the British Empire at all. The reason for the confusion is presumably the prescence of a British Resident, under the command of the Governor of NSW, but this official was merely an ambassador, not an arm of colonial government.

Furius

The fact that the NSW government did not take an interest in the New Zealand islands does not change the fact (stated in many history texts) that NZ was part of NSW until 1840. Perhaps the Declaration of Indepedence in 1835 changed this, but the British view was redeclared in 1839. It was this in part which led to the formation as a separate colony over the following two years. Interestingly, (as a parallel) the area now known as the Northern Territory was part of NSW until 1863 when it became part of South Australia. Notwithstanding the fact that the NSW government made no attempt to send anyone to the NT, or to deal in any way with the area, it was still regarded as part of NSW. In 1863 there were zero settlements on the NT other than the indigenous population. Alan Davidson 15:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How can NZ have been part of New South Wales when NZ was explicitly considered outside the British Empire (of which NSW was a subdivision). Imperial Statutes in 1817, 1823, 1828 acknowledged this. This is different from NT which was claimed as part of the British Empire, even though that claim was only on paper.

It is true, that there was a period, between New Zealand's official induction into the British Empire (October 2 1840), and its proclamation as a seperate Crown Colony (in November 1840), but this period is only slightly over a month... The confusion derives, I suppose, from the fact that pre-1840, the NSW Governor was expected to keep an eye on the actions of British in NZ (Much as an Australian ambassador to a foreign country is expected to aid Australian nationals in that country). As the Elizabeth Affair (1831- I think), for example, showed, the NSW authorities had no legal right to even charge British nationals for crimes committed in NZ. Furius

The stolen generation

In the context of general history of Australia - this section seems out of place. Wouldn't it be better to have "Relations with Indigenous population" or something like that. There were serious murders, a massacre and eradication of the Tasmanian aborigines which could be mentioned together. The stolen generation is a part of the bigger picture. 60.226.76.41 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC) adding to the crisis... aborigines had the place healthy until the rich men and women put them to slavery. there is the reason for all of the murder if put together. sure some of the aborigine families struggled but you couldn't just take their children without them having a say. what happened to the decloration of independence. sure it wasn't written but we all knew better our world could have changed it could be peaceful, just think what would you do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergus mcfloyyd (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I'd do, if I wanted my opinion to be taken seriously, would be to write in complete sentences. Then I would re-read what I was referring to to make sure I hadn't embarassed myself by misunderstanding it. User:60.226.76.41|60.226.76.41 specifically referred to the eradication of the Tasmanian aborigines, indicating that the violence was not all one way. FYI, pre-agricultural societies are NOT generally peaceful or particularly healthy, I suggest you do some research on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.129.88 (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently found data

According to this book by Peter Trickett, Australia was first sighted by the portuguese in 1522, 250 years before the Dutch.

Here are more news links for sources [16] if anyone wishes to add this, please do. I am going on a trip, so... :) -Pikolas 10:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We have an article about this, see Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia --Astrokey44 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stolen generation Impact

Re: that the stolen generation had " a major impact on the Indigenous population" . Have added a citation-required as there is no qualification/clarification or documented source listed. It should be easy enough to find some documented evaluations on the impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.199.79 (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added a link to the Bringing Them Home report conclusion which briefly discusses the impact - there's more detail in the body of the report itself. Although many of the figures in the report are thought to have been exaggerated, the impact is not really debated. Icarus78 06:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be quite a popular target for vandals. Shouldn't this article be protected or locked in some way? Ryan Albrey (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The following unsigned passage had been inserted at the end of the article, under See Also:

"Opposition leader Brendan Nelson raised many points following the official appology delivered to the aboriginal population of Australia by Prime minister Kevin Rudd. Brendan Nelson supporting Kevid Rudd & the goverments appology voiced many Australian feelings following the controversy of the stolen generation, stateing it was conducted with good intention despite its wrong doing. Many facts are debated and are unavailable due to poor records. The appology is stiring new problems as the facts of British settlement is brought to the search light once agian. Many Australians who felt shame by their ancestors actions, are now confused by the released facts that the genocide of aboriginals was in fact due to introduced flues and viruses that the aboriginal had little or no immunity to. Australians feeling guilt now realize that the genocide they feel blame for, was done without knowledge or intention and more importantly without malice. It is estimated that 50% of the aboriginal population died by the introduction of diseases they had not seen before, smallpox, chickenpox, syphillis etc. The appology has done as much damage as good some Australians feel. The common Australian had been raised to believe they are, were responsible for acts such as genocide, massacres and allround poor treatment of aboriginals. With genocide now being disputed by public awareness & real evidence, the massacres are also being questioned. It has been raised that more white Australians died in acts of violence from Aboriginals than Aboriginals from white settlers. Historians show an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 aboriginals died in acts of violence from white settlers & some 3000 whites in acts of violence from Aboriginals. These figures are now being heavily investigated by interested parties on both sides of the argument. The fact the common Australian believed he/she was responsible for the massacre of an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 aboriginals is sadly coming to an end. Other facts, such as white settlers hung for acts of violence & acts of death agianst the then Aboriginal population, enforced by laws with many records to support, are raising new questions by young Australians. The fact that the Australian goverment spent 3.5 billion dollars last year on Aboriginals has stirred new questions by multi cultural Australian tax payers as well as white Australians. The Aboriginal population an estimated 454,963. This would mean each Aboriginal family of 2 adults and 2 children received 31,000 dollars in support last year alone."

I regard this as a rambling racist diatribe which makes no contribution to an article on Australian history, so I have removed it. Peter Bell (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise about that. I'm using Huggle to monitor vandalism, and when I came across the article and saw a large amount of content removed without an explanation, I reverted the edit, thinking it was vandalism. I apologise for this. Steve Crossin (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the only fact that could be used with references, is the impact of dissease of the native population. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Thursday

Anyone know more of this? http://romseyaustralia.com/fire1851.html 6 Feb 1851, seems to be the first somewhat recorded bushfire since settlement/invasion or what you want to call it. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Dutch" explorers

Any objections on changing it to "explorers from the Netherlands"? Dutch is ambiguous in that it can refer to any group who speak Dutch as a native language - and not just those who are from the Netherlands. -- De novo (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems

Dear colleagues, I visited this article by chance, and found myself removing common-term links and noticing a lot of choppy, stubby paragraphing. I believe it is also seriously under-referenced. This is not my area, but I wonder whether a team of editors might be interested in conducting a working party on this article and its offspring. Tony (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We had a collaboration on it a couple of years ago when we divided it up into the present sub-articles, but it wasn't too successful. It'd be great if we could get a few more eyes onto it, but no one's managed yet. Rebecca (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I haven't contributed to this article, but stumbled across it recently. I really think paragraph 2; "Written history of Australia began in 1606, when Pedro Fernandes de Queirós, a Portuguese navigator sailing for the Spanish Crown, reached there in 1606... " needs major reworking. It's quite misleading and clumsy as it stands.--Nickm57 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Which I have now done.--Nickm57 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead on this one. We've had issues practically ever since this article was written with cranks pushing their theories of discovery of Australia; if you think anything that area is bollocks, feel free to fix it up, as long as it's well-sourced. Rebecca (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

European Discovery

Why is European discovery only discussed in the introduction, where it is chronologically misplaced and misleading? Surely it merits its own section here with a link to the main article?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - and have moved it without changing too much. (The unsourced section on the Chinese map/jesuit priest story I have deleted however - this appears to belong to Gavin Menzies theory)--Nickm57 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Jan 2010

I have rewritten several sections of this page, particularly the sections dealing with Aborigines and early exploration of Australia, which were in desperate need of citations. I have used the term Aborigine/s in preference to "Indigenous Australians" for reasons explained on the Australian Aborigines page. Theres still a bit more to do.--Nickm57 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I should have added, I have read the 2006 discussion above and am aware this page was intended as an introduction to more detailed slabs of Australian history.--Nickm57 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wanted in this article?

Hi Rebecca, perhaps we could have an open discussion about what this page does and does not need? I'm not particularly fussed about your revert, but I actually don't understand what you mean by "introduces colossal undue weight issues," in reference to the para I had just added. About this page as a whole- to be frank, I was attracted to write because its wild inaccuracies were quite embarrasing.(eg Quiros sighted Australia) Large sections still look like they were written by a form 3 student (no offence intended to any 14 year old Wikipedians )eg "A Gold rush began in Australia in the early 1850s, and the Eureka Stockade rebellion in Ballarat in 1854 was an early expression of nationalist sentiment..." So what is this page meant to be? --Nickm57 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? any guidance about the extent of the article?--Nickm57 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This page could certainly do with a lot of work - we've historically had a bit of trouble on Wikipedia with these broad general articles, and the History of Australia series has never been particularly good. You got reverted because you introduced a whopping great swathe of content espousing the fringe views of Keith Windschuttle, which was unacceptable; however, I certainly take your point on some of the later content, and if you choose to direct your energies there I can guarantee they'll be welcomed with open arms. Rebecca (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Have had a bit of a shuffle of images but ...hmmm... I dont know.--Nickm57 (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Federation in 1901

This article seems to gloss over the date of Federation for the Australian territories. Anyone care to insert this in? 220.253.84.177 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, another dollop of critical history missing! I had a go.--Nickm57 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This series' coverage of federation is generally terrible, so again, any improvements would probably be very much welcomed. At some point, we really need to split these down into smaller time periods, as most other Western countries have done on Wikipedia; something like a History of Australia (1880-1901), covering federation and the struggles of that period in detail would be very useful to have. Rebecca (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback.--Nickm57 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

An Editor needed

Having reread this, after a break from contributing to it, I think a fairly thorough edit is now needed. What do others think? Rebecca you have been associated with this page since the start - do you want to have a go? --Nickm57 (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protection needed?

The majority of changes to this article seem to be vandalism. What do people think about semi-protection to deter anon users of the LOL brigade? It seems a pity that more time gets expended on reverting it than finishing it!--Nickm57 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I've semi-protected the article for a week (which should take us beyond school holidays, which is probably the cause of the current increase in vandalism in this and other Australia-related articles). Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Kuttabul

Under the heading "The War" The Kuttabul is referred to as a "troop transport". In the Kuttabul article it says,

"After the outbreak of World War II, Kuttabul was requisitioned by the RAN, and moored at the Garden Island naval base to provide accommodation for Allied naval personnel whle they awaited transfer to their ships"

So it appears that transport is innacurate as it was moored to be used as accomodation. Transport makes it sound like a large vessel, though it's passenger capacity was 2,250. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 07:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - I've changed this to 'accommodation vessel' which I hope is OK. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just wasn't certain that it hadn't been used as a troop transport, which if it moved about with troops onboard, it would be, 'technically'. But it sounds like Kuttabul was tied up for the duration till sunk.

I am wondering how many were onboard when it sank? and what it's accomodation capacity was? Thinking perhaps 200? ≈ a tenth of it's seated capacity? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Kuttabul was only used as an accommodation ship. As a harbour ferry she wouldn't have been well suited to transporting personnel outside of Sydney Harbour. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

emil rulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.161.72 (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary section, article reads like textbook

The section on "peaceful settlement or bloody conquest" is completely unnecessary in what is supposed to be an outline of our history. such political debates need to be left out of it.

look at the US, canada history articles to see how these should be written.

its not supposed to be some left wing political commentary of the history of australia, its just supposed to be an outline of the history of australia.

it should be arranged in the sections (eras) on the top right hand table

the 1945 - present section needs to be greatly expanded upon and broken up - there is more on the depression years than everything since 1945 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - completely disagree re comments about "peaceful settlement or bloody conquest." Where history is contentious, WP needs to acknowledge this, as it does in numerous other articles. This section does that and mentions a few of the key historians who contribute to both povs in the "History wars" debate. Could it be tidied up - sure, the last two paras don't sit specially well, and the third last, while appropriately mentioning Windshuttle, could do with some rewriting in my view.

I agree entirely about the post 1945 section and had it on my list of to do things. I have written quite a bit here <1945 but got tired of reverting schoolboy vandalism and lost interest. Why don't you have a go? This page apparently gets 1,000 + hits per day!Nickm57 (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

I like Biatch's improvements. A thought - with many of the new images, combined, do they give a "conflict heavy" impression? For example, while Eureka is important (and it has a page of its own), it was not experienced by the vast majority of gold miners of the C19th, even in the colony of Victoria. I mean - do we lend a inappropriate emphasis if most of images are about conflict? Just a thought. Castle Hill similarly Nickm57 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

It seems ridiculous, but the end of each school year in Australia seems to coincide with increased anon vandalism. Its easy to revert of course - but often things get lost in the process. Should this be semi-protected again for three or so weeks? (as per April 2010)Nickm57 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese exploration

Does anyone has more sources about the statement in ABC:

"In 2003 Chinese President Hu Jintao, addressing a joint sitting of the Australian Parliament, repeated the claim^[which?] that the Chinese had discovered and settled Australia three centuries before Captain Cook."

Thanks in advance. Bennylin (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well he certainly did say it. It appears to relate to the fringe theories of English writer Gavin Menzies. As you possibly know, Chinese Government authorities controlling national antiquities do not make this claim, neither do most Chinese historians. I suggest you see the Gavin Menzies page and its talk page page for more info.Nickm57 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary History

Ive started to add some more to the post ww2 section. With its many and conflicting sources, contemporary history can be difficult - so other contributions are needed. A good edit down of the whole article is probably needed too at some stage. I'll also continue adding over the next few days.Nickm57 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Managing the article

Its a good time to think about the length of the article as its now quite long. Its been suggested it needs to be cut up again. I know there are short articles on slices of Aust hist already, though some haven't been worked on much recently. Id be interested to hear some experienced opinions. Nickm57 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The length of the article (about 138kb, including references) probably isn't excessive considering the article's topic. In my view the article's main problem is the balance accorded to different topics and the low quality of some of the prose. All the quotations could be removed if you're looking for some things to cut - they don't add much value. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any particular sections you feel carry too much weight, or too little, or need particular work otherwise?Nickm57 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be way too much on World War II and the Vietnam War (and I'm writing as someone with a major interest in military history!) and not enough on Australia before European settlement or events since the 1960s. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your points. I also suggested some time ago it needed an edit down at least, problem seems finding someone willing!!Nickm57 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee - have you read the comments above about managing the article? Its great that this page is getting lots of post Christmas interest but some sections are still quite clunky. I feel the section about whether Australia was likely to be invaded or not in WW2 is far too detailed for this article. Similarly, Monash's views on the use of troops in WW1. (As I was the editor who put them in, I feel some sadness about removing them, but I think as it grows in scope, its necessary!) Yes - not a copy edit.CheersNickm57 (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah - no specific removal/extermination imho - just get it out into sub articles I say - theres gotta be somewhere the stuff can be re-allocated :) Satu Suro 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection needed?

I wonder whether this page should have some semi protection, to the end of the Australian school holidays at least. It cops a hammering at this time of year. Nickm57 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight on Portuguese theory

JCRB, I hope you have not just returned to wikipedia to resume what appears to be an attempt to push the same POV again, discussed ad nauseum on the Australia talk page in August-Sept last year. However, your edits here and on Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia seem to indicate you are. I suggest if you are serious about contributing again, you start off a) always logging in and b) bringing your suggestions to the talk page first. An awful lot of hard work and TLC has gone into improving this article over the last few months and I'm certain all editors feel they deserve the courtesy of discussion first.Nickm57 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Australian history has a great scholarly literature, so I started Bibliography of Australian history, using the books in this article and also the bibliography I compiled for Citizendium at located here. The next step is to add schoalrly articles. Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Australia Afghanistan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Australia Afghanistan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)