Talk:History of Australia/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: History of Australia since 1901

message: 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)
thread_title: Category:History of the Germanic peoples

message: 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)
replies: text: You'll notice at the top of the article it says .  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)
thread_title:  the side box 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  reorganisation discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  material added by anon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits by Auriong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Australian Collaboration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The stolen generation  

message: 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  if anyone wishes to add this, please do. I am going on a trip, so... :) -Pikolas 10:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article about this, see Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia --Astrokey44 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently found data 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stolen generation Impact

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
thread_title: Black Thursday

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Dutch" explorers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Which I have now done.--Nickm57 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  European Discovery 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Rewrite of Jan 2010 

message: 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)
replies: text: Anyone? any guidance about the extent of the article?--Nickm57 (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have had a bit of a shuffle of images but ...hmmm... I dont know.--Nickm57 (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wanted in this article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yep, another dollop of critical history missing! I had a go.--Nickm57 (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for feedback.--Nickm57 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Federation in 1901 

message: 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)
thread_title: An Editor needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Semi-Protection needed?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for semi-protection

message: 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 that the Chinese had discovered and settled Australia three centuries before Captain Cook."
Thanks in advance. Bennylin (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Chinese exploration 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contemporary History

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 :) SatuSuro 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Managing the article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi protection needed? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Undue weight on Portuguese theory

message: 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)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: An image used in this article, , 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)
thread_title: File:Australia Afghanistan.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I find it strange that there is a big section about Australia's involvement in the war on terror and Afghanistan yet nothing about the 2002 Bali bombings.  I would have though that given that 88 Australians died and that it was so close to our shores this as much if not moreso than the 9/11 attacks on the United States a pivotal factor in Australia's ongoing commitment to this war. --Biatch (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to disagree. It might belong in History of Indonesia, but it did not take place in Australia and did not involve the Australian state in a formal capacity. This is in contrast to the war in Afghanistan, which has involved Australia directly as a state, for over a decade, and concerns invocation of the ANZUS treaty. Even with that significance, it only rates five sentences (and the first two of those probably need to be trimmed down to one). There is also an explicit link 9the treaty) between 9/11 and Afghanistan - there is no such link between Bali and that conflict. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs mention.  The article is about the people and culture and experiences of Australia, and that episode was a significant event that everyone -- and the government-- paid attention to. Rjensen (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bali Bombings 

message: Shouldn't Julia Gillard be given more of an introduction, maybe a picture of something. She is after all the first female pm of australia, we have a picture of the first pm of australia so why not the first female pm?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think more text is needed - it does say she is the country's first female PM - but I do think there should be a photo for her, and we certainly don't need two photos from the 200 Olympics. I'll see what I can come up with. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Julia Gillard

message: This was discussed previously but nothing was done about it. I believe the White Stolen Generations should be mentioned here.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WSG

message: I vote to delete the part about Republicanism in Australia, and the Sydney Olympics. Sure both are historical but they aren't important enough to be mentioned on here.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The question should be, how would deleting these sections improve the article ? I cannot see how this would improve it, except for making it slightly shorter--Nickm57 (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: these are important issues that have received a great deal of attention from rs. People not interested can easily skip over them--erasure would be a bad mistake. Republicanism remains a live issue and has its own article. The olympics have been the #1 device for letting the world know about the country and have been topics of major scholarly studies. People who want to understand Australian history will want to read them.Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit?

message: Does the last sentence really belong in this article? We could hive it off to the article on Australian republicanism?
Unless I'm missing something, it seems to me the 'Murrawarri republic' is potentially nothing more than all those other cranky, like things of this nature I've seen come and go with no impact a thousand times before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.18.43 (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murrawarri republic

message: Hello I am wondering whether or not this should be included, Dutch historian Van Zanden has written a book titled "The Lost White Tribes of Australia" which sits in several parts and claims that there is proof that the first settlement of Australia was made in 1656 which is well over 100 years before colonization is thought to have happenend.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  A self published text apparently, and a theory not supported by any one else. For other views about this and the 1834 Leeds Mercury newspaper report that it is based upon, see Marc Glasby's "West Australia Now and Then"  and Karen Severud Cook's "THE SECRET AGENDA OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EXPLORER, ROBERT DALE (1809-1853)" in The Globe No.54, p23-34, which can be read online for free if you apply for a (National Library of Australia) card online . Henry Van Zanden is apparently an Australian writer and former teacher.Nickm57 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-1788 Colonization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001010641/http://www.sistersofcharity.org.au/html/founding_aust.php to http://www.sistersofcharity.org.au/html/founding_aust.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130618221119/http://www.maristoz.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=96 to http://www.maristoz.edu.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=96
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've just reverted the article back to its 30 March 2016 status to remove several paragraphs of lightly referenced material on Australian politics since 2007. The material was written in an unencyclopaedic tone, and much of it seemed to be its author's personal assessments. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hello, I was wondering if this page could be modified to be more reflective, descriptive, and respectful of Australia's history? Many wars, massacres, acts of dispossession, and death are not included in this predominant Post-Invasion accounting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterafairgo (talk • contribs) 09:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Frontier Wars and Genocide 

message: The article contains the following error
to the outright hostility of Pemulwuy and Windradyne of the Sydney region.
Windradyne was not 'of the Sydney region', but in the region of Bathurst 203.2 km (126.3 mi) away.
Montalban (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bathurst 

message: I remember reading somewhere that Malays/Indonesians were know to have visited Australia before Europeans arrived. Is there any evidence for this? And if so surely it deserves a few lines in this history page.
Sdrawkcab (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire page on this - Makassan contact with Australia, but the evidence that it was pre-Janszoon is not conclusive. The page is linked from the end of the third paragraph.Nickm57 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also mentioned in the main article of this page - that the contact happened about 1720 or later
Montalban (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malays/Indonesian 'discovery' pre-Janszoon?? 

message: Towards the end of the third paragraph of the section Great Depression the following sentence appears:
With multimillion-pound debts mounting, public demonstrations and move and counter-move by Lang and then Scullin, then Lyons federal governments, the Governor of New South Wales, Philip Game, had been examining Lang's instruction not to pay money into the Federal Treasury.
I suspect this needs to be split into two sentences. Probably a period after '...federal governments" and then a new sentence beginning "The Governor of New South Wales..." but I'm unsure if that's the correct thing to do. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy edit required, unable to do it myself

message: Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split out starting with "Colonization".  Thoughts?  Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  If we are going to split it, I suggest using the existing Australian History articles, (see list on the page) as the guide. The other articles are under-developed anyway.Nickm57 (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: splitting it up will only confuse readers who have to reassemble the entire article themselves from scattered pieces. We can assume our readers are intelligent enough to read the sections that interest them, and to skip all the other material. If someone wants to read the article from start to end, we can assume they are capable of allocating their time to do that. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are suggesting creating some daughter articles, and retaining a more concise "History of Australia"? The article is indeed too long, because there is excessive detail in some sections. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Splitting is a bad idea. Some trimming and transfer to specific period articles makes more sense.Ozhistory (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert in Australian history but I would venture to suggest the final para of the section Great Depression seems to be overly detailed about a cricketer and the horse Phar Lap. I suggest this could be cut to a couple of sentences if included at all. It seems to me rather out of place for a general national history article and would properly go in the sub-articles. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size split? 

message: Forgive me if I've missed something, I've just completed - after many hours - reading and editing the whole article and can't bring myself to revisit any of it.
But I don't recall any part of the article telling us what happened to the Dutch colonies. It seemed like the Dutch and British had half the continent each for a while. Then I recall the British encroached on the Dutch parts. But I don't recall, for example, any resistance from Dutch colonists to the British seeming to eventually take over the whole continent. Did the British assimilate the Dutch? Did the Dutch just leave? I repeat, I apologise if all this is dealt with. If not, it would be a good thing to include. --bodnotbod (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no Dutch colonies.Nickm57 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. Well, that would certainly explain it then, ha ha. :) Thank you. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the article tell us what became of the Dutch colonies?

message: Greetings. Could anyone add a section dedicated to the Great Emu War waged in 1932? 
--2001:4646:18D3:0:8434:303B:C136:D8E1 (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how would that improve the article? There is already a page on it. Nickm57 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emu-war 

message: Hi, I was reading about Aboriginal Australian history and came across this article which talks about 3 apparent migrations which occurred during Ancient Australia. Here's an excerpt.
There were three major waves of migration of quite different ancient people who came to the Australian continent from southeast Asia. More than 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were much lower and Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania comprised one landmass, called Sahul, the first to arrive were a slightly-built people of pygmoid stature with dark skin and very frizzy hair. They were Negritos (named after the Spanish "little negro"), and they provided the initial population for the whole of this Greater Australia. About 20,000 years ago, a second type of people arrived from Asia. These newcomers, called Murrayians, were comparatively lightly skinned, wavy-haired, stocky in build, with a lot of body hair. They drove the Negritos before them until the latter retreated to the highlands of New Guinea, the rainforests of North Queensland and to then ice-capped Tasmania. The Murrayians became the dominant population on the east coast of Australia, and the open grasslands and parklands of the south and west of the continent. Then, about 15,000 years ago, a third wave of hunter-gatherers arrived. They were comparatively tall, straight-haired and dark skinned, with very little body hair. Named Carpentarians, they colonised northern and central Australia.
Should this be included?
This is the site: http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm --Collingwood26 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No I dont think so. The appropriate place for Joseph Birdsell's theory is on the page about him, or a new page about the theory. There are also numerous easily available sources about the theory, including ones written by Birdsell himself, quite apart from controversial writer Keith Windschuttle's summary cited above. Nickm57 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: That doesn't make sense, though. Windschuttle is an odious white supremacist with an anti-Aboriginal agenda, no doubt. But Birdsell was a serious anthropologist who proposed a serious theory based on serious evidence, and there's no way to prevent bigots from instrumentalising one's theory in fallacious ways for nefarious ends. Political interests should not bias the evaluation of the evidence, nor keep Wikipedia from mentioning a theory, only because some interest groups may fear that the theory undermines or invalidates Aboriginal claims to their ancestral lands (even though it does no such thing, in view of how analogous facts don't invalidate land claims elsewhere in the world, such as Europe or Asia, either). Maybe due weight means that it should not be mentioned here, but in Aboriginal Australians or History of Indigenous Australians there's certainly a place for it. Birdsell's theory may be out of favour now, but it's not a crackpot idea and testable with genetic evidence, and I'm not even sure it (or some variant) has been conclusively falsified. Even as a historical theory, it still holds encyclopedic interest. Moreover, it is inherently more plausible to assume some sort of hybridisation rather than a single prehistorical wave of immigration and then no further immigration for 60,000 years until the 18th century. It's not impossible, but there's no particular reason to think so, and the opposite is at least equally possible, in view of what we know about changes in geography and climate. And crucially, the article already mentions genetic evidence for a prehistorical wave of immigration, 4000 years ago from South Asia, even if it seems to have been a minor one and doesn't specifically support or even vindicate Birdsell's theory, but it does effectively disprove the orthodox view that Aboriginal Australians have a single origin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The Trihybrid Theory

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 24 external links on History of Australia. 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:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ngv.vic.gov.au%2Fwhats-on%2Fexhibitions%2Fexhibitions%2Fthe-indigenous-collection&date=2010-12-05 to http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/whats-on/exhibitions/exhibitions/the-indigenous-collection
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416144209/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/indigenous/art/index.htm to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/indigenous/art/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415153222/https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58309/Ganter.pdf to http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58309/Ganter.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130519072722/http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/osullivan.rtf to http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/osullivan.rtf
*Added  tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen_summary/13.html
*Added  tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/IndigLRes/stolen_summary/13.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505173915/http://web.mala.bc.ca/black/amrc/index.htm?home.htm&2 to http://web.mala.bc.ca/Black/AMRC/index.htm?home.htm&2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719062302/http://www.australiaonthemap.org.au/content/view/47/59/ to http://www.australiaonthemap.org.au/content/view/47/59/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324111940/http://www.catholicaustralia.com.au/page.php?pg=austchurch-history to http://www.catholicaustralia.com.au/page.php?pg=austchurch-history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313090121/http://www.goodsams.org.au/html/who/who.htm to http://www.goodsams.org.au/html/who/who.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716111434/http://www.cfc.edu.au/Brothers_in_Australia/brothers_in_australia.htm to http://www.cfc.edu.au/Brothers_in_Australia/brothers_in_australia.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706125901/http://www.mercy.org.au/whoweare/default.cfm?loadref=21 to http://www.mercy.org.au/whoweare/default.cfm?loadref=21
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408180527/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/lawson/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/lawson/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723145257/http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/wear.rtf to http://apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/wear.rtf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408181546/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/donbradman/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/donbradman/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113103332/http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/in-office.aspx to http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/in-office.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830103344/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/snowyscheme/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/snowyscheme/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410090505/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/barryhumphries/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/barryhumphries/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202000730/http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm to http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204010222/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=145641 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=145641
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419124214/http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx to http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130419124214/http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx to http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/whitlam/in-office.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917170600/http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/history/ to http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113105115/http://www.bushpoetry.org.au/ to http://www.bushpoetry.org.au/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228222213/http://australianempire.webs.com/ to http://australianempire.webs.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216230554/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/australianhistory/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/australianhistory/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of Australia. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602002240/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=40 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=40
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408183209/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/explorers/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/explorers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614223842/http://nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/media/media_kits/outlawed_bushrangers_of_australia/files/684/nma_outlawed_bushrangers.pdf to http://nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/media/media_kits/outlawed_bushrangers_of_australia/files/684/nma_outlawed_bushrangers.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929140952/http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/ to http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107181032/http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/korea.asp to http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/korea.asp
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1877/is_1_51/ai_n29173558/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Australia. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203020826/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=8 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Australia. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/whats-on/exhibitions/exhibitions/the-indigenous-collection
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602002025/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=37 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=37
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131415204400/http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue-4/HTML/article1 to http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue-4/HTML/article1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removed from description of Bourke's Proclamation. He did not use the term. Feel free to check a transcript. The term Terra_nullius does not appear until 1888 or later, as stated in Wikipedia's own article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius#First_use_of_the_term_Terra_Nullius Seasalt (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Terra Nullius

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Australia. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/whats-on/exhibitions/exhibitions/the-indigenous-collection
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602002233/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=38 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=38
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602002236/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=39 to http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=39
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131415204400/http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue-4/HTML/article1 to http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/Economic-Roundup-Issue-4/HTML/article1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Trying to sell the theory of Dutch have been the first european to discovery Australia, its a completely unavailable theory. All know the portuguese have been the first european to reach it and discover it, to not talk about the maps and pictures of kangaroos, the remain of old fort and portuguese armament and stuck ships and in more of 200 words and names of natural australians derived from portuguese language( its the most powerful argument that English or dutch can´t advocate, because how much time it need to influence a different culture? Or australian indigenous learn and assimilate in a light speed, as no expedition and language portuguese courses next of dutch and english false and historic manipulated claim as the first european to do it have been taken). The Portugal never need to do big defense of that discover(as others as Cristovão Colombo, as a secret portuguese agent) and exploration because in time its not a land with technologies or any type of riches that justify the efforts to maintain it.And the treaty with Spain give to spain that part of World big discover, so Portugal never open make any public or revindicate it. About being the England to discover it, i really try to find but never find any old or today (commonwealth) maritime territory  "discover" by british/or dutch as the first maritime route to it, all knows that Portugal lack of population and warpower it was used wisely from his old ally to simply conquer the discover portuguese territories with portuguese routes, and when Portugal remain an obstacle the English manage to "clean" any opposition to it as well know, for example the ultimate of rose map in Africa is one of the most public(because others have been used and not public admitted such piracy, mercenaries, murders, bribery, forge ...) clean of opposition portuguese or not. 
One thing is sure England conquer it, but not have been the first europeans to reach or exploring it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.5.251 (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles are not allowed to contain original research. All article content must be verifiable and cite reliable sources. The article does mention a theory of Portuguese discovery, and it appears to be quite adequately sourced. If you have a specific suggestion for improving the article and can supply reliable sources to support it, please say so. But be aware that talk pages are for discussing articles, not the topics behind the articles. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the expression here is so excruciating I struggle to understand what the writer means. I previously suggested this IP read some of the sources linked to relevant WP pages. Obviously that hasn't been done. Nickm57 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real History of discover and exploration of Australia, whit all know sources and historic know facts ( and not same national dutch or english propaganda) 

message: Add link to National Museum of Australia timeline under 'External links'
I would like to propose adding a link to the National Museum of Australia's, Defining Moments in Australian history timeline. The National Museum of Australia's, Defining Moments in Australian history timeline is a great and reliable visual resource to understanding Australian History. As an employee of the Museum I am unable to edit the 'External links' myself, as I would be in breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines.
Proposed edit: Under 'External links' please add a link to National Museum of Australia's, Defining Moments in Australian history timeline. Website and timeline URL listed below under 'References supporting change'
References supporting change:
Defining Moments in Australian History timeline URL: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/defining-moments-timeline
National Museum of Australia, Defining Moments in Australian history URL: https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments
203.5.124.228 (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Some proposed changes to External links

message: * The proposed link requires that browsers attempting to access the content displayed there allow for the use of Javascript.
* Point #8 @ WP:ELNO recommends that links which require this to access content should not be used in External links sections.
Regards,  Spintendo  05:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 03-JUN-2019

message: Until 17th century, Australia was an unexplored place for the world. It was first sighted by the Dutch navigator, Willem Janszoon, in about 1606. In 1642, another Dutch navigator, Abel Tasman, explored many parts of Australia and New Zealand. Later on, in 1770, the British naval officer and explorer, Captain James Cook, sailed along the eastern coast of Australia and landed at the Botany Bay.  He named the newly discovered land as New South Wales. 
Political Division 
Today, Australia is divided into six self - governing states and two federal territories, like India's Union Territories which are centrally administered. 
The six self-governing states are -
1) Queensland 
2) New South Wales 
3) Victoria 
4) South Australia 
5) Western Australia 
6) Tasmania
The two centrally administered federal territories are Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premium Sites (talk • contribs) 07:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Collingwood26. Yes I think the subsection on Historiography could go - it sits awkwardly under republicanism at the minute. I dont think we need any further reference to the Boer War. If needs be, it should have its own article. I also think the final section on Afghanistan needs to be hived off to its own article - its far too detailed. I think it's too easy to use wars as a type of bookmark in history. The reality is, most Australians are pretty far removed from the current Afghanistan conflict. CheersNickm57 (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the material on Afghanistan is much too long. A paragraph would be appropriate. I agree that the historiography section should go (it's simultaneously too big a topic and of not enough interest to most people to include here). The whole article probably gives too much weight to the wars Australia has been involved in. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you doing Collingwood26? You seem to have deleted most of the previous section (inc Govt and current political context) on 21st Century Australia. Im reverting your most recent edit. Please discuss further here. ThanksNickm57 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure - I think the material on the contemporary political context of Australia should not have been deleted and replaced with material on 'The Centenary Medal' - what I would call "celebratory history." With Afghanistan, probably the first para expanded is enough.Nickm57 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way. Many editors, self included, have contributed to this article over the last year and Im certain all would agree that it can still be improved. But I don’t think they would accept your description of it as “crap” or that your recent edits made it 100 times better. Anyway, the point of this page is to discuss improvements to the article. If you intend to make a new article concerning Gillard etc, and delete it from this - or replace it with material on the Centenary Medal, the onus is on you to explain why.Nickm57 (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I found a lack of logic in the use of the "Commonwealth" (since 1901), the European settlers (since 1788), and the Indigenous peoples (up to 60,000 ago). I hope my edit, producing a simpler opening that doesn't require knowledge of the specialised colonial term "the Commonwealth", is OK. Tony (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: History is the study of the past. Events occurring before the invention of writing systems are considered prehistory. I have rewritten the opening, removing the tautology ("The history of Australia" is the history..." - really?) and removing mention of things that clearly were not history. The prehistory of Australia - i.e. the events before people began writing them down - is covered well elsewhere and we cover it in summary in our first section. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: Hello all
I have added new content for the political history from 1972 to present. I have also made some changes to the structure. Specifically, I have replaced the heading "Modern Australia emerging 1960s" with a heading Reform and reaction: 1972 to 1996. The previous heading, despite its title referencing the 1960s, mostly covered events from 1972 onwards. It also included subheadings for "culture and the new nationalism" which was mostly about South Australian cinema after the 1960s, and a subheading for "civil rights developments" which was very potted and also mostly about developments after the 1960s. I have given this material a more meaningful title and have moved it to the period covering 1960s to 2000. The material however still needs a major revision and expansion.
I have also changed the heading "21st Century" (which oddly started with events from December 2007) and replaced it with a more meaningful heading: Australia in a globalised world 1996-present. This covers events since the Hawke-Keating government initiated economic reforms embracing the globalised economy and greater engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work. Thanks. Nickm57 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to structure