Talk:History of Australia (1788–1850)

message: Quick explanation of what I'm up to here:
1. Moving stuff across from History of Australia before 1901
2. Splitting it up more thematically than it was
3. Trying not to duplicate too much from European exploration of Australia
4. Pondering how much should be split out into history of individual settlements, eg Sydney, Port Arthur, Moreton Bay (I'm thinking as much as possible)
--Skud 15:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick explanation

message: If the exact number is known - should we remove the word "about" or is there some doubt. Alan Davidson 04:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About 1005 

message: This article lacks any mention of Indigenous Australians during the 1788-1850 period. Yet it's one of the fundamental aspects of the era: this history of contact, Indigenous adaptation to the inflow of settlers... When I have time, I'll see what I can do about it, but if anyone else wants to see to it, please do. Aridd (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aboriginals 

message: There is a contradiction of facts given in this article regarding the skills of the first convicts. On the one hand the first paragraph says:
"Many convicts were either skilled tradesmen or farmers who had been convicted for trivial crimes and were sentenced to 7 years the time required to set up the infrastructure for the new colony."
Yet further down it says:
"While the settlers were reasonably well-equipped, little consideration had been given to the skills required to make the colony self-supporting - few of the first wave convicts had farming or trade experience (nor the soldiers), and the lack of understanding of Australia's seasonal patterns saw initial attempts at farming fail, leaving only what animals and birds the soldiers were able to shoot."
Which is correct????
203.214.25.254 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonisation

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :History of Australia (1788–1850)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ADB":
From Yagan: 
From Hamilton Hume: Stuart H. Hume, 'Hume, Hamilton (1797 - 1873)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 1, MUP, 1966, pp 564-565
From William Wentworth: 
From Joseph Banks: 
Reference named "dfat.gov.au":
From Religion in Australia: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/religion.html
From Culture of Australia: 
From Anglican Church of Australia: About Australia: Religious Freedom
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:History of Australia (1788–1850)]] 

message: It is very clear now that the 18 Century was the period where a certain white race was sent around the world to loot indigenous territories its ruins and sacred sites, cultural values and customs as well as usurped the fundamental spiritual knowledge of other mankind race. 82.28.148.67 (talk)david82.28.148.67 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 century the looting period 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Australia (1788–1850). 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/20090929140952/http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/ to http://moadoph.gov.au/our-democracy/democracy-timeline/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218092919/http://www.theatreroyal.com.au/history.html to http://www.theatreroyal.com.au/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110217184130/http://www.melbourneathenaeum.org.au/content/view/20/37/ to http://www.melbourneathenaeum.org.au/content/view/20/37/
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 03:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If this article is about 1788-1850, why does it include things like the separation of Queensland 1859 and the establishment of the ACT in 1911 and a range of other events outside of the date range in the title? Does anyone mind if I remove them and/or move them to the corresponding article with the right date range? Kerry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  time warp? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Australia (1788–1850). 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/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/20080918121747/http://saintanneshomeschooling.org/catholic_history/botany-bay-story to http://saintanneshomeschooling.org/catholic_history/botany-bay-story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221043342/http://history.sa.gov.au/queens/about.htm to http://www.history.sa.gov.au/queens/about.htm
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 one external link on History of Australia (1788–1850). 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/20130818021205/http://www.kings.edu.au/about/brief-history.html to http://www.kings.edu.au/about/brief-history.html
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) 14:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The material above in this section was removed by Pete/Skyring at 06:45 on 10 March with the excuse: "Remove offtopic stuff about sigs and stuff. Take it elsewhere, Bob".  The later header "Continued incivility" was also removed, so that what had been posted under it appeared as all that there ever been under "Civility".
This is censorship.  Pete/Skyring has been around too long (more than 16 years on his userpage) for it to be any kind of error.  If he really thought I had just gone off-topic, he should have said that and asked me to stop.  Nothing in WP policy (e.g. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC) justifies mere removal without effective explanation.  Therefore I have reinstated the material.
In my view, this removal amounts to vandalism.  Therefore I have placed a vandalism warning on Pete/Skyring's Talk page (the "censorship" warning templates appear to apply only to article texts).  To revert my revert is likely to be regarded as further vandalism. Errantius (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite that warning, Pete/Skyring removed the material again.  Therefore he received a second, stronger warning.  He deleted both warnings, calling my action  "rude and obnoxious", and told me to "stay off" his Talk page.  I restored the warnings, which are standard WP warnings. However, the material removed from this Talk page has been restored although hidden.  Errantius (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship by Pete/Skyring

message: A user removed a point in the lead mentioning slavery. As it isn't further discussed in the article at the moment I'll leave that as is, however it is inaccurate to say that slavery was not practiced during the colonial period. As per Slavery in Australia and there is potential to flesh that part of the article out. Poketama (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  On slavery 

message: Looking at this edit: 
The first paragraph of the lede deals with the arrival of the British. The phrase "Eora Nation" would not have been used at all in the time period covered by the article (1788-1850). Not by the British, not by the original inhabitants or their descendants. 
The second para is fine.
We have a section devoted to the devastating impact of the British on the first Australians. We have plenty of sources for the dispossessions, massacres, plagues and so on. If Indigenous placenames are to be used, that section would be a good place to use them, as a counterpoint to the largely White Anglo narrative. The difficulty is finding Indigenous sources for the events of this period. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to keep rehashing this issue Pete. Quote Wikipolicy if you want to remove content. The page does not need to only use language from the 16th century. Poketama (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 16th century??? You sure you are feeling up to editing historical articles? Reliable sourcing is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia and if you can find any credible historian or contemporary source using the phrase "Port Jackson in the Eora Nation", please let us know. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Jackson in the Eora Nation 

message: Hello all
I have expanded the lead to better reflect the policy in MOS:LEAD. In particular, I have tried to make it stand on its own as an overview of the article and to present information from a neutral POV. Happy to discuss.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to lead 

message: I reverted this for the reasons given in my edit summary. Perhaps the editor involved could find a reliable source? We can't just say stuff we think is okay. Even if it is. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced editorialising 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The concept of "terra nullius" is an important one in the history of Australia and is referenced already in the Timeline section ("1835 - the Proclamation of Governor Bourke, issued by the Colonial Office and sent to the Governor with Despatch 99 of 10 October 1835 implements the doctrine of terra nullius upon which British settlement was based."). I think it's important enough to mention in the lede and made this WP:BOLD edit which was promptly reverted with the comment "Australia was never officially proclaimed to be terra nullius.". This is semantics - "terra nullius" means uninhabited land (literally "land of nobody") and Australia (well the New South Wales colony - which at the time included everything bar WA and Tasmania) was declared previously uninhabited, officially, in 1835. The reference used in the timeline section states: "This document implemented the concept now known as terra nullius upon which British settlement was based".... so even though the document didn't use the exact phrase "terra nullius", it formally established the same concept. The term "terra nullius" for this kind of land claim only came into common use in the late 1800s, so it's an unreasonable requirement that documents before that time must use that exact phrase. Tobus (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is trying to fix a date in which the doctrine of Terra Nullius was "officially proclaimed". The doctrine was never officially proclaimed, it was just a post hoc justification used by some legal scholars to explain the fact that the colonial officials simply assumed that the Crown had given them the right to dispose of the land of the NSW colony as they saw fit. It's true that the commentary from the Powerhouse Museum states that Bourke's 1835 proclamation "implemented the doctrine of "terra nullius". But this is demonstrably wrong. The governors of NSW had been issuing land grants since 1788 without asking any Aboriginal Australians whether it was ok by them. It you want an authority for this look at the Mabo decision per Dawson par 36: "Upon any account, the policy which was implemented and the laws which were passed in New South Wales make it plain that, from the inception of the colony, the Crown treated all land in the colony as unoccupied and afforded no recognition to any form of native interest in the land." Bourke's  Proclamation was just another in a long line of executive acts regulating land use in the colony. It's real significance is that Bourke was trying to give Aboriginals some protection against squatters. (A battle he lost). If you want the first proclamation of a notion which was later turned into the idea of Terra Nullius have a look at the instructions to Governor Phillip. I've been meaning to add this to the articles about Terra Nullius in Australia for some time.  Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I have corrected and summarised the information on the Proclamation of Govenor Bourke in the timeline section. I have added Banner's Why Terra Nullius? Anthropology and Property Law in Early Australia (2005) as a source.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terra Nullius