Talk:History of Australia (1606–1787)

Australia: History Redirect‑class High‑importance

	Australia portal History of Australia (1606–1787) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

An entry from History of Australia (1606–1787) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 8 July, 2006.

Wikipedia

I have nominated article for WP:DYK. Please check the question abakharev 12:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brackets

What the hell areall of these??? Circeus 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be hangovers from an old reference scheme. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Starting point

I believe that this article is presented in a horribly bias way as it completely ignores all pre-colonization history of Australia. To ignore 3000 years of aboriginal history and to concentrate only on 400 years of Europeans in Australia is a horrible oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.250.196 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is pre European colonisation. BUT Prehistory of Australia should be linked to in the introductory text rather than linking to only Prehistory. Many people will be mis defining the word history and following the link to pre-1788 history expecting just that article. It's easy to miss the infobox link on the side. aussietiger 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Early Contacts

I understand from 1421: The Year China Discovered America by Gavin Menzies that it is accepted in both Australia and China as a proven fact that the Chinese in the centuries before 1500 had regular contacts with Australia. Evidence includes both the "Mahogany Ship" and a ship found buried in the sand at Byron Bay in New South Wales that apparently had a rudder some twelve meters high; such a ship could have used a Portuguese caravel as a dinghy. J S Ayer 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the view of one academic, who goes against what the vast bulk of academics think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.116.67 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-centric

This article completely ignores aboriginal occupation, just refering to it as being 'pre-history' and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.116.67 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate Prehistory of Australia article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng He

Could someone who thinks Zheng He is relevant please write a paragraph about it instead of just putting it in a "See also" section? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]