Talk:History of Tasmania

Date of name change

I noticed in the timeline the date given for the name change was 1856. On the documenting democracy website there's a order-in-council document from 1855that changes the name to tasmania. Should this be changed on the timeline to 1855 or is there some reason why it's 1856? jgillett

It was not proclaimed until 1 January 1856 (allow time between the document written in England to its arrival in Australia - a voyage of several months) --Astrokey44 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation

It is a misquote to say that "most people thought that the last surviving Tasmanian Aborigine was Trugernanner,[2] who died in 1876." Early history books taught that the last "full blooded" aborigine was "Truganini". It is still accepted that, Trugernanner (1812–1876) and Fanny Cochrane Smith (1834–1905), were the last people solely of Tasmanian descent. It was never taught that there were no descendants from the original Tasmanians. Many Tasmanian families know and acknowledge their Tasmania ancestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.249.132 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information

There's some good information here that is supposedly under a creative commons license. Maybe we could incorporate some of this? Jgritz 13:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And another link with a wealth of information, that I will one day try and incorporate into this article. It's mainly to do with Matthew Kneale's The English Passengers, a must read for any Tasmanian.. Jgritz 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Disambiguation repair

Evenin' all. I have removed the link to dab from this entry:

1894 - Hobart international exhibition opens

I am unsure of the type of exhibition, but it struck me this was after a definition not a type, and the dab page does not do that. If there is a better direct link (just check out the dab page) please correct my temporary insanity. LeeG 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-history, not history

It is erroneous to say that the history of any place started at any time before there were written records of that place. Hence the history of Tasmania, as opposed to its pre-history, starts when eye witnesses wrote down in some language what it is that they saw. If Abel Tasman wrote down what he saw in Dutch that is Tasmanian history; geological events in 10,000 BC are not. Oral myths and legends are part of pre-history, not history. Or what do you think the term "pre-historic" means in English? 62.134.80.136 02:38, 22 August 2006

The History article says "History is the study of the past". It is therefore not erroneous to say the history of any place started before written records. The Prehistory article says "Prehistory is a term often used to describe the period before written history" but we are not choosing to use that term here. Barrylb (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

This article is more of a timeline than anything else, perhaps the title should be chaned to reflect that or reformatted to reflect its current title? - Bozzio (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Australia: Tasmania / History Mid‑importance

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge. Klbrain (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British colonisation of Tasmania got prod'ed. I'd prefer to see the content merged to here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am currently undecided about a merger. There is no doubt that both articles require work and if the contradictions in the articles can be reconciled, I might be persuaded to support a merger.--Ykraps (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed It's being discussed at Talk:British colonisation of Tasmania It would be better to wrap that discussion up first. I also think the subject is notable enough to have it's own article. OKelly (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that I'm Neutral. I don't care either way. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As it was not just Tasmania being colonised but the whole continent, I think British colonisation of Tasmania is a little arbitrary. Colonisation can and should be included in History of Tasmania timeline. Like other Australian states and territories, the timeline part should be ditched and conversion to prose is needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this just a timeline? Why isn't it History of Tasmania like the other states? Merging seems reasonable, but is a whole lot of prose permissible on a timeline article? Nightw 04:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - agree with Shiftchange's comments above, and suggest the change from timeline to prose article is needed as well Satu Suro 06:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I started this article, a long long time ago, I basically created it in timeline form as History of Tasmania. Over the years (as I neglected it :-/ ) it appears to have been moved to its current name. I wouldn't mind re-writing it into prose form, but I'd need some help as it would need to be done rather quickly - otherwise it becomes a bit of a mish mash! -- Chuq (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will help. History of Queensland was recently converted from points to prose. The division by decades could be scrapped. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shiftchange. I've made an attempt to start doing a paragraph at the time but I'm struggling as to where to begin. I'm thinking that keeping the paragraphs split by decades for now is the easiest way? So far as sourcing goes, I remember a lot of came from a series of booklets that The Mercury distributed around the time of either Hobart's bicentennary. So far as what *their* sources were, I'm not sure. However most of these facts should easily be able to be referenced by alternate sources online. -- Chuq (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please consider that listing by year shouldn't preclude having a separate history page organized by decades in prose. Listing by year helps to organize massive amounts of material. I've found it useful to see dates in reference to each other to analyze how key events/people influence later events. Splitting by decades also works well for readers interested in a particular period. But some dates are missing here, for example, Sir John Franklin left VDL November 1843 after the arrival of his replacement. Research material on 19th Century Tasmania is very difficult to get in the United States, so your efforts are appreciated. Bluebethley (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Bluebethley.[reply]

Opposed - The British colonisation is quite a distinct feature of Tasmanian history, and deserves separate discussion. The effects on the local aboriginal people was also quite different frmo the effects in the other states of Australia. It is also noted that there has been little interesting in merging in the last 4 years. Klbrain (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split tag

I am removing the split tag because it is not needed. An article History of Tasmania can just be created and this article linked to it when appropriate. Op47 (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]