Jump to content

Talk:History of Victoria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno if Melbourne can be called the financial centre of Australia and New Zealand. Throughout Australias history melbourne and sydney have been fairly equal. thats why canberra was built. (Message posted: 00:14, 4 Jun 2005 by IP 195.110.75.89)

During the second half of the 19th century Melbourne was the financial centre of Australasia....that's why even today lots of Australia's largest banks and financial institutions have their HQ in Melbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.113.89 (talk • contribs)

This article could be greatly expanded and improved. I've made a start with some early European stuff, and I'll gradually develop it further - at least to the gold rushes. MulgaBill 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- more on the period 1803-1834, and on Aboriginal Victoria. MulgaBill 01:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As we have established in the discussion at History of Australia, what happened in the area which is now Victoria before the arrival of Europeans is prehistory, not history. It is absurd that an article on the History of Victoria should take up three-quarters of its length with events before 1834, and squeeze all of the actual history of Victoria into its final paragraphs. Adam 00:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article seems long enough that it could be forked and the pre-european sections reduced to a summary section. --Martyman-(talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy Mountains Scheme

[edit]

I would have thought this was pretty significant to the history of Victoria, but can't find any info here.

More work needed

[edit]

Even with the non-history removed (and I have just removed the inevitable "Portuguese discovery" mythology), this article is still very inadequate. More than half it deals with doscovery and early settlement, and everything since 1855 is squeezed into a few paragraphs at the end. This is what happens when history articles are written by amateur antiquarians rather than historians. Adam 06:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The extremely poor nature of this article reflects Victorians general disinterest in their own history...or what tiny amount of history they do have. 21 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.6.205 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of duplication with the history of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Sullivan Bay, and so on. I think this should be the main article for everything before permanent settlement in 1834. I will (perhaps) gradually rationalize some of the others. Billingd (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi David.moreno72. Im really pleased to see the work you are doing to improve this page. However, Im not clear on your removal of material (replaced by Dl2000) on the grounds its "copyright copy". Or have I misunderstood something? The Franks murder is now sourced to a 1915 newspaper - an original source but not necessarily any more reliable, and almost certainly not written by a historian. Anyway, to illustrate the frontier conflict of Port Phillip District, why not put in the quite well documented disappearance of Gellibrand and Hesse, and the Faithfull Massacre etc etc? Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nickm57, Thanks for your comments and edits, it's all well appreciated. What I am concerned about is the use of copy from the author James Boyce. As respected and controversial he might be, his latest book was only published last year which means his copy is still copywritable. My other concern is that his comments and views are not presented in a neutral fashion. My third concern is that large sections of his copy is then reproduced across many different pages with no difference between them, as through the contributor was trying to make a point. There is always more than one story. What I would like to see are the references that James Boyce uses and put those on wikipedia. My only aim is to ensure articles are balanced and neutral and without infringement of copyright. Also I think that by going back as close to the actual event with newspapers, the more detail is revealed.David.moreno72 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Anyway, I would like my next contribution about how Victorian won separation.[reply]

Sure - I take some of your points and I dont know the writer in question at all. However, as a new editor its worth you checking this WP article on reliable sources: Wikipedia:RS. You'll see that WP insists on verifiable secondary sources wherever possible, not primary sources. By the way, copyright law does not prohibit anyone (inc WP editors fortunately!!!) quoting a published writer, as long as its acknowledged and appropriate. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Anyway good luck, its good to see another Aust Hist enthusiast.Nickm57 (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PostWar history of Victoria

[edit]

Clearly we need to have a section covering Victorian history post WW2.

The section we had for the 1990s, however, was completely unsourced and highly POV. It was a clearly political effort at painting Victoria as ruined by the ALP and saved by the Liberal Party. There's not really any way of salvaging it properly - there needs to be a proper 1945-2012 section written, and that wasn't it. Garth M (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - even more disturbed. That's been sitting there, unsourced, pretending to be the sum total of Victorian postwar history, since User:Biatch added it in October 2006. Garth M (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Border issue

[edit]

I see nothing about the process whereby it was determined the border with NSW would be the Murray River. For some time it was planned that the Murrumbidgee River would define the southern border (or part thereof). There must be stuff we can use about this matter. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Victoria. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Victoria. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why add text on Australia in WW2 to this article?

[edit]

Why add text lifted from elsewhere on WP, relating to Australia's federal government and the events of WW2 to this page, which is on one of Australia's states? There is story to be told about the state of Victoria during WW2, but this is not it.Nickm57 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sorry. Have removed it. "Main article" usually points to a more specialised article about the same subject. I let myself be misled by that. That formulation should be changed.--Ettrig (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Victoria&oldid=1218025378"