Talk:European maritime exploration of Australia

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

Proposed merge[edit]

Strongly agreed, and happy to take on the job. I've had my eye on European Exploration of Australia anyway, as needing some actual text rather than just a list of names. --Skud 07:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to place Portuguese Discovery of Australia (PDOA) on Votes for Deletion because it is largely speculative and fallacious (most probably motivated by some sort of Portuguese nationalism). However, seeing that you intended to develop European exploration of Australia, I thought some information could be milked from PDOA and used here. I've let it be for a while because it seemingly distracted a user who was claiming in the Australia article that the continent was discovered by Portugal. Contrary to PDOA's claims, most historians do not regard this to be true. Anyways, I monitor (almost) all Australian history article's, so I'll see if I can help you out in your efforts about-the-place.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have taken what I like from PDOA... any thoughts on what I ended up with? I'd support a VfD on PDOA now, if you proposed it (though I'd grab a copy of that bibliography for myself first -- I am interested in the subject ;)) --Skud 08:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great start. As for the bibliography of PDOA, I agree, it is worth recording somewhere. I am going to nominate it for deletion now.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the VfD of PDOA. Only Nationalist Portuguese claim as fact the Portuguese discovery of Australia. Academic and scientific Portuguese History only recognizes, at maximum, that there might have been some sightings or coastal explorations and that there are no definitive and convincing proofs (even if some maps at the British Museum raise strange questions). This is just a big "Maybe". I believe the entry on Early European sightings is quite enough (particularly when there are articles on the Mahogany Ship and on the possible explorers). I've added the names of two of those explorers (articles yet to be written). The Ogre 12:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a reference to the Dieppe Maps should be made. The Ogre 12:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that reference to the Dieppe Maps be included in the article should a merger be supported--AYArktos 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've created pages on the Dieppe maps and on George Collingridge, an early proponent of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, and linked them from the PDOA page. --Skud 12:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I've excluded[edit]

I have intentionally excluded the following categories of explorers from this article:

  • explorers of non-European heritage (eg Chinese, but also aboriginal people even when accompanying European expeditions)
  • explorers who explored the Pacific or New Zealand or Antarctica but not Australia itself
  • settlers who did not actually do any new exploring (eg John Batman)
  • government officials (eg Governors of the colonies) even if they instigated exploration

However, I've put a section on naturalists associated with the European exploration of Australia, so I see no strong reason why similar sections on settlers and government officials couldn't be put there if people felt it was a good idea. And John Batman at least is marginal... I need to know more about him.

--Skud 12:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of maps[edit]

The table presentation of maps is not effective - it doesn't work with smaller screens. Could they please be more integreated with the text?--A Y Arktos\talk 12:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the maps back without the captions at the moment, spread down the right side of the page. The major difficulty is the tabular style of a lot of the text. Anyone else want to turn the tables into prose? Or do we like tables for some reason? --Scott Davis Talk 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed disputed[edit]

Explorers of this period:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrancisTyers (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006.

    • Since the definition of Australia probably extends to the TSI, I don't think that the inclusion of Torres is problematic in this article.--Peta 06:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, Torres' voyage is not a disputed one, and it seems natural enough to include the TSI and the Strait as being associated with the Australian continent. He's also very often associated with the expl. of Aust. in historical works.--cjllw | TALK 07:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Price[edit]

Is he one of the persons called John Price listed on the disambiguation page or another one?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Ive added a number of citations, many from the ADB online. Will continue this process, but have now removed the request for more citations which was put in 2 years ago.Nickm57 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Land Exploration[edit]

Francis Cadell (explorer) did the Murray River, and NT, but did those explorations by clipper and steamer. Does this qualify him to be in the list as a land explorer, when he was on board a ship when all his discoveries were made, albeit it the most significant on an inland waterway? --Inas66 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see your point. Do we mean "Inland explorers" ? Nickm57 (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Timor[edit]

An anon editor added mention of the Portuguese in Timor in the early 1500s on the grounds that it is "unfair to hold back Portugal's presence in Timor from 1512-onwards". I have reverted this, as this page is about european exploration of Australia.Nickm57 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Contemporary Adventurers to include[edit]

I have deleted an edit regarding Louis-Philippe Loncke crossing the Simpson Desert because it lacked a reliable third party source. This raises an interesting question for me - to what extent are the activities of modern day adventurers appropriate here on this page? Part of the issue is that we now use the words explorer and adventurer interchangeably. For example, are all the people who now climb Mt Everest "Explorers" or are they "Adventurers"? Id be interested in other opinions and haven't fully developed a view myself.Nickm57 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some useful material for thought at Adventurer.Nickm57 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the deletion. Loncke's crossing was probably a major achievement for him, but is not significant in the history of the desert. Inclusion might have been justifiable if he had done it before the existence of satellite images of the desert and satellite navigation to guide him and satellite phones to summon assistance in emergency. Or, for example, if he had written a learned paper on the flora or geology, but I've found no evidence of that. Apuldram (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Bruni d'Entrecasteaux[edit]

Currently very litte mention of d'Entrecasteaux's expedition of 1792 in the article and his voyage is not shown on the exploration map, nor the table of explorations in the relevant areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.240.123 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thijssen 1627 absent from map[edit]

The map does not include Thijssen's journey of 1627, in which much of the Bight was mapped. Indeed, this map gives the impression that the Bight was not explored until the Flinders journey of 1800. Ordinary Person (talk)

First, the map can't show any explorer of Australia, because of limited space and lost legibility. Second, look at the article of François Thijssen. One broken link and two sources without any map source. Greetings Lencer (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What improvements need to be made to the lede?[edit]

User Zingvin has made a number of edits to this page and History of Australia, all appear to be designed to further emphasize the importance Dutch exploration of Australia, although it’s difficult to tell, as they are almost all made without an edit summary. So Zingvin – now that several editors including me have reverted your edits - please explain here what improvements need to be made to this article, and why? Nickm57 (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a kind of troublemaker. The Dutch did not steal/plunder the achievements of the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French, or the British. The historical importance of Dutch exploration of Australia is undisputed. But I think for the national interest (or national self-respect) that many people do not want to admit it. Zingvin (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "for the national interest"? Nickm57 (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I left this page alone for a day in the hope User Zingvin would explain what changes they feel are needed, and why. I also left a prompt on the user’s page inviting comment. Unfortunately, if the only reason for Zingvin’s constant changes is to advance the “national interest”, as above, that’s seriously in conflict with the WP policy of NPV.
Just for the record Zingvin, again, please 1) write an edit summary for each edit, 2) provide inline citations to reliable sources for claims (such as the “Dutch charted almost three-quarters of Australia's coastline”) and 3) follow WP policies regarding linking. Much of the linking currently being done sends readers around in eye-watering circles.
There is also no need to repeat the same point several times in the opening paragraph of this article. The idea of the lead para is to succinctly introduce the topic, which it now does.Nickm57 (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Portuguese hypothesis and theories[edit]

I propose to edit the article only to change the title of point 1 from 'Pro-Iberian hypothesis and theories' to 'Pro-Portuguese hypothesis and theories': as a matter of fact, this point 1 tackles hypothesis and theories related ONLY and SPECIFICALLY to the Portuguese, not the Spaniards, so it should not be titled generically 'Pro-Iberian hypothesis and theories', as Iberian refers to Spanish and Portuguese jointly. Therefore, this correction makes the title more precise and reflects best the content of the point. 85.243.86.207 (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC) José Ramos-Ascensão[reply]

Yes, so you keep on claiming. But you obviously haven't read the whole paragraph. The paragraph DOES include reference to what was once a very popular theory about the Spanish. However, rather than get into an edit war with a nationalism-inspired anon editor, what do others regular editors think? Nickm57 (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but there are no paragraphs under the title 'Pro-Iberian hypothesis and theories' with any reference to the Spanish. So it is inappropriate to label this edition as one made by a nationalist-inspired editor (who, by the way, is not a regular editor but is not an anon editor either, as the comment has been signed). The edition is envisaging precision, nothing else. 85.243.86.207 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC) José Ramos[reply]

"In the early 20th century, Lawrence Hargrave argued that Spain had established a colony in Botany Bay in the 16th century." Nickm57 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Thijsz[edit]

I recommend adding the journey of Thijsz to the map of " Selected voyages of exploration by Europeans to 1812". He mapped the Bight about 180 years before Dampier got there.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth Century[edit]

Hello all

I have removed some speculative and controversial material on James Cook's first voyage and replaced it with factual material generally accepted among Cook scholars. Specifically I have deleted:

"Here in the Dutch port, Cook learnt that the French navigator Louis Bougainville had sailed across the Pacific the previous year. This was a period of intense Anglo-French rivalry and so, as a precaution, Cook re-wrote an earlier entry in his journal. In its final version, it states that when he was in Torres Strait at Possession Island on 22 August 1770, he claimed the east coast of New Holland for King George III and named it New South Wales.. However, the Admiralty's instructions did not authorized Cook to annex New Holland (Australia) and therefore it is unlikely that any possession ceremony occurred that August. Importantly, Joseph Banks, who was standing beside Cook, does not mention any such episode or announcement in his journal."

There is abundant documentary evidence that Cook claimed possession of the east coast of New Holland on Possession Island on 22 August 1770 and this is the established view among professional historians. It seems odd to argue that Admiralty instructions prevented Cook from making a formal claim to the east coast on Possession Island but didn't prevent him from making a fake claim a few weeks later. Although Banks does not mention the possession claim in his journal it is mentioned in Cook's journal, the ship's log, James Matra's unauthorised account and in Banks's Grey Manuscript. Parkinson, who was on the Endeavour at the time, also reports that Cook raised a jack - that is, a British flag which is a sign of a claim of possession. I think a Wikipedia article on James Cook needs to rely on established facts rather than speculative theories. A good recent scholarly account of Cook's first voyage can be found in John Molony's Captain James Cook: Claiming the Great South Land. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_maritime_exploration_of_Australia&oldid=1207149015"