Jump to content

Talk:History of Melbourne

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

I appreciate others' corrections of my typos but please note that Enterprize is correctly spelled with a Z Adam

No mention of the "official response", or of Point Gellibrand/Williamstown?

"In September, 1836, Sydney's Governor Richard Bourke sent Captain William Lonsdale to the Port Phillip district, thereby acknowledging that settlement beyond the permitted boundaries had occurred. Lonsdale selected Gellibrand Point at the north-west of Port Phillip Bay as the place for the official settlement, but the better situated Melbourne overtook it in his later estimation. Nevertheless a town was surveyed and named William's Town (after King William IV), on 10 April, 1837. Land in Nelson Place, Williamstown, was sold two months later." http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/multimedia/gazetteer/list/williamstown.html#img

Indeed I believe Gellibrand Point was also a disembarkation point for stock and goods for Fawkner/Batman also as the Yarra could only be navigated by shallow ships (or with light loads to achieve this).

Thanks for that. Feel free to add a paragraph on that if you like. Adam 10:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I have created the Timeline of Melbourne history page and linked it in, please add any events and dates you can. Hypernovean 07:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Capital

[edit]

Melbourne was never the official capital of Australia and this article might confuse people. "it was agreed that Melbourne was to be the temporary capital of Australia"[1] until the capital could be selected. CarnivalFR 15 December 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/federation

'MODERN'

[edit]

In the heading 'modern melbourne' what does modern mean? Does it in fact mean anything? And to who? Surely 1890s Melbourne was also modern. Surely something better can be dredged up than dull journalsistic cliche. My suggestion-- 'Melbourne today' Please disabuse me. Eric A. Warbuton 04:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While there clearly seems to be some animosity between you, Adam, and Eric (which I will stay out of), I do agree that "Modern Melbourne" doesn't exactly fit the dates and events mentioned in that section. "20th Century Melbourne" perhaps? Or even "Post War Melbourne"? Citizen D 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRESTIGIOUS!?!

[edit]

Sorry but if parents spend some money, actually quite reasonable by intern. standasrds, the schools are expensive- not prestigious. Theres a difference. Eric A. Warbuton 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CULTURAL LIFE

[edit]

Well you can keep putting back any ethnic group you like, unless you provide evidence and not mere assertion(I thought you had pretensions to an historian?) I'll keep removing it. My favoured ethnic group for providing melbourne 'cultural' life is the Wunrungderi- no proof just my opinion. Eric A. Warbuton 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And about as useful as all your opinions. Adam 05:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish immigration to Melbourne is notable: "From 1947-1971 there was 56.3 net overseas migration to Melbourne. A majority of these immigrants were Jewish and survivors of the holocaust." [1] Also this article on the Jewish community in Melbourne: "Compared to any other city in Australia, Melbourne contains the highest proportion of Jewish inhabitants." [2] Cfitzart 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate postwar immigration (1945-47) contained a high proportion of Jews. Once Israel was established they went there instead. They revolutionised Australian cultural life, particularly Melbourne's. I live in St Kilda and I have known a lot of them. Eric's ignorance is matched only by his rudeness as always. Adam 13:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"They revolutionised Australian cultural life, particularly Melbourne's." Could you please explain how? I would have thought Greek culture had a much more obvious influence on Melbourne than Jewish culture. 203.23.122.202 04:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They revolutionised it by being (for the most part) middle-class central Europeans with a long tradition of European high culture - musicians in particular but also writers and artists of various kinds, and also by providing a market for European high culture which had been lacking before the war. Today when most of the postwar Jewish immigrants are dead and cultural levels generally are higher this influence is no longer so apparent. The Greeks came rather later and were mostly poor village and island people. They brought Greek folk culture with them but not much else. Greek culture may be more "obvious" in Melbourne today (partly because it looks more "foreign" to Anglo eyes), but this is a history article and the article's reference is to the late 1940s. Adam 04:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples? Citizen D 00:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous Melbourne

[edit]

I also believe that the part about the "marvellous Melbourne" era should be changed, but want to discuss it here first. Marvellous Melbourne was a name that the city became known as through the British Empire more than an era, and mention should be made that this was primarily during the 1880's when money was spent lavishly on public works and grandiose Victorian buildings (thanks to the gold boom). 203.23.122.202 04:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is made clear. Adam 04:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

brick and stone buildings

[edit]

The phrase ' and remained little more than a landing place and a staging post for the sheep runs of the interior for the first 15 years of its existence ' though true, is not entirely true. Within the first 10 years it possessed: three brick banks, a stone brewery, Cole's wharf( a collection of several stone and brick buildings), a brick post office, a brick treasury, Lonsdale's brick offices, a 'Supreme' brick Court, a brick prison and garrison, the first Melbourne Club edifice (with built-in obsevatory) and Rucker's first brick private residence. And (yes theres more) a two storey wooden theatre, a two storey wooden building for the 'Melbourne Auction Company', numerous hotels and grog shops and, finally, two churches.(all gone by end of 19C) ----refs prim. 'Bearbrass' by R. Annear and Liardet's 'Watercolors of early Melb'.

So-- I intend to replace it with ' yet within ten years, because of its economic position as a centre of pastoralism and land speculation it had established many stone and brick public and financial buildings. ' Please disabuse me. Eric A. Warbuton 07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Work

[edit]

Just read the article, flows beautifully, love it! Congrats to all that contributed so far. Marvellous Melbourne, eh? Put some more effort into her and she'll be an FA soon enough. michael talk 08:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

melb vs syd essentially

[edit]

So much of the following paragraph is either incorrect, subjective or supported with no evidence.

"Since the 1960s Melbourne has lost much of its status to Sydney, which has become Australia's only genuine world city, symbolised by its hosting of the 2000 Olympic Games"

This is so debatable it shouldn't be in the article. a) Melbourne by the same measure linked to in 'world city' actually lists both Melbourne and Sydney as Gamma and Beta respectively, however, both qualify as wold cities. The fact that Sydney's newly found status stems from holding the Olympics which were held 44 years earlier in Melbourne show this to be a pretty baseless claim.

"Most of Australia's migrants now come from south and east Asia and the Middle East, and these migrants find Sydney's climate more congenial." Absolutely no evidence to support this is presented. Entirely subjective.

"Sydney was quicker than Melbourne to develop new industries such as tourism, the arts and information technology."

no evidence to suggest this either. particular given melbourne's status re: arts/culture in Australia. plus, last time i checked, art wasn't a mass contributor to GDP Australia' or any other measure by which Melbourne has can said to have 'declined relatively'.

  • Completely agree with the above. You should really have taken out or edited all of the points you raised, rather than just a few. Also, when you are entering text on a talk page, you should end the comment with four tilde's (~) which will sign the message as yourself with the date. Otherwise, readers will be confused about who has written what. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV sodomy

[edit]

"These reforms came at a high social cost, but ultimately restored confidence in Melbourne's economy and led to a resumption of growth."

I would've said "These reforms fleetingly restored confidence in Melbourne's economy, but the significant social cost easily negated this benefit."

Anyone would be equally justified in declaring this "NPOV sodomy".

Conclusion

[edit]

MELBOURNE FTW!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.241.46 (talk) 23:59, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Whole article needs re-writing

[edit]

It is totally unencyclopedic and lagging behind the quality of the parent article. --Biatch (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1803 settlement

[edit]

The historical information on the 1803 settlement is largely duplicated in Sullivan Bay, Victoria, History of Victoria, History of Melbourne and Port Phillip. It should be in one place. I suggest History of Victoria. Billingd (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Casino

[edit]

Removed Crown Casino from list of things commissioned by Kennett, because although it was strongly associated with Kennett, it wasn't commissioned by him: "In September last year, Mr Kennett gleefully announced Crown's victory as a "fantastic result". It was a spectacle that Labor's Mrs Joan Kirner, his predecessor, would never have imagined when, just before Christmas 1990, she announced the initial plan for a casino." (Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/national/inside-the-casino-deal-20090821-etfi.html)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Melbourne. 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) 05:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Melbourne. 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) 19:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Melbourne&oldid=1207553253"