![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 26, 2005, January 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, January 26, 2008, January 26, 2015, and January 26, 2019. |
How much of Australian social structure derives from ancestry in the First Fleet?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.121.212.121 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 October 2002 (UTC+10 hours)
On the pbs show I just watched they said something about men "ravaging" women who came before the Lady Juliana and the head of the colony requested more women.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.190.53 ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC+10 hours)
If you are going to post, please sign! -- Dumbo1 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to George Johnston is incorrect - it links to a Canadian who was born many years after the sailing of the first fleet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.210.94 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC+10 hours)
Would we class them as illegal imigrant? Enlil Ninlil 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three references to "Gillen" (with page numbers) but the article lacks a reference section specifying Gillen's book. can someone provide pls? Coughinink 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet (1989) This is the seminal work on the first fleet that led to her honourary doctorate and being awarded the Order of Australia. I will edit all references to this. Macr237 ( talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MISSING REFERENCE - the same goes for Robert Hughes, mentioned in text but not in reference section: "The Fatal Shore", Robert Hughes
95.75.71.135 ( talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed inappropriate uses of the word European to describe the colonists when in fact there were no less than 13 people of African descent. I think it would be better as 'colonists'. Can I go ahead and change it? If you need a source, Black Founders by Samantha Pybus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.57.11 ( talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been following this up. The book is: Cassandra Pybus, Black Founders: the unknown story of Australia's first black settlers (Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2006) ISBN 0-86840-849-2. Pybus details the stories of 12 men in the First Fleet who are known to have been of African descent. Some had been born in England, others in the American colonies. She cautions (pp 180-182) against importing 19th and 20th century notions of "race" back into the 18th or attributing such notions to Aboriginal cultures. These men were among the many people of African descent who were living in England at that time: Peter Fryer, Staying Power. I would therefore think that their presence on the First Fleet doesn't affect the character of the colonists as "European". -- Wikiain ( talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the log of the HMS Surply the first fleet arrived at Camp Cove in Port Jackson on the 23 January 1788. With the fear of turnable deep water a foot party was dispatched that arrived at the tank stream on the 26 January 1788 on that lite a signial fire. The fleet arrived in farm cove on the 27 Febuary and set up a settlement on the east side of the tank stream named Sydney Cove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.106.126 ( talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on Port Jackson states: "Eighteen years later, on 21 January 1788, after arriving at Botany Bay" whereas this articles states that: "They arrived at Botany Bay on 26 January 1788." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFredBloggs ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There's been some recent good-faith reverting regarding the Fleet's path from Rio, and whether they entered the Pacific via the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.
It was the Cape of Good Hope - from Rio in South America directly across the Atlantic to the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa and into the Pacific via the Indian Ocean.
This seems a little counter-intuitive when the shortest route would be to sail south from England down the African coastline, without crossing to South America. The reason, as outlined in Arthur Philip's journal of the voyage, was to avoid the calms that frequently delayed ships off the west African coast. Philip also knew he could replenish the ships stores in Rio, and was less assured of a safe harbour on the African coast before Cape Town.
When the Fleet finally arrived at the Cape of Good Hope they encountered an American ship that had taken longer to sail directly from the Canary islands than they had taken going all the way to Rio and back - proving Philip's argument about Africa's calm coastal winds correct.
I've added a reference for this to the article - hope that clears it up. Euryalus ( talk) 11:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have is not with the article, but with the disambiguation statement above it.
A numbered fleet of whatever nation is a group of warships and auxiliaries permanently grouped together under one operational command, with continuity from one operation to the next.
I very much suspect that the "first fleet" in this case was simply an ad hoc group of ships sent on one voyage together and then sent individually on whatever other duties were most pressing.
In the military history that I have read, I have never seen a designation like "First Army" or "First Fleet" much prior to World War I.
The reference to the "British First Fleet" and the statement that for the American equivalent, one should see "US First Fleet" are misleading. The fleet that took these particular convicts to Australia was "first" chronologically, not "First" in any order of battle.
On further reflection, I think it was more the British custom to designate particular fleets by their area of operations rather than numbering--e.g., Home Fleet, Channel Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Pacific Fleet, etc.
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
oh ya wanna know about the fist fleet its interesting that author Philip was the best hes the one who done the rest oh ya oh ya oh ya its the best to learn about him oh ya its the best to see him if u wanna know info, so wanna do Wat i told u i know u would love to. sorry i did not complete the song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.86.108 ( talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead section now mixes discussion and statistics, and has the people stats repeated in different forms. Would somebody with direct access to the stats (for reliability) like to tidy this, probably moving all people stats out of the lead section? -- Wikiain ( talk) 01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but it is separate for a reason. The top half contains the official number of colonists excluding crew as reported by the government, while the bottom half contains 'calculated' statistics. Since there was no offical crew numbers reported, and the crews eventually left shorly after to continue with their jobs, any attempt will always be speculative, and as such should not be mixed with the official historical numbers. By showing both sets of numbers, the reader can come to their own conclusion as to how reliable the calculated statistics are. David.moreno72 ( talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, David - I had you in mind, of course! What I was thinking of, was to move the first stats passage - from "consisting of ..." to the first footnote - down into a new section together with the other stats passages, and in that section explain (just as you now have) how the different sets of stats have been arrived at. -- Wikiain ( talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds cool. I reckon that sounds like a good idea. David.moreno72 ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Lots better now - I haven't tracked who did the work, but it looks good.-- Wikiain ( talk) 06:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: articles not moved ( snow close). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
– I can't see any reason that the "Australian First Fleet" is any more a primary topic than the "United States First Fleet" or the Imperial Japanese First Fleet" which are also listed at the dab page. Green Giant ( talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The Australian First Fleet is NOT an organizational unit. It therefor classifies as a primary topic. David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was also wondering if America has a national holiday for when the American 1st Fleet first landed, or when the Japanese fleet first landed. This has been clearly a case by a non-Australian wanting to make changes to sacred Australian history. David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
this tag was placed because the article has grammatical errors and the lead section needs intense copyediting to render it adequate. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
What's a "kohi marine"? It is not explained herein neither elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Oop ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular user of wikipedia. I was very happy when I signed up because you can get more information which is very good for research. Hannahgunning1 ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Signed hannahgunning1
The last three revisions (all by Witeboyrapper) need to be undone. They are all Doctor Who references and really, need I say more?
I don't know if I have enough experience to roll back three changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCastellino ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The supply ships are being tabulated with durations of voyage several days longer than the other ships even though they are tabulated as arriving on the same day. Are these as recorded in a primary source? Or are they just wrong?
Dmoorenh ( talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Some good references for improving this article:
The First Fleet journals held in the State Library of New South Wales are listed in Tales from the First Fleet.
I have removed this because it places a very heavy emphasis on just one of the results, or possible results of European settlement, and gives it undue weight, in an article that is about the First Fleet, rather than the Early Settlement of Sydney. It is almost certain that no Aboriginal person contracted Smallpox while a passenger on the First Fleet.
Moreover, knowing that Smallpox and other European epidemics had decimated the Aboriginal population, historians, some twenty years ago, hit on the tubes of smallpox scabs that were issued to the First Fleet as the answer. In a kind of hysteria, it was very easy to interpret that they were carried to infect the local indigenous population. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. The tubes of scabs were used specifically to vaccinate people against Smallpox. When vaccination first came into use, Smallpox scabs were used, causing a (usually) mild case of smallpox. It was then discovered that coxpox could be used just as effectively.
While the medical impact of European settlement on Aboriginal people has a place on Wikipedia, it isn't in this article. Not unless you are setting out to tell the whole story of European impact.
Amandajm ( talk) 08:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That is not agreed. The First Fleet was entirely involved with the arrival of smallpox. Of course any details of the outbreak itself would be best placed elsewhere, but the simple fact that the First Fleet carried the virus that led ti important impacts is relevant. You would not delete themes of artillery from articles covering Napoleonic battles on the basis that they would be better off in articles on the history of France, or articles on the technology of war. An accurate understanding of the First Fleet includes everything it carried, possessed, and ensuing ramifications - anything about early preparations, and even the subsequent fate of the different ships and of various identities - even it would seem - commemoration gardens and fictional works.
However the first large paragraph, introducing aspects concerning Macassans, does seem extraneous, and is damaging the focus.
It is necessary to have some reference to the fact that this area is contentious and some reference for interested viewers to follow-up.
There is no reference in any refereed source that the issue of the First Fleet carrying and introducing smallpox is a so-called "red herring". This is not how First Fleet scholars present the issues. Such tagging represents a private unsubstantiated view.
No academic source says it is 'hysteria'. It would be remiss not to mention probably one of the most significant fact from the First Fleet that differentiates it from similar colonial projects.
Wilcannia ( talk) 02:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That is beside the point. Information on the First Fleet is not confined to "on the conception or execution of the voyage of the Fleet". The first paragraph could go.
In general British colonisation did not spread smallpox. Mixing the issue with other disease spread is not appropriate as this would require extension of the subject to include dysentry, tuberculosis, fevers and venereal diseases. This would need a better informed contributor.
The recent carriage of the issue by Journal Of Royal Historical Society, Bulletin of the Histroy of Medicine, Journal of Australian Studies, and Quadrant is, sourced, appropriate and balanced.
Wilcannia ( talk) 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
cambells approach was entirely based on the core principle that smallpox had NOTHING to do with the First Fleet.
Anyone who knows anything about this will know that Cambell is precisely the one author that has no relecvance to the First Fleet. Zero. That was her entire point.
QED.
121.210.12.111 ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Have trimmed the first para a little, removing information regarding the origins of those referred to as Macassans. Seemed unnecessary for the purposes of this article although perhaps more relevant to other articles where this controversy is discussed more extensively. 58.174.85.158 ( talk) 05:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever is done about location (proposed in next section), the discussion of smallpox could now include Boyd H. Hunter and John Carmody, "Estimating the Aboriginal Population in Early Colonial Australia: The Role of Chickenpox Reconsidered" (2015) 55(2) Australian Economic History Review 112-138. According to one summary, the article argues that chickenpox, which is more infectious than smallpox and can be fatal in adults, was often mistaken for smallpox. Wikiain ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is evidence presented of a deliberate conspiracy to introduce smallpox to the aboriginals in the district via the First Fleet or in its orders, this aspect is completely irrelevant to the article. I have deleted the entire content related to smallpox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outback1964 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The smallpox theories and counter-theories have now expanded into a section nearly as long as the content on the entire voyage. This gives it undue weight. The article is about the First Fleet, and should principally cover the ships, the voyage and the people on board. It is not an article on early Australian settlement, or on colonial disease management, or on relations with indigenous Australians. I note also that the smallpox epidemic occurred after the First Fleet had disbanded and sailed away.
Surely at least some of this very extended smallpox content could be moved to other articles which more directly relate to either early Australian settlement or colonial impacts on indigenous Australians. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
References
I've just created an article for the First Fleet Re-enactment Voyage which occurred for the Australian Bicentenary. It probably rates a mention in this article (maybe in the "Legacy" section), but I will leave it up to more involved editors as to what and how much is added. -- saberwyn 04:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The tables listing the vessels all have a column giving the date of departure from Portsmouth. As the date is the same for all, there is no reason devote a column in each of two tables to this info. I would remove the column myself if I knew more about the formatting of tables, but I don't. Also, there is a long quotation that names the vessels, their tons burthen, the number of convicts, crew, marines, etc. Can't we just incorporate any material that isn't already in the article somewhere else into a table and be done with it? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Fleet. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Location of the First Fleet Bicentential Monument is Brighton-Le-Sands,NSW not Sans Souci. see https://sydney-city.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/brighton-le-sands-first-fleet.html Ausg123 ( talk) 08:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Fleet. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the date is correct but where did the date come from? Needs a reference. jayoval ( talk) 05:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 59 does not exist 106.69.10.145 ( talk) 14:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
t
c
15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 26, 2005, January 26, 2006, January 26, 2007, January 26, 2008, January 26, 2015, and January 26, 2019. |
How much of Australian social structure derives from ancestry in the First Fleet?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.121.212.121 ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 31 October 2002 (UTC+10 hours)
On the pbs show I just watched they said something about men "ravaging" women who came before the Lady Juliana and the head of the colony requested more women.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.190.53 ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC+10 hours)
If you are going to post, please sign! -- Dumbo1 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The link to George Johnston is incorrect - it links to a Canadian who was born many years after the sailing of the first fleet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.210.94 ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC+10 hours)
Would we class them as illegal imigrant? Enlil Ninlil 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three references to "Gillen" (with page numbers) but the article lacks a reference section specifying Gillen's book. can someone provide pls? Coughinink 09:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Founders of Australia: A Biographical Dictionary of the First Fleet (1989) This is the seminal work on the first fleet that led to her honourary doctorate and being awarded the Order of Australia. I will edit all references to this. Macr237 ( talk) 13:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
MISSING REFERENCE - the same goes for Robert Hughes, mentioned in text but not in reference section: "The Fatal Shore", Robert Hughes
95.75.71.135 ( talk) 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed inappropriate uses of the word European to describe the colonists when in fact there were no less than 13 people of African descent. I think it would be better as 'colonists'. Can I go ahead and change it? If you need a source, Black Founders by Samantha Pybus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.57.11 ( talk) 11:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been following this up. The book is: Cassandra Pybus, Black Founders: the unknown story of Australia's first black settlers (Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2006) ISBN 0-86840-849-2. Pybus details the stories of 12 men in the First Fleet who are known to have been of African descent. Some had been born in England, others in the American colonies. She cautions (pp 180-182) against importing 19th and 20th century notions of "race" back into the 18th or attributing such notions to Aboriginal cultures. These men were among the many people of African descent who were living in England at that time: Peter Fryer, Staying Power. I would therefore think that their presence on the First Fleet doesn't affect the character of the colonists as "European". -- Wikiain ( talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the log of the HMS Surply the first fleet arrived at Camp Cove in Port Jackson on the 23 January 1788. With the fear of turnable deep water a foot party was dispatched that arrived at the tank stream on the 26 January 1788 on that lite a signial fire. The fleet arrived in farm cove on the 27 Febuary and set up a settlement on the east side of the tank stream named Sydney Cove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.106.126 ( talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on Port Jackson states: "Eighteen years later, on 21 January 1788, after arriving at Botany Bay" whereas this articles states that: "They arrived at Botany Bay on 26 January 1788." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFredBloggs ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There's been some recent good-faith reverting regarding the Fleet's path from Rio, and whether they entered the Pacific via the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn.
It was the Cape of Good Hope - from Rio in South America directly across the Atlantic to the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa and into the Pacific via the Indian Ocean.
This seems a little counter-intuitive when the shortest route would be to sail south from England down the African coastline, without crossing to South America. The reason, as outlined in Arthur Philip's journal of the voyage, was to avoid the calms that frequently delayed ships off the west African coast. Philip also knew he could replenish the ships stores in Rio, and was less assured of a safe harbour on the African coast before Cape Town.
When the Fleet finally arrived at the Cape of Good Hope they encountered an American ship that had taken longer to sail directly from the Canary islands than they had taken going all the way to Rio and back - proving Philip's argument about Africa's calm coastal winds correct.
I've added a reference for this to the article - hope that clears it up. Euryalus ( talk) 11:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have is not with the article, but with the disambiguation statement above it.
A numbered fleet of whatever nation is a group of warships and auxiliaries permanently grouped together under one operational command, with continuity from one operation to the next.
I very much suspect that the "first fleet" in this case was simply an ad hoc group of ships sent on one voyage together and then sent individually on whatever other duties were most pressing.
In the military history that I have read, I have never seen a designation like "First Army" or "First Fleet" much prior to World War I.
The reference to the "British First Fleet" and the statement that for the American equivalent, one should see "US First Fleet" are misleading. The fleet that took these particular convicts to Australia was "first" chronologically, not "First" in any order of battle.
On further reflection, I think it was more the British custom to designate particular fleets by their area of operations rather than numbering--e.g., Home Fleet, Channel Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Pacific Fleet, etc.
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
oh ya wanna know about the fist fleet its interesting that author Philip was the best hes the one who done the rest oh ya oh ya oh ya its the best to learn about him oh ya its the best to see him if u wanna know info, so wanna do Wat i told u i know u would love to. sorry i did not complete the song! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.86.108 ( talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead section now mixes discussion and statistics, and has the people stats repeated in different forms. Would somebody with direct access to the stats (for reliability) like to tidy this, probably moving all people stats out of the lead section? -- Wikiain ( talk) 01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, but it is separate for a reason. The top half contains the official number of colonists excluding crew as reported by the government, while the bottom half contains 'calculated' statistics. Since there was no offical crew numbers reported, and the crews eventually left shorly after to continue with their jobs, any attempt will always be speculative, and as such should not be mixed with the official historical numbers. By showing both sets of numbers, the reader can come to their own conclusion as to how reliable the calculated statistics are. David.moreno72 ( talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, David - I had you in mind, of course! What I was thinking of, was to move the first stats passage - from "consisting of ..." to the first footnote - down into a new section together with the other stats passages, and in that section explain (just as you now have) how the different sets of stats have been arrived at. -- Wikiain ( talk) 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds cool. I reckon that sounds like a good idea. David.moreno72 ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Lots better now - I haven't tracked who did the work, but it looks good.-- Wikiain ( talk) 06:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: articles not moved ( snow close). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
– I can't see any reason that the "Australian First Fleet" is any more a primary topic than the "United States First Fleet" or the Imperial Japanese First Fleet" which are also listed at the dab page. Green Giant ( talk) 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The Australian First Fleet is NOT an organizational unit. It therefor classifies as a primary topic. David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I was also wondering if America has a national holiday for when the American 1st Fleet first landed, or when the Japanese fleet first landed. This has been clearly a case by a non-Australian wanting to make changes to sacred Australian history. David.moreno72 ( talk) 02:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
this tag was placed because the article has grammatical errors and the lead section needs intense copyediting to render it adequate. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
What's a "kohi marine"? It is not explained herein neither elsewhere in Wikipedia. -- Oop ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a regular user of wikipedia. I was very happy when I signed up because you can get more information which is very good for research. Hannahgunning1 ( talk) 09:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Signed hannahgunning1
The last three revisions (all by Witeboyrapper) need to be undone. They are all Doctor Who references and really, need I say more?
I don't know if I have enough experience to roll back three changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCastellino ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The supply ships are being tabulated with durations of voyage several days longer than the other ships even though they are tabulated as arriving on the same day. Are these as recorded in a primary source? Or are they just wrong?
Dmoorenh ( talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Some good references for improving this article:
The First Fleet journals held in the State Library of New South Wales are listed in Tales from the First Fleet.
I have removed this because it places a very heavy emphasis on just one of the results, or possible results of European settlement, and gives it undue weight, in an article that is about the First Fleet, rather than the Early Settlement of Sydney. It is almost certain that no Aboriginal person contracted Smallpox while a passenger on the First Fleet.
Moreover, knowing that Smallpox and other European epidemics had decimated the Aboriginal population, historians, some twenty years ago, hit on the tubes of smallpox scabs that were issued to the First Fleet as the answer. In a kind of hysteria, it was very easy to interpret that they were carried to infect the local indigenous population. In fact, nothing could have been further from the truth. The tubes of scabs were used specifically to vaccinate people against Smallpox. When vaccination first came into use, Smallpox scabs were used, causing a (usually) mild case of smallpox. It was then discovered that coxpox could be used just as effectively.
While the medical impact of European settlement on Aboriginal people has a place on Wikipedia, it isn't in this article. Not unless you are setting out to tell the whole story of European impact.
Amandajm ( talk) 08:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That is not agreed. The First Fleet was entirely involved with the arrival of smallpox. Of course any details of the outbreak itself would be best placed elsewhere, but the simple fact that the First Fleet carried the virus that led ti important impacts is relevant. You would not delete themes of artillery from articles covering Napoleonic battles on the basis that they would be better off in articles on the history of France, or articles on the technology of war. An accurate understanding of the First Fleet includes everything it carried, possessed, and ensuing ramifications - anything about early preparations, and even the subsequent fate of the different ships and of various identities - even it would seem - commemoration gardens and fictional works.
However the first large paragraph, introducing aspects concerning Macassans, does seem extraneous, and is damaging the focus.
It is necessary to have some reference to the fact that this area is contentious and some reference for interested viewers to follow-up.
There is no reference in any refereed source that the issue of the First Fleet carrying and introducing smallpox is a so-called "red herring". This is not how First Fleet scholars present the issues. Such tagging represents a private unsubstantiated view.
No academic source says it is 'hysteria'. It would be remiss not to mention probably one of the most significant fact from the First Fleet that differentiates it from similar colonial projects.
Wilcannia ( talk) 02:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That is beside the point. Information on the First Fleet is not confined to "on the conception or execution of the voyage of the Fleet". The first paragraph could go.
In general British colonisation did not spread smallpox. Mixing the issue with other disease spread is not appropriate as this would require extension of the subject to include dysentry, tuberculosis, fevers and venereal diseases. This would need a better informed contributor.
The recent carriage of the issue by Journal Of Royal Historical Society, Bulletin of the Histroy of Medicine, Journal of Australian Studies, and Quadrant is, sourced, appropriate and balanced.
Wilcannia ( talk) 03:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
cambells approach was entirely based on the core principle that smallpox had NOTHING to do with the First Fleet.
Anyone who knows anything about this will know that Cambell is precisely the one author that has no relecvance to the First Fleet. Zero. That was her entire point.
QED.
121.210.12.111 ( talk) 12:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Have trimmed the first para a little, removing information regarding the origins of those referred to as Macassans. Seemed unnecessary for the purposes of this article although perhaps more relevant to other articles where this controversy is discussed more extensively. 58.174.85.158 ( talk) 05:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever is done about location (proposed in next section), the discussion of smallpox could now include Boyd H. Hunter and John Carmody, "Estimating the Aboriginal Population in Early Colonial Australia: The Role of Chickenpox Reconsidered" (2015) 55(2) Australian Economic History Review 112-138. According to one summary, the article argues that chickenpox, which is more infectious than smallpox and can be fatal in adults, was often mistaken for smallpox. Wikiain ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless there is evidence presented of a deliberate conspiracy to introduce smallpox to the aboriginals in the district via the First Fleet or in its orders, this aspect is completely irrelevant to the article. I have deleted the entire content related to smallpox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outback1964 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The smallpox theories and counter-theories have now expanded into a section nearly as long as the content on the entire voyage. This gives it undue weight. The article is about the First Fleet, and should principally cover the ships, the voyage and the people on board. It is not an article on early Australian settlement, or on colonial disease management, or on relations with indigenous Australians. I note also that the smallpox epidemic occurred after the First Fleet had disbanded and sailed away.
Surely at least some of this very extended smallpox content could be moved to other articles which more directly relate to either early Australian settlement or colonial impacts on indigenous Australians. -- Euryalus ( talk) 05:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
References
I've just created an article for the First Fleet Re-enactment Voyage which occurred for the Australian Bicentenary. It probably rates a mention in this article (maybe in the "Legacy" section), but I will leave it up to more involved editors as to what and how much is added. -- saberwyn 04:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The tables listing the vessels all have a column giving the date of departure from Portsmouth. As the date is the same for all, there is no reason devote a column in each of two tables to this info. I would remove the column myself if I knew more about the formatting of tables, but I don't. Also, there is a long quotation that names the vessels, their tons burthen, the number of convicts, crew, marines, etc. Can't we just incorporate any material that isn't already in the article somewhere else into a table and be done with it? Regards, Acad Ronin ( talk) 22:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Fleet. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Location of the First Fleet Bicentential Monument is Brighton-Le-Sands,NSW not Sans Souci. see https://sydney-city.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/brighton-le-sands-first-fleet.html Ausg123 ( talk) 08:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on First Fleet. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the date is correct but where did the date come from? Needs a reference. jayoval ( talk) 05:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Reference 59 does not exist 106.69.10.145 ( talk) 14:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
t
c
15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)