Talk:New South Wales

Naming of NSW

Hello all i reverted a recent edit because the previous version was more accurate and concise. We have the various versions of Cooks journals and he simply changed his mind regarding the name, as he did with various other place names.See Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

NZ and WA

@Aemilius Adolphin: Greetings! Regarding this revert, I was wondering what your concern was about accuracy? Territorial evolution of Australia and History of New Zealand do say that the colony of New Zealand started out as part of NSW, after some early settlements had already been established. I mention "Western Australia" because most readers won't know what "Swan River Colony" is referring to. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello there.

1) There is too much detail about a minor event in NSW history. I have summarised it. The detail is covered in the main article on WA.

2) There is debate on whether NZ was ever part of NSW. The instructions to the first 5 governors of NSW only refer to "offshore islands". If NZ was intended as one of the offshore islands, why did the southern limit of jurisdiction cut off half of the south Island of NZ? The NSW supreme court had jusisdiction over NZ but only because it was the nearest court able to dispense British justice. This is discussed in Beverly Kingston. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: Would you be OK with changing "Swan River Colony" to "Western Australia", then, since the latter has been used for a much longer time period? That would make the intro more comprehensible without adding any detail.

Do you have a quote from Beverly Kingston that makes the argument that NZ was never part of NSW? It appears even the NZ government thinks at least part of the country was annexed to NSW in 1839.[1]. There is no mention of any dispute about this annexation being valid under British law on Territorial evolution of Australia, History of New Zealand, Governor-General of New Zealand, George Gipps, Colony of New South Wales, or New Zealand...none of those articles cite Beverly Kingston. It seems like if there's a real dispute, all those articles would need to be changed. -- Beland (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the lead? You can't change "The Swan River Colony" to "Western Australia" because they aren't the same thing. Western Australia was briefly administered by NSW (although it was never part of NSW). The Swan River Colony was never administered by NSW.

As for NZ, the discussion is whether NZ was part of NSW before 1840 when it became part of NSW for a few months as a temporary measure. This isn't a major part of NSW history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI - discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales

Just spreading widely, I've started a discussion on Talk:Government of New South Wales#Organisation of NSW government articles to review the organisation of NSW government-related articles. Please feel free to review and input :) Tim (Talk) 06:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Cook, 1770 claim, and New Zealand

I think the relevant section could be improved slightly on what is otherwise a good article IMO. Cook's claim to the whole eastern coast was of limited use without formal occupation, which happened in 1788. Cook had created an inchoate (partial) title. The wording here implies that by raising the flag on the beach the whole eastern half of Australia became British. The 1974, Beagelehole source clarifies that Cook's claim alone was of little use but that isn't made clear in the article which is using Cook's quoted words as a primary source. This puts into perspective what happened in 1788 when Phillip cemented Cook's claim by establishing the NSW colony more formally by occupation and an administrative structure. The sources used do not contradict that. I think the NZ link refered to is not ideal. The article says (I paraphrase) that NZ was also part of NSW but there was some ambiguity which caused a few problems until NZ was released in 1841 to become a colony of its own. NZ was not part of NSW. The closest British authority to NZ was in Sydney which accounts for the NSW connection. (NZ is hardly 'adjacent' to Australia with a 3,000 mile gap) I think there was some genuine ambiguity about the extent of British law (which could be exercised from Sydney), about whether it applied to seamen on British ships wherever they were, such as in NZ harbours. The UK govt knew this which is why NZ did became 'part of' NSW in 1839 when the eastern boundaries of NSW were extended and clarified. So NZ was only part of NSW for a short time until NZ became a colony in its own right. Reference in the article to the Elizabeth incident on Banks Peninsular makes it clear that NZ was not part of NSW, which contradicts the earlier assertion that it was in all but name. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Pedant alert: NZ is less than 1400 miles from NSW. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A typo - mi for km. The intent of what I said is unaffected of course - it's a very long way. Not sure if by pedant you are referring to yourself which I will assume you are. Personally, I think you are being too hard on yourself. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content about New Zealand which was not even supported by the cited source. The issue about the status of New Zealand before it was formally annexed to NSW (for a few months) is covered in the History of New South Wales article. As for Cook's claim of NSW, the article states clearly that Cook "claimed the entire coastline that he had just explored as British territory." This is accurate. It does not state or imply that he claimed the entire eastern half of the continent. The issue of whether Cook's claim created a "partial or incoate title" is a technical legal argument about the state of international law at the time. It is beyond the scope of this article which is a high level article about NSW. The only relevant fact is that Cook claimed the east coast of NSW for Britain. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. Returning to Cook, and this is far from trivial, it is fundamental to what we all want WP to be, this is what the article says:

In 1770, James Cook charted the unmapped eastern coast of the continent of New Holland, now Australia, and claimed the entire coastline that he had just explored as British territory.[10] The source used is Beaglehole 1974, here who was a professional historian so is safe as a RSS, if a bit dated. The source quotes from Cook's journal, which means that part is a primary source, which means what we say about it is original research unless its meaning and intent is unambiguously obvious, which here it isn't. Cook says: In the name of His Majesty King George the Third [I] took possession of... To claim, as written in this WP article, and to take possession of are quite different in meaning. What the secondary source actually says, in the following paragraph, which is not mentioned in the article is that Cook's journal entry was vague and not worth much anyway. There's always a problem in using isolated parts of a source because what we write is often out of context and hence either wrong or misleading. Misquoting the bit we have used doesn't make things any easier either. Now, I agree that the concept of discovery (and the need for active possession) and claiming title is beyond the scope of this article but I don't think that allows us to leave out critical detail - we just have to give more thought to what we do write, even if that means adding another line or two (and reading the sources properly). There will of course be editors who are satisfied with writing down something that at first reading looks correct, even if it isn't, and who will use the first sentence of the first source they find. IMO, the simplest way to improve this section, besides not interpreting primary sources, is to make it clear that Cook's proclamations in 1770 were the step leading to sovereignty being later obtained by Phillip in 1788. I hope it is self-explanatory that what might here appear to be small adjustments are in fact of fundamental importance. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what your exact concern is. I have added a statement that Cook defied instructions in claiming NSW. If it is the word "claim" that concerns you I have added a reliable secondary source which uses that word. Blainey states that Cook made: "a formal claim to the whole coast extending back to the lattitude of 38 degrees south." I don't think we need a sentence stating "this was a step to the colonisation of NSW" because the very next paragraph tells you this. Nor do we need to specify that Cook did not give precise western coordinates of the claim. This is irrelevant to the fact that he claimed the coast and called it New South Wales. I have expanded the article History of New South Wales to fill in the steps to colonisation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)