Talk:Thomas Austin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is important as it outlines the individual who is widely believed to be soley responsible for the introduction of a noctious pest into Australia.
I have searched through wikipedia and as yet found no reference to his life.
Contents |
[edit] Incompatible birthdates?
The given birthdates for Austin (1870 or 74) seem to contradict the timeline for his introduction of rabbits in 1859. Perhaps the birthdate belongs to a different individual?
- I've removed the birth, death and family tree information. It is clearly the wrong Thomas Austin. Rocksong 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rabbits!
Why is it that the only thing anyone seems to know about Thomas Austin is his contribution to Australia's rabbit saga? I've added an external reference as a prelude to writing a more balanced biography. MulgaBill 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's the only thing of historical note which he ever did. Rocksong 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
I've rewritten the article and moved all the info on rabbits to Rabbits in Australia. MulgaBill 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd still like rabbits to be given more prominence; such as a mention in the first paragraph. If it wasn't for the rabbits, Austin would be a person of extremely minor historical imporatance, and he wouldn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Rocksong 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redlinked names
I've undone Peter Ballard's removal of the redlinked names. Thomas's brother James, and his wife Elizabeth were notable in several ways (James = Mayor of Geelong & Glastonbury, Eng; Elizabeth = benefactor of Austin Hospital, Melb, and Austin Homes, Geelong). Just because no one's written an entry on them yet, doesn't mean one couldn't or shouldn't, and the redlink serves as a prompt (Yeah, I know, I should write something myself - one day, one day!) Oh, and whether Thomas was of 'extremely minor historical imporatance' [sic] depends on your perspective, doesn't it, Rocksong? There are plenty of people with entries who seem rather trivial to me, but I respect the contributions they have made, and the significance that others attribute to them. I'm frequently looking up 'minor' people or events to check a fact, or flesh out a topic. After all, isn't that the purpose of a comprehensive, accessible encyclopedia like Wikipedia? MulgaBill 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Credited?
Perhaps 'credited with' should be changed to 'noted for' or something similar? Surely there's nothing positive about the introduction of rabbits to Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joystick74 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

