Talk:Convict

what's wrong eith the article &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.50.111 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * I was wondering that too. Why the globalize tag? Astrokey44 12:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is entirely about convicts in the British penal system, and 90% about convicts transported to Australia. British convicts were also sent to Canada, India, and New Zealand. France sent convicts to French Guiana and New Caledonia.  One could argue that the Russian criminals shipped to Siberia were convicts.  Although I didn't place the tag there, I agree that it is reasonable. Snottygobble | Talk 02:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(Where) does 'convict' imply 'transportation'?
AFAIK 'convict' is still used to mean 'convicted person' or 'prisoner' in modern British English, and does not carry an implication of deportation into exile. However, I am assured that in Australia, one would not use the word to describe a modern convicted person or prisoner, since the historical connotation of 'ancestor transported to Australia from the UK' is too strong. The intro to the article seems to follow British usage, while the later comment on Siberian exiles implies that a 'convict' is necessarily transported.

Are there any experts out there who can clarify who uses which usage? Thortveitite (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Highlite the historical role of convictism in the context of imperialism, i.e. colonisation
I think it's interesting the way that convicts are treated in Australian national history - especially in respect of the fact that Australia wasn't alone in being a country, to which convicts were deported. I think this is worthy of discussion. I was talking to an American recently, who believed that (i) Australia was entirely settled by convicts and (ii) convicts weren't sent to the US. A major contributor to this belief is that the initial colonisation of Australia (by England) consisted primarily of military personnel and convicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_fleet). That Phillip's "First Fleet" transported convicts from the United Kingdom to Australia is not debatable. What is debatable is, what effect this had on Australian society? But in the case of this article in particular, what motivated England to colonise Australia? And how did England go about achieving its goals? Would it be possible to place convictism in some kind of historical context? A context separated from, a much later occurring, national history? -Joe Gain 12 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.114.200 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Convict on TV
Is "convict" a word that cannot be uttered and must be bleeped out or otherwise obscured when played on American TV? Otherwise, why is the word "convict" muted or changed to be sang like "conshit" on MTV in Akon's video for "Smack Dat"? -Mike Payne 02:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad date
I was just on another site that said that the convict transportation to australia was abolished on 1 october 1850. someone check the dates. --Will James 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No I think that was eastern Australia only - Western Australia started getting convicts in 1850. See Convict era of Western Australia. Graham 87 11:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Convict. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060918042359/http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/law/justice/convict/convict.cfm to http://www.atmitchell.com/journeys/law/justice/convict/convict.cfm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)