Talk:Australia/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Population data

Colony/state populations as a percentage of total population

Can someone find a nice place for this? The data comes from Changing patterns of population distribution in Australia --CloudSurfer 22:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

thanks, added to demographics of Australia. clarkk 14:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Australia in the Pacific?

A question has arisen in Talk:Pacific Ocean as to whether it's fair to say (as Pacific Ocean does) that Australia is "in" that Ocean. Australia is bounded on the west by the Indian Ocean, no? And on the south by the Southern Ocean, by the Oz definition of that. So is it considered to be "in" the Pacific? Sharkford 20:17, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Prehaps "on the edge of", or "the southwestern boundary of", instead of "in". T.P.K. 07:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The most likely reason for Australia being specified as being in the pacific is because where the majority of the population is which is in the eastern states, they face the pacific ocean, as a result it would be our dominant trading port, however you have a point. Perhaps Australia should have its own mini-ocean, to settle the dispute.

Pronunciation of Australia

I despise stereotypical Australian accents. The l is NOT elided. Does anyone have any evidence to suggest otherwise? Comment on the above: I despise people who say things like I despise the "stereotypical Australian" accent/ you are clearly a pompas arse.

Besides, an Australian would say Q_rstr\{Ili6.

I'd question the value of rendering the pronounication in such an obscure fashion. Me, I say "a-strail-ya"

moved a paragraph from economy section, pending sources and npov

moved from "economy" section in article, pending sources and npov-ing (this was added by an anonymous ip contributor), it seems a little too pro-liberal partisan, somebody with more economics than me needs to back this up with sources and apply npov where necessary: clarkk 06:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These reforms have coincided with strong total factor productivity growth in the Australian economy. The strong supply-side policies implemented during this period have also been aided by the successful macroeconomic management of the Australian economy, which have complemented the supply-side policies in achieving some of the lowest interest rates in two decades, price stability and a low unemployment rate.

Earliest arrival?

On the date of earliest human arrival, I haven't seen any evidence to support a date of 80,000 years ago, or for that matter 60,000 years ago. See this New Scientist article (which references a journal article in Nature if somebody wants to look it up), this page, or this article by Tim Flannery, all suggesting the mainstream opinion is around 45-50 thousand years ago. --Robert Merkel 04:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is evidence of occupation over 100,000 years ago, Robert, but it comes from a single site, and has been strongly disputed. It doesn't seem to be taken seriously anymore. Most experts now seem to think that the correct date falls between 40,000 and 60,000 years. Flannery has mentioned various dates over his career (as new evidence comes to hand) the 47,000 in the article you linked to; 53,000 in a recent book. (I'm not sure which figure - the 47,000 or the 53,000 - represents Flannery's current view.)
Michael Archer in Going Native (Hodder, 2004) more-or-less accepts around 50,000 years as a given, but goes on to say that many Australian archaeologists believe that significantly older dates are plausible - dates in the order of 55,000 to 75,000 years ago. Archer writes: Given the Flores discoveries and their consequences for understanding the dispersal capabilities of H.ergaster and/or H. erectus immediately on our doorstep, we can't see why the real dates for human arrival in Australia shouldn't turn out to be much earlier than currently accepted, even well in excess of 100,000 years.
Archer laments the rise in sea levels that mean that the most likely sites to investigate for evidence of early occupation - i.e., seashore sites - are 120 metres underwater now. Nevertheless, he is confident that evidence can still be found further inland, and will be found eventually.
Despite all the above, both Archer and Flannery agree that the oldest firm dates we have are around 50,000 years ago, give or take. Older dates than this remain speculative. Tannin 23:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll try to rewrite to reflect that. --Robert Merkel 02:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Tannin

Any reason why Australia's capital city isn't Canberra and it's monarch Elizabeth II?

Draig Goch20

I'm sorry.. I dont understand. - Aaron Hill 02:06, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
A) It is B) It is. And so says the article.--MEYazYaz06:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Queen here? I don't think so

While I support the Queen's picture at Government of Australia, I do not support it here. It would be more appropriate to use John Howard's picture (and update it to new Prime ministers, if they ever come).--ZayZayEM 04:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just replaced the picture. I don't know which annoys me more, but JH's picture is definitely the more appropriate given the actual influence both figures have on Australia's government. --Robert Merkel 06:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you both. Tannin 12:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Additional demographic information Silm 29 Nov. 2004

Suggest 40 possible wiki links and 3 possible backlinks for Australia.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Australia article:

  • Can link 2nd century AD: ...tin]] ''australis'' meaning ''southern'', and dates back to 2nd century AD legends of an "unknown southern land" (''i.e.'' ''terra aus... (link to section)
  • Can link scientific name: ...dicus'' or [[New Holland]], a name which is recalled in the scientific name of the native [[cockatiel]], ''Nymphicus hollandicus'', a b... (link to section)
  • Can link scientific evidence: ... still a subject of considerable research. There is strong scientific evidence for a presence around 50,000 years ago, a period of massive... (link to section)
  • Can link American colonies: ...blishment of a penal colony there following the loss of the American colonies.... (link to section)
  • Can link Port Jackson: ...tablishment of a settlement (later to become [[Sydney]]) in Port Jackson by Captain [[Arthur Phillip]] on [[January 26]], [[1788]]. ... (link to section)
  • Can link First Fleet: ...p]] on [[January 26]], [[1788]]. The date of arrival of the First Fleet was later to become the date of Australia's national day, [... (link to section)
  • Can link national day: ...the First Fleet was later to become the date of Australia's national day, [[Australia Day]]. ... (link to section)
  • Can link responsible government: ...w was adopted in each colony at the time of the granting of responsible government, and was subsequently modified by the individual legislatur... (link to section)
  • Can link social reform: ...ation as a 'working man's paradise' and as a laboratory for social reform, with the world's first [[secret ballot]] and first nationa... (link to section)
  • Can link Executive Council: ...ent of Australia|Commonwealth Parliament]] *Executive - the Executive Council (Governor-General, Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Minist... (link to section)
  • Can link act of parliament: ...mmittee of the Privy Council]] for final appeal. With this act of parliament, Australian law was made unequivocally the law in the natio... (link to section)
  • Can link Australian law: ...y Council]] for final appeal. With this act of parliament, Australian law was made unequivocally the law in the nation, and the [[Hig... (link to section)
  • Can link court of appeal: Court of Australia]] was confirmed as the single highest court of appeal. The theoretical possibility of the British Parliament ena... (link to section)
  • Can link British Parliament: ...ighest court of appeal. The theoretical possibility of the British Parliament enacting laws to override the Australian Constitution was a... (link to section)
  • Can link lower house: ...atives]] (or lower house) with 150 Members. Members of the lower house are elected on a population basis from single-member consti... (link to section)
  • Can link sea port: ...s [[Jervis Bay Territory]] which serves as a naval base and sea port for the national capital.... (link to section)
  • Can link land mass: ...Australia is [[desert]] or [[semi-arid]] — 40% of the land mass is covered by [[sand dune]]s. Only the south-east and south... (link to section)
  • Can link temperate climate: ... dune]]s. Only the south-east and south-west corners have a temperate climate and moderately fertile soil. The northern part of the count... (link to section)
  • Can link tropical climate: ...rately fertile soil. The northern part of the country has a tropical climate: part is tropical [[rainforest]]s, part grasslands, and par... (link to section)
  • Can link mixed economy: ... [[20th century]], Australia had a prosperous Western-style mixed economy, with a per capita [[Gross domestic product|GDP]] on par wi... (link to section)
  • Can link Western European: ...[Gross domestic product|GDP]] on par with the four dominant Western European economies. In recent years, the Australian economy has been... (link to section)
  • Can link economic downturn: ...Australian economy has been resilient in the face of global economic downturn, with steady growth. Rising output in the domestic economy... (link to section)
  • Can link Bob Hawke: ...h. In the [[1980s]], the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, played a crucial role in modern... (link to section)
  • Can link Paul Keating: ... Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, played a crucial role in modernizing Australia's economy. ... (link to section)
  • Can link labour market: ...m policies. Some have claimed that the deregulation of the labour market during this period has resulted in a needed flexibility in ... (link to section)
  • Can link labour force: this period has resulted in a needed flexibility in the labour force. Others have criticised these deregulations as having a neg... (link to section)
  • Can link Coalition government: ...ency towards wage bargaining). Also during this period, the Coalition government deregulated numerous other industries, including the teleco... (link to section)
  • Can link natural monopolies: ...munications sector, and privatised many of the pre-existing natural monopolies. ... (link to section)
  • Can link a level: ... growth. [[As of October 2004]], unemployment had fallen to a level of 5.2%, the lowest level since the late [[1970s]]. ... (link to section)
  • Can link raw materials: ... of 5.2%, the lowest level since the late [[1970s]]. Many raw materials (including resources postulated to exist but yet to be disc... (link to section)
  • Can link Britain and Ireland: ...the 1850s about two per cent of the combined populations of Britain and Ireland emigrated to New South Wales and Victoria.... (link to section)
  • Can link developed countries: ...on, according to the 2001 Census. In common with many other developed countries, Australia is currently experiencing a demographic shift to... (link to section)
  • Can link aging population: ...has now joined the Australian vocabulary. Because of the aging population, Australia maintains one of the most active immigration pro... (link to section)
  • Can link tertiary education: ...ew Zealand citizens are excluded from government subsidised tertiary education or other advantages granted to Australian citizens and perm... (link to section)
  • Can link spoken language: ...ies. [[English language|English]] is the main official and spoken language in Australia, although some of the surviving Aboriginal com... (link to section)
  • Can link the early days: ...ustralia has had a significant school of [[painting]] since the early days of European settlement, and Australians with international ... (link to section)
  • Can link art galleries: ...rized work of many Aboriginal artists. There are excellent art galleries (even in surprisingly small towns); a rich tradition in bal... (link to section)
  • Can link popular music: ...arey]] and [[Nobel Prize]] winner [[Patrick White]]. In the popular music sphere band and musicians (some notable examples include th... (link to section)
  • Can link television networks: ...nd the United States. Australia has three major commercial television networks, the [[Nine Network]], [[Seven Network]] and the [[Ten Netw... (link to section)
  • Can link Press Freedom: ...tralia is in 41st position on a list of countries ranked by Press Freedom; well behind [[New Zealand]] (9th) and [[United Kingdom]] (... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

  • In Alfred Deakin, can backlink Australian Commonwealth: ...vernment passed much of the foundational legislation of the Australian Commonwealth, including bills to create an Australian currency and an Au...
  • In Black Rod, can backlink Australian Commonwealth: ... only used on visits from the [[Lieutenant Governor]]s. The Australian Commonwealth Senate has Ms Andrea Griffiths as Usher of the Black Rod an...
  • In Thomas Playford II, can backlink Australian Commonwealth: involve himself in the planning of the Federation of the Australian Commonwealth and drafting the Federal Constitution. As part of this, he...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link toLinkBot 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Population Density and "Interesting Facts"

Australia is more densely populated than (refer to List of countries by population density and [1]):

And an interesting facts section? Please no. - Aaron Hill 07:04, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The source I used was [2]. can you atleast incorporate those facts somehow instead of just deleting them? --Hemanshu 10:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well the density fact is wrong.. and define "a beach". It's too vague to be verifiable in my opinion. - Aaron Hill 03:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't Australia have the longest shoreline of any country in the world? That sounds more like a verifiable fact. - Mark 08:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's quite a good point, I'll try and find a source for it. - Aaron Hill 23:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's beaten by Canada? Possibly Russia as well. -- Chuq 01:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, a quick google search indicates the crown goes to Canada. - Mark 13:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

parameterised infobox_country template

the bugs in parameterised templates seem to be largely ironed out, so it may be time to consider using the infobox country template. in any case, just so it doesn't get lost and is here for discussion (i originally had it in the article as an html comment, but it was recently removed), here is what it would look like:

removed template, it was out of date, and is now included in the article directly. clarkk 11:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


You can also use template:australia infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 23:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yeah, but the whole point of the parameterised version is that it used to get consistency across all countries. all the template does above is move the infobox wikitext outside of the article. however it would be useful for the above template to use, in turn, the parameterised template. clarkk 22:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole continent?

I know this is an established notion that is by no means limited to this article, but it's just occurred to me - if the country of Australia comprises the whole of the continent of Australia, what continent is New Zealand part of? Surely not Asia? pomegranate 12:33, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding, New Zealand isn't a part of any true continent, but is a part of Oceania or Australasia, which is a 'region', one which also contains the continent of Australia. At least that's what I think. T.PK 13:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
New Zealand is not part of any continent, or continental shelf. Australia is a continent, and its continental shelf includes the islands of Tasmania and New Guinea, just as Europe's continental shelf includes the UK.--Cyberjunkie 13:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, so the UK's not in Europe - at last! Guess this all depends on whether you're talking about some kind of 'geographic' definition of a contintent, or whether you're deviding the world into 8 continents which contain all the landmass of the world. If the first then Australia is it's own (geographic) continent (i.e. a very very big island), but if the second then Australia is part of Oceania, just as the the UK is part of the continent of Europe but the British Isles sit on the edge of the European continent. Clear?! (JD)

Please the article is fine now

I recently went through the article, and realigned the population, and GDP figures as they were spaced out and looked messy.

I notice some person has come back to space it out again, go to other countries pages and you find that they keep their stats together rather than spaced out.

Also, the queens picture does not need to be there, in Australia we only just acknowledge her and to advertise what she looks like on the Australian page is irrelevant and entirely unncessary.

She is Queen of England, and only is Queen of Australia by name only, nothing more.

As for the satellite photo of Australia, this is also unnecessary and causes the articles to be overcrowded, a landform and political map are quite adequate.

i think many australians will disagree with your comment about the queen. in any event, her picture is relevant. Xtra 04:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
comment, your making it sound like its over the top for an australian, no way. she is english, therefore her photos and other information should be on the UK page, the most relevant idea is that she is merely a figurehead head-of-state here, nothing more.
check the results of the referendum mate! other than any of her other functions she is the queen of australia. i will revert any of your anti-monarchistic vandalism to this page. nothing more to say. Xtra 14:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
do you know why they lost? australians favoured a republic, they just did not want the government electing the head-of-state for themselves, and letting the PM sack the head-of-state when he felt like, the system couldn't of worked that was proposed, had their of being an elected head-of-state it probably would have won. the days of australia being inferior to britain both formally and politically are over. ok, and how about we dont have your pro-monarchist vandalism on this page, putting the queen's picture there as if we admire her is a form of anti-australian vandalism.

Note: I am solidly republican. However worthless having a foreign monarch as head of state is, the fact remains, that legally (constitutionally) she still remains so. It would be negligent to not note that she is 'Queen of Australia' - the supposed pinnacle of our legal system. As such, a picture of her is obligitory - though perhaps the picture could be changed to one where she is actually acting in her prescribed role (the few times she does). I reject that she be pictured more than once, or anywhere other than beside the information regarding her 'royal' self. And to Xtra and Anonymous, no need for threats etc, and the talk page need not be used to espouse ideological opinions. (oops).<--Cyberjunkie 15:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is true - furthermore she is not English (she is British of German descent). Nor is she Queen of England, which office has not existed since the 1707 Act of Union. --JohnArmagh 18:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
you want to by anymore precise? I think it was pretty easy to work out what I ment. Queen of the UK or whatever, to be quite honest why does it matter? the fact is, she has no power here or any power she does have she wouldn't dare use, we dont sing god save the queen anymore, and she has disappeared off our $5 note now, so really she becomes more and more irrelevant everyday, so lets acknowledge the inevitable future, and just say she is a figurehead only.
to anonnomous. i am well aware of all the facts pertaining to the referendum. i followed it quite closely. and for the record i am a pragmatic / sentimental monarchist / minimalist republican and i supported the model on offer. Xtra 01:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To anyone who knows the difference between English and British it matters. Plus, the fact is also that the lady has no more power in the UK than she does in Australia (or anywhere else outside of the House of Windsor and it's hangers-on) - in the UK a law requires Royal Assent - but she knows that if she does not give it then she risks losing her job. All the rest is pomp and ceremony. Also it is a basic tenet of an encyclopædia is that it should be as precise and unambiguous as the scope of the work allows. --JohnArmagh 08:09, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do know the difference, British can mean anyone from the island of Great Britain whilst someone from England the sub-nation is English. However, because this is talking about Australia, that is irrelevant. As there is a large difference between English and British, there is also a large difference between a proper head-of-state, and a merely legal one. I will repeat once again, the photo is irrelevant, there is no point to be proven, a reminder in the text is quite adequate. It is bad enough that we have a foreigner as our theoretical head-of-state, let alone glorifying it by inputting a picture of the head-of-state. john howard's picture is essential, and if there need be another one, then put the governor-general there. by having the picture there it is a creating a pro-monarchist bias in the page, and this should not be encouraged under any circumstance.

The fact is that the Queen is the de jure head of state, albeit represented in every de facto instance by the Governor-General. Like-it-or-not. Personally I don't - but the facts are the facts until (and if and when) things change. There is a monarchist following in Australia - and they currently have their way. The job of the encyclopaedia is to accurately depict the historical and current state of affairs. When it changes then the text/illustrations will change. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether there are any images of any officials or not. The majority of the country articles do not. Maybe they should - who knows? If the other countries start including pictures of the heads of state I am of the opinion that both the de facto and de jure should be included. Even if either of those happen to be either a) a foreigner or b) one who gets the job because of their hereditary position and c) there is a substantial portion of people in the country who disagree with either a) or b) or both. You have to tell things how they are - but that does not mean you can't also mention that not everyone agrees with how things are. --JohnArmagh 11:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very well, then a clear reminder on the page that the republican following in Australia is large should be adequate.
Just a note. A survey of 18,000 residents of Victoria found only 50% support for a republic in that state [3].

moving template to article

unless somebody strenously objects, i'm going to move the parameterised template (above) in the article and remove the hard-coded box. it's now being more widely deployed (including on the New Zealand page) and has most of the kinks worked out and looks good. clarkk 11:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

are you the one responsible for the messing up of the statistics? if so, can you please clean them up to their previous state.
nope, i copied the ones that were originally on the page into the template. could you point go through the article history and link to version you are talking about, then we could both fix it. clarkk 05:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
two issues, one does the australian flag image have to be so big? when i click on it, all i see is a union jack, if i was in the wrong mood, i would consider that offensive, but i then realised that the australian flag was FAR bigger than it needed to be. also, why do the GDP statistics have to be so precise, they look much more tidy if they are rounded off to the nearest $100 million for the GDP and the nearest $100 for the per capita GDP.
Well, its best to have a large image so it can be resized on the fly to an appropriate size for several articles... - Aaron Hill 10:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
In my attempts to portray accurate flags, symbols, et al. for all countries listed in Wikipedia, I've redrawn, recoloured, and resized (to a consistent fly width) Australia's flag. Note that flag images can be placed in higher-resolution alternate formats for anyone to use in the WikiMedia Commons. Moreover, the use of image size tags in articles can have images appear larger or smaller. Anyhow, enjoy! - E Pluribus Anthony 01:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Need for a Geology section

I noticed there isn't a geology section, can anyone contribute that? --Commander Keane 12:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lack of photographs

Surely there can be more and better photographs on this page than the two that are currently there: Queen Elizabeth and John Howard! There are so many choices: countryside, photos of regular people, cities, beaches, etc etc. Somebody should really add photos to this page. Look at other countries' pages for a sense of what's possible. Moncrief 20:17, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

i agree, i've just added a few images to spice up the page, using relevant images in the individual sections. clarkk 04:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional role of the Queen

The article stated: in practice virtually the entire constitutional role of the monarch is performed independently by the Governor-General. This was misleading, because the constitutional role of the monarch in Australia is extremely limited. About all she does and can do is to appoint the Governor-General, and she has no discretion in the matter. The prerogative powers that the Queen exercises in the UK are explicitly given to the Governor-General in the constitution, and they derive from the people rather than the Queen. Skyring 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I seriously doubt the necessity of a link template for this organisation. It is not particularly relevant to the Australia article, nor is any gain brought by its listing. Should it remain?--Cyberjunkie 05:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like it either. Foobaz·o< 06:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. Xtra 06:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
like other specialised templates like this, i suggest making it a footer of Economy of Australia as has been done with the APEC template etc. clarkk 12:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was the best choice, I think. I've nothing against the orgaisation, it's just that it should have been placed somewhere overtly relevant to do it justice.--Cyberjunkie 03:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military section

In my opinion, a military section is missing. 15:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note section, which contains a link to Military of Australia. It is not necessary that this be discussed in the Australia article.--Cyberjunkie 15:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not quite right, we should at least link to it from here. -- 14:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As aforementioned, the link is contained on the page, under the Related topics sub-heading. My point was, that there need not be a discussion of the military in the article - hence the link.--Cyberjunkie 03:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dame Edna

If someone better versed in such matters could see their way to somehow subtley referencing Dame Edna in this article (in the Culture section?) the whole world would appreciate it.