Talk:Australia

Most desirable: Australia near the top

Someone should add in that Australia is ranked the third most desirable country to live in a United Nations report. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikunit (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Naaaaaah. If we are gunna add stuff like that lets add everything the United Nations have ever said about Australia. And if we do that, I am pretty sure it won't all be complimentary. Let's not open up that can of worms. Australia is a great place to live, but let's not brag about it to people. Ryan Albrey (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You Traitor! --Simpsons fan 66 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

major parties?

I don't think the Nationals Party is a major party. They are a minor party, who form government with a major party. I haven't changed this.Mickpower 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Historically the Nationals win about 10% of the seats in the house of reps, which although is admittedly well off the pace of the Labor or Liberal parties, is significant, and constitutes a major party. It is my opinion that the article should stay as is. dialagranny 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess Dialagranny has a point. I was going to argue the same point as Mickpower but thinking about it now... I dunno. I guess any party that is able to crack a few seats in the HOR probably deserves to be regarded as a serious (read: major) player in politics. But lets not get confused into thinking that this is because they have "major party" levels of support Australia wide. They have zero support in urban areas. They manage to score seats in regional areas because they have the unique characteristic among Australian political parties of having their power very centralised in particular areas of the country (farming country). If they had the same level of support they enjoy now, but it were spread more evenly (regional AND urban Australia) across the country they would have no HOR seats or very few (say like the greens). In summary they are a major party if you want to look at how many seats they have in the HOR but they are NOT a major party if you want to look at the overall level of support they have with the general population of Australia. Ryan Albrey (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the results of the recent (2007-11) election, there are two major parties, and two minor parties (Greens and National) with enough support to have more than a single seat in the Senate, or any seats in the HOR. Per Ryan's point, the Greens have more overall voting support than the Nationals, and the disparity between Green and National HOR representation is an artifact of voter distribution, not overall support. And even then, the gap between the two majors and everyone else is considerably greater than the gap between the Greens and Nationals and everyone else. Perhaps it would be fair to note that there are two 'major' parties, several minor parties with representation in Parliament, and everyone else. --Jlundell (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well is there a clearcut definition of "major party" that actually solves this one way or the other? (Preferably one that isn't a battleground of partisans trying to draw the definition in such a way to include or exclude their own preferred party.) Especially when it comes to parties that regularly fight elections as part of an established combination - is one of the major groups "the Liberals" or "the Coalition"? On the one hand you're right that the Nationals poll a significantly lower level of support (though it's dodgey to make absolute statements about "zero support" in areas where they don't stand at all for the House and run on a joint ticket for the Senate since this is untested), but on the other hand the Nationals are regularly part of the government at the Commonwealth level (as often as the Liberals have been) and arguably carry far more weight in politics that raw numbers suggest. For example can it be proved or disproved that either of the individual Coalition parties get first preference votes from voters who'd prefer the other party but don't have it on their ballot paper? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are likely to find any dictionary definition of the term "major party". Therefore I think we should resolve the dispute by removing the term "major party" which is a wishy-washy term with as many definitions as there are political parties. We should be specific. We should state the top 3 parties by HOR representation. We should state the top 6 parties by the number of first preference votes they each receive Australia wide. Ryan Albrey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Internal Links

I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kathleen.wright5. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.58.242 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ocean names

Interesting article. I see only one facet upon which Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) do not have an "authoritative leg up." Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). (Also see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....this article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .

For good or bad (bad if you're a fan of Australian maps and terminology), they have decided that Australia is a continent sitting in the Indian Ocean, with the Pacific along its eastern side. They publish this with carefully delineated borders for these water bodies (see that mentioned in the WP Great Australian Bight article. So, certainly not for Australian use, but for a worldwide English encylopedia, it's "Indian Ocean", not "Southern Ocean." The IHO very clearly ruled (after a vote of member nations) that the "Southern Ocean" stops at 60 degrees south, and north of that its the Indian Ocean. Not debatable, unless you want to try to overturn the worldwide and WP-wide acceptance of the IHO as the authority on these matters. (Water bodies that Australia does not share with other nations are a different matter, of course.)

This is how world geographers (and the IHO) avoid having several names for various sides of various oceans. Having done the South Coast Track in Tasmania and looking southwest off the cliffs (an amazing place; huge old growth trees, remote beaches) and saying something to a local about the big Indian Ocean waves and getting an incredulous stare, I know this doesn't make sense locally.....But it's an international encyclopedia.DLinth 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

origanly the indian ocean was called Arseotopia ocean but got change in year 1742 by captain john yorknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ally-nightmare (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, and apologies - I forgot to look at a map! (There have been a lot of edits in other articles to remove the "Southern Ocean"; in my haste, I presumed that this was the same thing.) I've made a minor edit to the text, and combined the two references into one. Again, sorry! (Darn Canadians...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an internal link to oceania, or something else that australia is a member of is our region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANZUS (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems as good a place as any to try to centralise a discussion on what the name of the wet stuff immediately south of Australia is called. Here's what I've discovered so far:

It appears that Southern Ocean#History says that only 14 countries voted in favour of using the name "Southern Ocean" and defining it to be no further north than 60° South. That's not many countries, even out of only 68 members of the IHO. Neither article says what countries are bound by the decision, or whether it needs to be (or has been) ratified by their respective governments. Just because the IHO has decreed something maynot make it so (everywhere). Australia is a member of the IHO, represented by the Royal Australian Navy Hydrographic Service. A search for "Southern Ocean" in their Maritime Gazetteer of Australia (MGA) Search yields 34 results, only 6 of which are south of 60° South latitude. Particularly relevant to this discussion is the third match, at 35°0'S, 115°0'E, from chart Aus335 near Cape Leeuwin. I think the statement that Bass Strait and the Great Australian Bight are in the Indian Ocean and not the Southern Ocean is far from universally true.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Times Atlas (UK, #1 world atlas), CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names, etc., etc., and nearly all non-Australian atlases and maps strictly show the Southern Ocean as below 60 degrees lat. All sources go on and on about it being defined as an ocean due to its hydro characteristics....a cold, polar current circling Antarctica. So 35 degrees south is particularly far "off the charts" in the world's view....that's the same lat. as the Mediterranean! (for a "polar" ocean!??)DLinth 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but the Mediterranean is a polar ocean. --Pete 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in arguments with cartographers about perpetuated errors in tourist maps of Indonesia and their sheer belligerence in maintaining obvious errors I am sorry but most of the authorities invoked in the previous message is totally unconvincing - I am more concerned that if there is an issue of international maritime law - or conventions - then just because a particular publication carries some information - or perpetuates an error - it does not an ocean make. CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names - there is indeed sufficient evidence internally in wikipedia that both of these sources carry errors for locations outside their original jurisdiction as to make them questionable sources - and I for one would never uses them if it got to a debate over errors ot otherwise for placenames on a place like Indonesia for a start. SatuSuro 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further - so perhaps there is someone who wants to make Australias designated southern ocean region the indian ocean because he finds secondary sources that claim that, and wants to remove any claims that australia has made to designate that area as the southern ocean.

Wikipeda is an online encyclopedia that must have an absolutely huge number of contested territory disputes within much smaller areas. So I propose that we do not under any circumstances accept one view over the other (short of good primary sources to determine one view over the other) - but make sure both versions are in a centralised separate article where both sides of the claims are adequately sourced from primary source materials not second (ie CIA fact book and atlases are not primary sources but potentially unreliable secondary sources) - which means bass straight, tasmania no longer have arguments about whether they are in the indian ocean - either on their article space or talk space - but simply see also/redirects to an article specifically that outlines the historical dimensions of the ocean that lies between terra sutralis and the south pole. Anything else would lessen the value of wikipedia in my view - tacky modifications to smaller local articles that are not to do with either internationaly or nationally designated spaces (oceans or otherwise)by treaty or law - simply reduces the quality of the articles.

So anyone Australia and the Southern Ocean - a good thorough cited outline of the issues? Not forgetting the problem of accepting secondary sources and dated material SatuSuro 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see....you characterize the world's most respected atlas, the U.S. most respected geographic authority, Websters, US Board on Geographic Names, and the CIA FactBook as "secondary sources" and "dubious sources." While ignoring the fact that the world community (and WP community) recognizes the IHO as the authority over ocean body names/extents (extent as in their decision that the S. Ocean is from 60 S to Antarctica, not 35S (Australia's S. shores.) What's do you suggest for "primary sources?" I've not seen you produce any contradictory sources or recognized authorities which, until you or other do so, in other words, there are primary sources that actually disagree, makes any "third party oversight" pointless, yes? Scott (below) has a measured approach....yours, SatuSuro, seems a bit irrational. As a cartographer and geographer, I'm sorry that their "belligerance" about using internationally recognized standards and authorities, a good thing for WP, was upsetting to you.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to sound like the suggestion of an article about name and extent is useful. I'm not sure if it should be a separate article, or part of Southern Ocean or Great Australian Bight. Perhaps we should start writing it, then see if it needs to be merged somewhere.

I found a 9th Edition Times Atlas (1992) at work. It does not support the assertion that the Southern Ocean only extends to 60° S, nor that the water south of Australia is the Indian Ocean:

• Plate 10 (Australia) carries the Indian Ocean name only North of Dampier, but only names the Great Australian Bight, Bass Strait and Tasman Sea in the south. (no evidence either way)
• Plate 12 (Australia, South East) only names the Great Australian Bight and Bass Strait (no evidence either way)
• Plate 14 (Australia, West) labels the Indian Ocean in the small strip of water on the west side of the map, and the Great Australian Bight to the south. Not really evidence, but there is more space to have written Indian Ocean at the south, if that is what they believed.
• Plate 9 (The Orient : Pacific Islands) main map has Indian Ocean labeled north of 20° S, and the Southern Ocean labeled just below 50° S, written between Kerguelen Island and Heard Island, but much closer to Kerguelen. If anything, this suggests that the Times cartographers believed that Kerguelen Island was in the Southern Ocean, as it could have been written either further east or further south if that was not their intent.

Addressing accuracy, the Times Atlas clearly identifies the North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Atlantic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean as four distinct oceans, not just two, on maps such as Plate 8 (World Political, which does not contain the Southern Ocean, nor name the water south of Australia), Plate 9, Plate 12, Plate 16 (Eurasia) etc.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 09:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The IHO made its decision in the year 2000! You're using a 1992 edition. The 2007 12th edition (covered quite a bit upon its release a couple weeks ago in the media) starts out with both Plate 1 and Plate 2, world maps, with "Southern Ocean" clearly placed to ":squeeze in" between Antarctica and 60S. On not a single map does "Southern Ocean" appear above 60S latitude, including all of those plates that you cite above.

By the way, I agree with that observation of yours that the IHO dramatically overextends the extent (east and west limits) of the Great Australian Bight, and agree with what I think is your position that the IHO should not be considered to have authority over anything with regard to how a country names and defines limits for its own bodies of water such as the Bight. For international oceans, though, they simply are the authority, and that is recognized worldwide and in WP, even when they unfortunately ignore common practices such as where Australians usually place the "Southern Ocean.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Fact Book identifies the water south of Australia as the South Pacific Ocean, just to confuse this discussion further!![2] --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope again. The CIA World Fact Book, despite that gliche on their 2005 map that you found, clearly labels "Indian Ocean" due south of Australia on its 2007 map of "Oceania", its main map covering the region in question. And its world maps have consistently for years squeezed in "Southern Ocean" between 60S latitude and Antarctica, not in the waters south of Australia.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created Australia and the Southern Ocean and would appreciate further input, with references, or suggestions and questions on its talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a clear case of systemic bias as the article on Australia is being rewritten to suit to US sources and ignoring the local sources. When referring to naming in Australian Territories in article an about Australia then the naming should be that as defined by Australian sources. Difference in naming/boundaries should be within the Southern Ocean article especially where the naming is only a recent adoption and hasnt been adopted/accepted within Australia. Official government maps in Australia define the Indian Ocean and Southern as meeting at Cape Leeuwin. Gnangarra 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, it is an international source, and in theory the governing body of such things. Wikipedia's practice is to use international standards where available. (I can understand your concern, but it happens all across the encyclopedia. Pluto is described as a dwarf planet, respecting the authority of the IAU. Canada's Arctic waters are described as being a disputed claim, based on international status rather than the position of the "local" government.) Please note that the changes go to great lengths to point out the local difference, through footnotes and even a new article about the discrepancy. -Ckatz^chat_spy 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point about Pluto. Are you saying that Wikipedia describes it as a dwarf planet despite the local Plutonian government saying it's a fullsized one?

My concern with the footnotes is twofold: 1) when reading the article, they look like references supporting the "Indian Ocean" rather than actually a footnote explaining a disputed title. 2) The footnotes have been phrased (Most Australians describe the body of water south of the continent as the Southern Ocean, rather than the Indian Ocean as officially defined by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). In 2000, a vote of IHO member nations defined the term "Southern Ocean" as applying only to the waters between Antarctica and 60 degrees south latitude.) to suggest that most Australians have a false view of the world, rather than identifying that the IHO name is different to the official Australian name. To choose another comparative example, the Myanmar article identifies in the main text that this is the official English name preferred by the current government of that country, but that several other countries use a different name for it, preferred by a previous government. The world fact book article about it doesn't even mention Myanmar until nearly half way down the page, and only then to note that name is not used by the USA.

Wikipedia is supposed to adopt a neutral point of view, not necessarily an official point of view, especially when there are different "officials" with different views. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Choice of photos

I have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I'm going to give an opinion, because Australia is my country.

I am offended by the inclusion of the photo of the Japanese solidier about to behead an Australian soldier. It happened. It did indeed! So have a lot of other absolutely ghastly things and brutal things in the history of the world. The photo appears to convey courageous resignation of behalf of the Australian solidier. Other than that, it says nothing about Austrlians, except to remind us alll that we do like to cling to our prejudices, don't we? And this effectively feeds them, doesn't it?

I want it removed.

• This is a generic article about Australia. The pic says little about Australia
• It is about hatred
• It is a constant reminder to every Japanese person who looks at this site of actions for which the many have expressed regret
• This is the generic article about Australia, used by thousands of kids. It is a horrible and entirely unnecessary pic for the kiddies to look at, doing their school projects.
• It belongs in the article about Australian prisoners of war. Older kids, doing research on this subject will find it appropriate there.
• There are thousands of photos of Australia. Let us give a positve image to the eyes of the world.

NOTE: This is not about censorship. This is about suitability. Things need to suit the context and the requirements of the user. There are many images of Australia and Australians that are more pertinient than this. Amandajm 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You of course can be bold and remove it yourself. But I must say I disagree with you on almost every point. This is an iconic picture, and summarises the Japanese treatment of POW's, for Australians one of the most significant aspects of WWII. Wikipedia is not censured for children, in any case this is not an especially horrific photo. The photo may indeed be about hatred, but not Australian hatred. As for Japanese sensibilities, unfortunately very few of them are familier with the policies and actions of their government and armed forces during WWII. Their education system ignores this period of their history. I have no problems with them becoming more aware of their history. --Michael Johnson 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda. I have removed it. That picture did not tell readers about Australia. The picture above to the left does.--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I mostly agree with Amanda and Scott here. I don't see any photos of Yagan's severed head in this article. And in regards to the notion that children don't get taught about that part of history, I studied history last year in high school for my TEE, and we spent a hell of a lot of time on WWII and the possibility of a Japanese invasion. Black-Velvet 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on the choice of Photos, the Photos of Australia are still not very attractive, especially compared to the photos chosen for articles on our major cities. Our tourism industry gain $117 Million dollars a year more at least if this article was more attractive, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.142.62 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First sight from the seven hills

> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606 <

If I understand correctly an ancient roman latin text carved into stone has recently been found on northern australian shore. It says XY on his ship QZ has suffered shipwreck there. They were enroute from Red Sea port to India, a usual journey done yearly at the height of Roman Empire to trade chinese goods. They were swept away by unusual monsoon winds and ended up in Australia after some months. Of course they could never return, so it may not count as a discovery, but it is still amazing how far mankind has gotten even in antiquity! 91.83.20.91 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Islands in the Southern Ocean

A recent edit comment noted that "Australia has islands in the Southern Ocean no matter what your conception of it". Which islands are they? I saw Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but they are at about 53 degrees south. A quick scan of the list at List of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands didn't reveal any islands claimed by Australia. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Macquarie Island is an example straight off the top of my head. HelloMojo 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, but Macquarie's at approx. 54 south - not in the Southern Ocean (per the official 60 degree line). --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Growth

I noticed that according to the numbers listed, Australia gained over 1.2 million people from 2006 to 2007, an increase of over 6 percent in one year! That seems very rapid, possibly inaccurate. By comparison the United States only gained two million in the same period.

The Demography of Australia page list different numbers than those listed here. Angry Aspie 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the 2007 figure is an estimate, it was taken from the ABS population clock (see reference). I don't think it is very accurate but its from the ABS so its official. --Mgill 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the links for the 'census' table links to the United States census! This needs to be fixed. Also, Australia doesn't have censii in 1990, 2000, etc, but in 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006. Tonzo 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because the census figures use a template that is inappropriate here. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Demography data

I've just removed pre-1900 data that the source at http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm admits does not include Aborigines; it looks like 1896 is the first year which does include the aboriginal population, though the text implies its 1901.

If another editor prefers to include that data and copy the note, that would be fine by me, though I think it's rather silly to reproduce a population claim of 2,100 for an island with a population of some 300,000.

RandomP 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"predominantly of British or Irish origin"

Has been removed as it is simply false. The majority of Australians are NOT of British or Irish origin.

Well false or not did it require removing in the way you did? I feel it's always better to edit something false so as to make it true rather than to delete it outright. The majority of Australians might not be of British or Irish origin but those of British or Irish origin certainly make up the biggest ethnic demographic. Why cant you write that instead? Ryan Albrey (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Australians are of Anglo-Celtic ethnic origin.

Table 1. Top Four Ancestry responses for the 2006 and 2001 Censuses Ancestry

Ancestry	2006	2001
Australian	7 371 823	6 739 594
English	6 283 647	6 358 880
Irish	1 803 736	1 919 727
Scottish	1 501 200	540 046

2006 Census

ZwickauDeluxe (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Early European Colonisation

"...350,000 at the time of European settlement". European sounds weirdly vague, pointlessly so. Australia was almost exclusively colonised by the British, for the first hundred years. There weren't any Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or any other European colonies, just the British! There might have been a few non-British whalers paying visits to ports but so what! They had about as much impact, and probably less so, on the early colonisation of Australia as the British pirates had on the early Spanish colonisations of Cuba or Peru. The Spanish Colonised Peru not Sir Francis Drake, the Spanish destroyed the Inca empire not British pirates and similarly the British took Australia from the Aborigines and brutalised them, not the Europeans whalers.

Non-British colonisation of Australia before 1900 was almost insignificant. The colonisation of Australia was very different from the colonisation of America, the USA. There was only one European nation involved in the colonisation of Australia, solely Britain.

So, the native population of Australia was 350,000 at the time of British settlement. Britain maybe part of Europe but it also part of Eurasia, the northern hemisphere and the world, but Britain is far more specific and much more relevant a concept than Europe, in this context and time period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.251.23 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the settlement of Australia was an enterprise of the United Kingdom government, there have always been noticeable minorities of non-British settlers, dating even from the convicts of the First Fleet. You also run against the problem of the Irish, clearly a very substantial part of the European invasion, however many Irish would object to being lumped into the "British". --Michael Johnson 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: What became the continental United States was originally settled almost exclusively by the British ( or English, if you prefer ). The French were more concerned with their interests in what is now Canada, and the Spanish were more focused on what is now the American Southwest ( Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona ) and Latin America ( now Mexico and points south ). While subsequent waves of new people came ( to what became the US ) from various countries, including those in Europe, the first to break ground and settle were English. ( I exclude the Norse settlements, because they left or died off. ) ( The Discovery of North America © 1972 American Heritage Press ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski mohawk (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This might seem kind of picky, but could somebody change "South Australia was founded as a "free province"—that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts." It seems kind of contradictory. It seems that from the first sentence that "free province" implies "never a penal colony", which seems to be contradicted in the second sentence. I think "South Australia ... 'free province' rather than a penal colony..." would work better. This seems like a minor and obvious change but apparently I don't have access to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbrinda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Median household income

The following information may be of interest:

Since 2000 Australia has made substantial gains in median household income. Australia, along with New Zealand, were not affected by the the early 2000s recession that impacted upon most other advanced countries. The combination of high growth in Australia, along with negative growth in United States, has allowed Australia to close the income gap. As of 2006, Australia's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United states.

	Period	2006 Median household income (PPP US$)	Average household size	Real growth (%)	Growth performance
USA	2000-2006	$48,200 [3]	2.6 people [4]	- 2.0	Disappointing
New Zealand	2000-2007	$39,937	2.7 people [5]	+24.2	Good
Australia	2001-2006	$38,420	2.6 people [6]	+13.2	Good

For more information about median household income in Australia follow the link.

Cheers

Badenoch 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Australia has posted impressive economic growth over the past 5+ years. But the figures you've quoted are not very useful:

1. A per capita figure (GDP, PPP) would be a more accurate measure of economic performance.

2. The 2006 US figure is an estimate, which you failed to note.

3. Any time frame that is so short while including the 9/11 attacks (and aftermath) in the US represents a skewed picture of economic performance. As such, I don't think it's an appropriate comparison. Perhaps a comparison of Australia with West European economies (GB, France, Germany) would be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that these figures may not be correct. According to an article I read recently, the average salary in Australia is now around AUS$48,000 per annum. It would be very rare indeed to find someone on a salary as low as $38,000 per annum unless they were unskilled and working in a very low paying job, worked in a factory or had a part-time position. Most employees in Australia are well educated with white collar positions. What sets us apart is that the cost of living here is still very good. Everybody complains that Sydney is expensive but in comparison to exorbitant cities, like Paris, London, Dublin and New York, it is not overly priced and still maintains its fantastic quality of life. Low paying positions monopolised by unskilled peoples (who are often migrants with little or no English) are offset by Government pensions and rebates which assist those people classified within the lower socioeconomic scales. In regard to quality of life, there are an infinite range of factors to take into consideration other than the amount people are paid. The costs of housing, food, clothing, education, health and the generosity of its government in relation to welfare and its ability to deal with crime, are just some considerations. KathyBoots; 4.47 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New External Link

I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.

Here is the link:

• Australia Travel Guide from GlobeGnome.com Shaun Wright 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate you want to get exposure for your website Shaun but I don't think wikipedia is the place. I cannot support the inclusion of this link at this time as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" --SRHamilton 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Language

What is the official language of Australia? English - Yes - But which English, British or American...? I'd expect British, but they write words like "Labor" without the "u"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.159.2 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Australians speak Australian English. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian English PookeyMaster (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We should make the official language of Australia Australian English instead of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.58.242 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we have more of the british english but we dont use the same way of speaking them. so Aussie english sounds good yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -The Great One- (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "English" spoken in Australia is absolutely unique. The term "strine" was used to describe the nation's quirky idiom. This is reinforced by the hundreds of "translation" books published to provide the English-speaking tourists from the US, Canada and the UK a reference source from which to understand the local transliteration. The Australian penchant for abbreviations such as "cossie" for costumes, "mossie" for mosquito or "brekky: for breakfast, is firmly entrenched, however, it is unfortunate that the wonderful, entertaining Aussie phrases are slowly dying out. With the increasing Americanisation of our local television, it is rather regrettable that the colourful slang used by the First World War generation of Australians (as well as the parents of the Baby Boomers) is slowly being phased out and overwhelmed by the Americanised global slang of the Y Generation. KathyBoots; 4:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, most Australians I know, including myself, definitely spell it colour, labour, favourite, etc. I believe the 'labor' you're referring to is to do with some political party spelling that was based off the American system for some quirky reason. It is NOT the common spelling of labour. - A random 210.215.140.180 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Election

As of 10 pm the 24th of November, 2007, John Howard is replaced as Prime Minister by Kevin Rudd. Unless Howard manages to get another 30 seats and about 8 of the certain labor seats are recounted, it will not be possible for him to be PM for the next Term. I wrote this so someone could update the article seeing as its locked PookeyMaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment is inaccurate until such time as Howard accepts defeat. This has not occured as at 10.29pm and I will maintain the protection until that occurs. Thank you however for your interest.--VS ^talk 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd isnt PM until sworn in by the Governor General which isnt normally until 7-10 days after the election Gnangarra 11:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Page now unprotected at 10.37pm as John Howard has just conceded. --VS ^talk 11:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC) However I concur with Gnangnarra - for accuracy Rudd is only the incumbent.--VS ^talk 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is the incumbent. The word means "current occupant of the position". Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister-elect would be a more accurate term would it not ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No because Prime Ministers are not directly elected. Though it would be no more innacurate than saying Kevin Rudd *is* Prime Minister, when he isn't. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically the PM would be vacant with JH the incumbent being a "caretaker" PM until KR is confirmed by the party and sworn in as PM by the Governor General this normally takes 7-10 days. Gnangarra 12:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to "John Howard (caretaker)" or similar. But this assumption that Kevin Rudd is already PM is extremely irritating and wrong. They need a damn good thrashing. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be listed as n/a or have (de facto) after it or something similar? GoodOrEvil (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM page on the Australia Government website states, "Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in." As such, a parenthetical "caretaker" after Howard's name would make sense, as would the below suggestion of adding Mr. Rudd as Prime Minister-designate in the infobox until he is sworn. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we run into this problem in Canada as well whenever an election results in a change of government. The Canadian contingent has found that the most effective solution available to us is to list both the outgoing and incoming leaders in the relevant infoboxes and navboxes during the transition period — but the incoming leader is noted as "Prime Minister-designate" (or "Premier-designate"), since we obviously have the same problem with "-elect". We do still occasionally have editors who'll revert that one way or the other, but it becomes much less frequent and more manageable. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding Kevin Rudd to the infobox in the manner I've described here: he's listed on a second line, under Howard, with the parenthetical "(designate)" following his name. Don't feel obliged to keep it if it causes another set of problems, but as I've noted it is a practice that really cuts down on the edit wars when it comes to Canadian elections. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a draft policy or guideline proposal at User:Bearcat/Post-Election Edit War Syndrome, regarding how to minimize this type of edit warring. I'd like to invite any interested editors to come offer some input. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who read this in the future, there's been quite an amount of debate about "Prime Minister-elect" vs. "Prime Minister-designate" at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia, and "PM-elect" is the clear consensus. There's also a new article Prime Minister-elect. -- JackofOz 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the apparently incessant revert warring, I have fully protected this article temporarily, so the involved parties can sort out on this talk page the 'incumbent' question/who to list as current PM. - Mark 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New primeminister

I would of edited it myself, but since it's protected for whatever reason, I can't. Kevin Rudd just won the election, hence Prime Minister "John Howard" would change to Prime Minister "Kevin Rudd". 58.168.127.168 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's protected because people are trying to do that. Read the two sections just above. JPD (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The winner of an election does not immediately become the incumbent on election night. John Howard is still the PM today, and tomorrow, and Monday, and every day after that until Kevin Rudd is actually sworn into office by the Governor General approximately two weeks after election day. Wikipedia's job is to be correct, not to reflect common misunderstandings. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

census links

When you click on the dates next to the population figures it links to the united states census, which isn't relevant. I'd change this myself but the page is protected.--Towerdefence (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where you're seeing this? The main article hasn't been edited since several hours before you posted this, but I can't find a population figure in the article that's sourced to the US census instead of the Australian one. Am I just missing it? Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the demography section there is a sidebar with historical population numbers by year. when you click on the year it sends you to the article about the US census of that year.--Towerdefence (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it uses {{USCensusPop}} hence the programmatic US links. We could probably subst it and then alter the links, but I'm short of time currently... --Stephen 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-Warring re:2007 Election

There appears to be a substantial amount of edit-waring and confusion over the correct denotation of the prime minister of Australia, both on this page and also most of the other pages with reference to the position. It seems to be largely fuelled by unregistered new editors enthusiastically coming along and attempting to update the pages with reference to the recent elections (i.e. changing the current prime minister from Mr Howard to Mr Rudd). As it appears to me that there is a fairly sound consensus to stick with current wikipedia precedent - to wait until the prime minister delegate is officially instated before updating wikipedia - I suggest that this page and all others of similar nature should be either

• Tagged temporarily to the effect of "Please read this article's talk page before making edits", or;
• Fully protected until the prime minister delegate is officially instated prime minister delegate is officially instated

Comments? (To be honest I have just gotten back from a 6 month break from editing wikipedia. This is why I'm not actually tagging/protecting the articles myself.) Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page has already been fully protected due to edit warring until December 24, but I'd be happy to unprotect the page after this dispute has been solved. Spebi 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Designate" is incorrect and not commonly used as a noun in Australia. Regardless of whether Rudd was directly elected PM or not, the official appellation is Prime Minister elect. Turn on the TV folks...it's the only way you will hear him described. Wayne (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there actually exists an "official appellation": in a Westminster system, nothing is official until the Crown says so, and the Crown will "officialize" the whole shebang upon Rudd's swearing-in. Personally I prefer "-designate" for accuracy, even though in Canada, our media too (probably more influenced by the US) uses "-elect". But I can live with either: just don't say Mr. Rudd (or Mr. Harper, almost two years ago) is prime minister just because the TV stations are saying it, or the incumbent has conceded (the incumbent doesn't have the power to actually hand over the job to anyone). Kelvinc (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True, Rudd didn't become PM on election night just because some elements of the media started calling him that straightaway. However, it's a longstanding feature of Australian politics that losing incumbents concede defeat, with Howard being the latest of a long line of such people. Again, that doesn't imply an instantaneous change of government, but it's an acknowledgment of the reality of the outcome of the election. It would have been extremely odd if Howard hadn't conceded defeat given the loss of coalition seats to Labor; courtesy would have demanded that Rudd cool his heels before being able to claim victory. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody elects the Prime Minister directly in the same sense that the US President is elected, so it's probably not accurate to call the winner of a general election the Prime Minister elect (or Premier elect). I can't think of a good phrasing, actually. Delegate, designate, apparent - all sound pretty clumsy to my ears. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This received a thorough thrashing-out over at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia recently. I'm just not getting into it here. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

I noticed the Australia article seems to be the only article on one of the Commonwealth realms that doesn't include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Can this be added to bring this article into line with all other articles on Commonwealth realms? Signsolid 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens at other articles has limited, if any, bearing on this article. See this and other discussions on that page. --Merbabu 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should it have limited, if any bearing on this article? Australia is a Commonwealth realm just like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize etc... yet all these have the Royal Anthem mentioned in their info boxes because all of them are Commonwealth realms, just as Australia is. I think it's quite obvious to all that saying what happens on other articles bears little on this article is really an excuse for anti-monarchists to remove mention of the Royal Anthem from the info box and so in some deluded way think they are seriously making people think Australia is a republic or as close to it as they possibly can. Australia is a monarchy whether it's liked or not and I remind editors whom it may concern that Wikipedia is strictly for stating the facts only, not making the world seem how you might like it to be. Signsolid 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read all the other discussions about it - you are not the first to bring this up. Decision has been made by the community. Can you explain specifically why we need to copy other articles?

By accusing others of bias, you are assuming bad faith which is not conducisive to collaboration. --Merbabu 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't decided who is right or wrong, but can you both use the article's edit summary boxes to summarise what you did in the edit, rather use the edit summary to discuss the content? Otherwise it's hard to follow the article's History page to see what changes have been made. Discussion is better here in the talk page, as it lets others join in. Thanks, Lester 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no other discussion on the subject and only one editor seems to be rejecting including the Royal Anthem. It would appear most editors on Wikipedia favour including the Royal Anthem as they have on the articles on Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Bahamas etc... These no real excuse not to include the Royal Anthem as it is an official anthem of Australia and all other articles on Commonwealth realms have included it. It's not for editors to pick and choose what's official about a country or not and there only seems to be one editor rejecting the official Royal Anthem here. Signsolid 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a huge amount of discussion on the page that Merbabu refers to. "Other articles have it so we must" is a terrible argument to make on Wikipedia, in this context or any other, and it has nothing to do with republicanism or anything else. "It is official so it must go in the infobox" is likewise a terrible argument in any context. If you can't see what is wrong with these arguments, at least read the discussion in the archive.

As for the details of this case, "Royal Anthem is offically on equal status as the Australian Anthem." is fairly meaningless - they have the same status in the sense that they are both officially, but they are officially different things with different uses. The status of "official national anthem" is not the same as the status of "official royal anthem". The royal anthem doesn't even have the same status in all the different Commonwealth realms. The different realms' infoboxes should not contain GSTQ as the royal anthem simply because they are realms. New Zealand includes it as a national anthem, because that is its status in that country. The royal anthem in Canada is officially usd in more situations than it is in Australia. I hope that GSTQ has been added to other boxes as the royal anthem only after someone has checked that it is either officially or in practice actually the royal anthem, not just assumed that it must be so, but I suspect in some cases it might be incorrect. That leaves us simply with a fact about an Australian official royal anthem, and the question of whether it is important enough to include in an already over-large infobox. JPD (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To be told the arguments made for including an official anthem in the info box is spurious and is ironic considering what arguments have been desperately spun to ensure it's not included in the info box. There has yet to be even a reasonable excuse why this article on Australia should be the only article on Wikipedia about a Commonwealth realm not to include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Ironic also that editors are not taking any notice of WP:NPOV in that they have broken with fact and are promoting a political point of view by making it appear to readers that Australia has no Royal Anthem. It's clear there are a few editors who intently keep an eye on this article to remove as much references as they can get away with to anything outside their own political view. I suppose you could say hence Wikipedia's reputation today. Signsolid 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that one article must follow others? It doesn't. And again I point out that trying to cast aspersions as to editors' political motivations is a sign of bad faith and makes productive collaboration difficult. Notice how no-one has pointed out that you might have your own political motivations.

As has been mentioned previously and now here again, putting the royal anthem on an equal footing is against WP:WEIGHT and misreads a reader. Undue weight is a POV problem. Thus there was a clear footnote (which you've removed several times) actually providing an in-depth explanation. Can you claim that the Royal Anthem is not just a technical obscurity? --Merbabu (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add one more voice that disagrees with Signsolid. This article is not for Australians, be they Republicans or Monarchists, to push their own ideological agenda. It is to provide information about Australia to Wikipedia users, the majority of which are unlikely to be Australians. To suggest to those that would have no way of knowing any better, that GSTQ is as important to Australians as Advance Australia Fair would be misleading in the extreme. Official this and official that be damned. Ryan Albrey 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the arguments given against including the royal anthem, my comments above and the WP:NPOV policy. You have yet to give one reason why it should be included, let alone addressed the arguments given. Your arguments have been extremely spurious:

• Claims that Merbabu is the only editor who objects to the extra line in the infobox, after having been pointed to evidence that at least 10 editors object.
• Ad hominem attacks, which are never helpful. (I can't speak for everyone who has removed the extra line, but I have no reason to have any opinion at all about the Swedish monarchy, and still think that the royal anthem does not belong in the Swedish infobox either - perhaps you just haven't understood our argument. By the way, did you know that in recent Australian history it has generally been monarchists that have played down the significance of the Queen and the royal anthem, not anti-monarchists? Also, one of the editors arguing for the inclusion of the royal anthem has previously caused controversy by insisting that Australia is a "crowned republic", and yet you are saying that this is the viewpoint of those opposing the inclusion of the anthem.)
• Claims that this article should follow similar articles. There are at least two problems with this - firstly, uniformity in general is not the way Wikipedia works, and uniformity is definitely not a good thing when the situation is not the same in all the different cases. (See more discussion on this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#National and royal anthems.) Secondly, the uniformity argument has one of the same flaws as the other stuff exists argument - maybe the royal anthem shouldn't be included in all the other realms' infoboxes either. I have my doubts as to whether it is actually true in all cases, let alone appropriate for an infobox.
• Factually incorrect claims. You implied that GSTQ should be in the infobox here and elsewhere simply because these countries are Commonwealth realms. However, having a royal anthem does not automatically follow from being a Commonwealth realm. When someone went around adding the anthem to all the Commonwealth realm articles without checking the individual situations, that was a mistake. It would be fairer to say that some countries have GSTQ as a royal anthem for the same reasons that they are Commonwealth realms.
• The idea that WP:NPOV means that every fact should be included in the infobox. Yes, the anthem is official. Most of us actually agree that this should be mentioned, and it is in the footnote. But being official is not a reason to put something in an infobox. It is quite possible to maintain a neutral point of view without including every single fact. Editing is a matter of choosing which facts are most important/relevant. I think you know this - the national colours of green and gold are just as official as the royal anthem, but you are not arguing to include them in the infobox. You are also not arguing that the Queen's relevant royal standards be included, in this infobox or the UK one, even though it is a fact that they exist, and they help to demonstrate that the countries are monarchies. It is a matter of giving everything due weight. As Ryan points out, to include too much can even be misleading.

If you have an argument that is more than "it is true" and "others have it", then it might be worth considering again (although it is worth checking whether it has already been discussed to death in the previous discussions). In any case, it would be best to leave behind your assumptions concerning both facts and motivations, and stick to sensible discussion. JPD (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Signsolid has not read past debates on this page. The lack of comments is probably because most editors are bored with this topic being continually raised against the page consensus. Whatever the "official" status of the anthem, the reality is it is so rarely used as to place it in the infobox would be misleading as to its status and a clear case of giving it undue weight. --Michael Johnson 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to bring things into context the National Symbols page on the Australian Government website makes no mention of the Royal Anthem at all. Given this page stands as it was under the previous, decidedly royalist, government, accusations of political bias seem to wear rather thin. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read very much of that preceding fun exchange. The last comment Michael, shows you needed to find http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/National_symbols/index.htm to read Ninian's proclamation of it as our Royal Anthem. He was our Governor General and had the full title The Right Honourable Sir Ninian Stephen Governor-General of Australia, KG, AK, GCMG, GCVO, KBE, QC. All of those letters made it official. That was directed at the preceding fun exchange. Hwhat I reckon (as a citizen and a scientist with a republican ((note the lower case)) view) is that it's a fact and it remains. Where do we put that bit of information? I don't reckon we should leave it out like we do if there's a regular style to these types of data. We, as a category have a reference that aught, politics aside, be put in. What I really reckon is that we need a reference to how this big land was taken from the original owners and straight out pwned by England, in the introduction. I don't want to write it out tonight, but soon. Soon. ... anyway. I don't think it's OK to forestall a reasoned debate on the inclusion of the aforementioned reasonably pointless bit of minutae because people haven't taken the time to pore through tomes of past rhetoric on the matter. How very average would a journal be if it omitted irrefutable facts its editors didn't think much of. Menswear (talk)

I'm on the fence about this issue, so maybe my opinion doesn't carry any weight. I would just say, though, that just because a fact is irrefutable (as this one is) does not necessarily of itself mean that it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Irrefutability does not equal encyclopediality (if I may mangle the language). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a pity that Menswear didn't read the previous debate, because he will find that the debate is not about whether the Royal Anthem exists, because it clearly does, nor about whether it should be mentioned, because it is. Rather the debate is where it should be mentioned. The consensus was that it is a fairly obscure symbol, and mentioning it beside the National Anthem in the info box is not appropriate. After all there are many irrefutable facts about Australia, they cannot all be mentioned in the infobox. The question is if people can't be bothered reading the previous debate, why should the rest of us have to rehash it all over again? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh at those who think that all facts are of equal weight, just because they appear in an infobox. Is the population the same as the Prime Minister? Of course not. The National Anthem itself is fairly obscure, but there it is. Australia has a Royal Anthem as well as a National Anthem, but only an idiot would suggest that they have the same status or importance. They are different things and they have different labels. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't agree that the National Anthem is obscure. It's become iconic, if anything; it gets played at footy matches, cricket matches, and all sorts of places these days. It might be obscure to people whose only knowledge of any national anthems is the Marsellaise, the Star-Spangled Banner and God Save the Queen - but to those people, there may as well be only 3 national anthems in the entire world because, to them, there are only 3 of any prominence. We of course know that's not the case. The Australian Royal Anthem - now that's a different story altogether. (Btw, best not to characterise those who hold opposing views as "idiots".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh. OK. If someone suggests that the National Anthem has the same importance and status as the Royal anthem then they are not an idiot, they are something else equally stupid. Advance Australia Fair is obscure to most readers of Wikipedia. Very few would have heard of it at all, let alone heard it. Our readers come to Wikipedia seeking knowledge, not things they already know, and while it is our responsibility to package the information, it isn't appropriate to predigest it as well. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Let's discuss content, not contributors personally, eh?

As I said, I'm on the fence about the Royal Anthem. I'm just trying to understand the arguments pro and con. I happen to know a fair bit about it, and I can understand that to some people it is very important. I can also understand that to the general populace, it is less than nothing. I think the obscurity angle has no more real merit than the irrefutability angle. To many people in the world, Australia is a quaint land-locked country in Europe with a German-speaking population, so from the obscurity point of view, we shouldn't have an article on Australia at all. From the knowledge angle, if we're here to educate people about all manner of things Australian, do we educate them only about things that most Australians know, or about other things that most Australians don't know? Also, are the people we're here to educate just overseas people, or Australians themselves as well? For example, I'd be surprised if many Australians know about the first use of the word "Australia" (by some Dutch or French guy in the 16th century, apparently) - but there it is in the article, large as life. What makes the inclusion of this sort of information ok, but not the Royal Anthem? - neither of them is actually remotely relevant to the way we go about our daily lives, so where is the dividing line drawn, and by whom, and why? (I honestly don't know the answer to that - just putting it out there). What about the Constitution? Most Australians seem as abysmally unaware that we even have a constitution, much less have ever read it, as they are unaware or care about the Royal Anthem. But the former is considered to be nevertheless important enough for it to rate a mention because it is actually relevant to law, government, politics etc - while the latter is not. And the National Anthem is regularly sung all the time all over the place, whereas the Royal Anthem only ever surfaces when the Queen is here (and we even quibble whether we'll use it then - eg. Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006 debacle). Is that it? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt yourself targeted by my comment. Certainly not my intention. I'm just pointing out that pretending that all facts mentioned in the template are of equal status is a ridiculous argument. Listing the Royal Anthem as well as the National Anthem, each one clearly labelled, doesn't make them equivalent. I think it says a bit about who we are. Even if some Australians would prefer that we didn't have a Queen at all (and I'm one of them) the fact remains that the Queen is held in high regard by many, and we have a Royal Anthem. Maybe this will change in future, but it is the situation now, and when it comes to writing an encyclopaedia I prefer to tell it like it is, not how we editors feel it should be. --Pete (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel personally targetted. I just abhor the use of such language in any context. It's understandable coming from children, but not from adults. It's against Wikipedia rules, for one thing. But more importantly, it undermines the writer's arguments. If the argument - whatever it is - is strong enough, it will win out on its merits. If the writer feels the need to say words to the effect of "If you don't see it my way, you're an idiot", that suggests they don't actually have the confidence that their own argument is persuasive enough all by itself. If it isn't persuasive, so be it. Abuse won't change that. It reflects far more badly on the writer than on the supposed idiocy of the reader. That's my philosophy. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural resources?

request --Sigmundur (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Brick Road. ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ally

Would anyone have an objection to the statement "New Zealand is Australias closest friend & ally"? (♠Taifarious1♠) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Or is that just your personal opinion? If you can reference it, then we can discuss whether it would be appropiate to include it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. Apart from verifiability concerns (let alone accuracy), the statement seems meaningless and vague to the point of being useless. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true. We should have at least a paragraph on our relationship. Trans-Tasman government committees are routine. The NZ government stationed a squadron of strike aircraft here for some years. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and think Australia and New Zealand are much closer than allies! Aussies and New Zealanders are like siblings: always squabbling with one another over petty issues but having a deep love and respect for each other. The bonds that tie us together are very strong. We are two isolated sisters alone in a huge antipodean world with very parallel histories, similar qualities of life and an "interchanging" population. Many New Zealanders come to live and work in Australia and most Australians love New Zealand! New Zealand seems to "balance" Australia with its magnificent mountain and lake scenery whilst Australia has the beaches, big cities and deserts. Whenever I travel to Europe or America and hear that familiar, friendly Kiwi accent, its like a member of the "family" is in the room. We were recently at The Oktoberfest in Munich and I noticed how Aussies and Kiwis always gravitate towards each other. I really cannot think of two other countries that are closer. KathyBoots; 4.20 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a kiwi, and I agree with the dude above. The first time I travelled by myself was a three-month backpacking trip through Southeast Asia, and it was always great to shack up with some Aussies and (invariably) get drunk. More recently, my girlfriend and I bumped into a couple of Aussies in Nepal and ended up spending two weeks hiking 210km over the Annapurnas with them. Despite all the bitching and moaning, Kiwis and Aussies get on great when they meet on "neutral turf".

Federal vs constitutional monarchy

Australia is not a constitutional monarchy

Australia is a Federal monarchy, not a Constitutional Monarchy. Quote from the Sydney Morning Herald:
The Crown is not an Australian institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir, Afternoon Light. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution.
Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy. We have a monarch at the moment, but it's not constitutionally demanded.Lester 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some would argue with the interpretation you quote, but whether it is correct or not, there is no contradiction between being a federal monarchy and a consitutional monarchy. The term "constitional monarchy" does not imply that the constitution requires a monarchy, but that there is a monarch who operates within a constitutional setting. JPD (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia is clearly a constitutional monarchy. This is outlined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The High Court of Australia has also ruled that The Australian Crown exists quite separately from any British Crown. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of Federal monarchy (FM), it seems that the set of FMs overlaps the set of CMs. There are some countries that are FMs but not CMs; there are some countries that are CMs but not FMs; and there are some that are both. Australia is in the latter category. It's a CM because of what JPD said, and it's an FM because we just happen to be a Federation which is a monarchy. Maybe we should call it a Federal Constitutional Monarchy.

Australia is a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To address your point "Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy" - how would you describe a country that is not a federation, and their constitution does not state in so many words that it's a monarchy, but it has a monarch? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We (i.e. the article) do say "Federal Constitutional Monarchy", which redirects to Federal monarchy. I can't see the problem. JPD (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if people start calling for 'constitional monarchy' to be changed to 'republic' and Elizabeth II to be removed from this article infobox? I'm gonna bite my eybrows. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be an extremely ridiculous and incorrect move clearly not illustrating the current reality of Australia governance and ignoring the referendum of November 1999. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While Richard Woolcott is an interesting and influential figure, he is a former diplomat and not a constitutional lawyer, and certainly shouldn't be taken as a reliable source, especially in an op-ed piece arguing a partisan point of view. While he would have been correct in 1901, subsequent changes in the relationship has established the British and Australian crowns as separate legal entities, even if held by the same person. But what that has to do with "federal monarchy", I'm not sure. Australia is a federation and a monarchy, so I guess "federal monarchy" is an accurate description as far as it goes, but hardly helpful in describing the relationship of the monarch to the political system. BTW Woolcott appears not to have an article, he is certainly notable enough to have one. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go, I started the Richard Woolcott stub. Up to you to add something to it. Bring your references with you :) Lester 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution"

This is totally incorrect. The office of monarch is defined in the Australian Constitution. The Australian Parliament and people regulate the governance of Australia and no other authority. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This quote from above seems plainly wrong to me. As far as I know, the succession to the head of state in Australia is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701 as imported into the laws of the various Australian colonies at settlement. A change to the monarchy in the United Kingdom would thus have no impact on the line of succession to the throne in Australia. - Mark 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct! The Australian Parliament can also alter the Act of Succession in relation to the Australian Crown should it wish to do so. In fact the abdication of Edward VIII was not legal in Australia until the passing of necessary legislation by the Australian Parliament. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Monarchy is Original Research?

I've just looked at Federal monarchy article, and frankly it looks like original research. In 35 years of involvement in the Australian political process I have never heard anybody describe Australia as a "federal monarchy" before this article. Can anyone provide any source that supports the use of this term, and indicate that it is more than the product of the fertile imagination of some Wikipedian? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty spurious to me. The concept of the divided crown is a familiar one, but I can't see any reason to describe Australia as a federal monarchy rather than the more familiar constitutional monarchy. --Pete (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorta like the Prime Minister-elect -VS- Prime Minister-designate dispute. The Aussies use different terminology. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What ever we think of the term "federal constitutional monarchy", I think there is good reason to have the word federal somewhere in that line of the infobox. We are speaking of the structure of Australia's government, not simply the relationship with the queen. I would guess that the article Michael objects to (and the similar "federal republic") was created simply to be a handy link in these cases, but perhaps it would be better to have the links federal, parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy separately in some order. (GoodDay, you seem to be implying that "federal monarchy" is actually a common term in Canada - if so, perhaps you could provide some sources for that article?) JPD (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

...it would be better to have the links federation, parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy separately in some order. Hear, hear! We are all those things seperately, but not all of them in one phrase. --Pete (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to throw a spanner in everyones works but why don't we just describe Australia the same way it is described on federal government websites. Quote: "Australia’s formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia is a constitutional democracy based on a federal division of powers within which there are four divisions: Commonwealth, state, territory and local. The form of government used in Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy." Wayne (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that best fit on one line in an infobox? JPD (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's just call it what it is, a constitional monarchy. This trend of setting Australia (and related articles) apart from the other Commonwealth monarchies is unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no... the current wording is generally in line wth most other Commonwealth realm infoboxes, which say parliamentary democracy before constitutional monarchy, too. Canada says "parliamentary democracy (federal consitutional monarchy)" which is clearly setting it apart from e.g. New Zealand, which is not a federation. Whether or not "federal consitutional monarchy" is a relevant term in any country, it is quite clear that it is appropriate to make this distinction - we are trying to describe the government structure, which in New Zealand is quite clearly different from Australia and Canada in one aspect, even if it is similar in others. Please don't reduce everything to a consistency argument. JPD (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your correct. The last time I pushed for consistancy (at Kevin Rudd), it met mixed reviews (to say the least). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection to Australia being described as a federation, parliamentary democracy, and constitutional monarchy. Together they accurately describe the Australian political system and are terms commonly used in political dialogue. IMHO Federal Monarchy is a term in search of a meaning, and using it to describe the political system in Australia is not encyclopedic. As for consistency with Canada, I don't edit the Canadian page, as I am not familiar with their political system., so can't comment. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect 'federal monarchy' is a Wikipedian invention. The article has an original research tag, and provides not one reference for use of the term. It has been introduced into Monarchy of Australia and I've raised the issue at the talk page.--Gazzster (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal constitutional monarchy

King Wiston has changed constitutional monarchy to Federal constitutional monarchy several times now. I looked at the Federal constitutional monarchy article which states "A federal monarchy is a federation of monarchies under one single monarch, retaining a federal structure, and the status of the monarchs of the constituent states." It seems to relate to a group of states with different monarchs. Australia has a group of states but they've all had the same monarch so I don't see how this relates to Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an important point either way and should be changed back until a case can be made for the change. Am I right? --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If one goes to Federal monarchy it is obvious that there are problems with the term. But as a loose descriptive term, why not? Aus is a monarchy and a federation. But it has no constitutional status. 'Federal Comnmonwealth' has been used in context of the Constitution. But 'constitutional monarchy' is fine. Why get so riled up over a few words?--Gazzster (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia is of course a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state! All elements are mentioned quite clearly in the Australian constitution. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia is ...... why not use its actual Constitutional status as defined by its own Law ?

The preamble to the Australia Acts 1986 clearly states that the purpose of the Act is to bring Australias Constitutional arrangements into conformity with Australias status as a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .'

Australia is ...... a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .

It is also a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy which are descriptions of its operating procedures . It is a Commonwealth realm which means no more than it happens to be one of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations that acknowledges a particular person as its ( titular ) Head of State . Australia is very often described as the ' Land Down Under ' and the ' Wide Brown Land ' .

But the international status of Australia is ' Sovereign , Independent and Federal Nation.

If you doubt the above check the Australia Acts - UK & CTH and the request and consent Acts of all the States of the Commonwealth - NSW , QLD ,WA ,SA , VIC and Tasmania .

Lejon (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stolen generation comment

"The removal of children from their families, which some historians and Indigenous Australians have argued could be considered to constitute genocide by some definitions,[13] may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population. Such interpretations of Aboriginal history are disputed by some commentators as being exaggerated or fabricated for political or ideological reasons.[14]"

I think this section is a bit bizarre. It sounds like two people arguing more than a coherent statement on both the historical facts and contemporary opinions on the stolen generation. Given the touchy nature of this topic I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Bold is really the best approach.

At this point something like -

"The removal of children from their families (known in Australia as the Stolen Generation) may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population, However questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[13][14]

might be a little better

Part of me thinks this might be a little bias towards the side of the debate that "plays down" the stolen generation but I think it's a start.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a comment about "the stolen generation". Much is spoken and written about this topic but it should be noted that DURING THE TIME such children were removed from their families, the churches or institutions removing these children firmly believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing the right thing. Many of the aboriginal children were seen to be living in abject squalor and poverty. Unfortunately, such institutions were making judgements on conditions of life based on their own cultures and standards. They saw these young children from a western perpective: living in terrible conditions, without education, no chance of a good future (through THEIR eyes). Whilst the actual deed of removing the aboriginal children from their families could be argued to be misguided, the actual INTENTIONS of those people responsible for their removal was one of concern and benevolence. The removal of aboriginal children was not done in malice or vengeance, the motives were typical of the times, ie patriachal intervention through misguided concern. Its also important to mention that Aboriginal children were not the only ones removed, there were thousands of white English children removed to Australia during the war and suffered the same fate and hardships (along with unfortunate incidences of abuse in awful institutions) that some aboriginal children suffered. Even in these enlightened times, there was, only last year, recent controversy about the removal of aboriginal children from communities where alcoholism, petrol-sniffing and sexual abuse was endemic. The suggestion was made by a very concerned female aboriginal elder! In my opinion, aboriginals are extremely talented, artistic and clever and it is regrettable that, on the whole, they don't look FORWARD and relinquish the past. The current generation of white Australians cannot be responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. Move on and go FORWARD - you (aboriginal communities) have so much to offer the world! You have some fantastic role models who show your youth the enormous capacity of aboriginal achievements. Don't dwell on past deeds and misunderstandings; it only embitters life and life is too short to waste time on needless regrets. Don't mourn what you cannot change. Spend all your energies on the aboriginal youth of today. By harping about past hardships, it fosters any feelings of worthlessness, despair and anguish they may feel! Instead, talk about POSITIVE things. Talk about the FUTURE! Give them hope for a great future and provide them with all the encouragement, education and love they deserve. KathyBoots; 5.19 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Boots, I wasn't aware that the 1970's was over 100 years ago but apparently I stand corrected. Soundabuser (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find the suggestion that it was genocide as offensive and disrespectful to actual victims of genocide such as Holocaust survivors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.31 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Why is this article missing so many Infoboxes? What about the Commonwealth, WTO, OECD, APEC and such? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By infoboxes I mean the nav boxes found at the bottom of articles. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and add appropriate templates, but you may want to look up the syntax for collapsing and merging them together in one block first. --Stephen 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is not an automatic answer to any and all content queries. Due to the suspicious lack of infoboxes I was wondering whether or not there's a consensus or something not to include them, eg. Indonesia, before I add the Anglosphere box. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You do mean navboxes, not infoboxes. They tend to get removed/moved to more specific articles fairly quickly - where do you stop with these things? JPD (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why stop? They take up a few bytes and are below the entire article, they aren't in the way. But I was just curious why there aren't any. That's all. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

socialized medicine

Does Australia have socialized medicine like England or france? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.9.131 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It has universal health care like most of the Western world. 'Socialised medicine' is a term that only gets used in American political arguments. - Aucitypops (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Going on from what Aucitypops has;,make that every 1st world country, except, of course in the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.79.84 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the terrible slagging the Australian national health system gets in the media, recent studies have shown (what I have always believed) that we have one of the best and fairest health systems in the world. Unlike America (where only the very wealthy can afford any length of stay in hospital), the Australian citizen has the right to the best level of medical treatment in the world whether or not they can afford it. "Socialisation" may be an American term used by its politicians, but our system (along with the outstanding systems in France and England) are the envy of the world. A country's standard of living is judged by the egalitarian systems of health and education and by the way it treats its women, children and the poor. The only level lacking in terms of our health system is the Federal Government's complete inadequacy of funding towards medical research. This country is a world leader in medical research and we are losing a lot of our medical geniuses overseas. KathyBoots; 4.32 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is often a political term, the word "Socialism" does apply to a universal healthcare system. Don't jump on people for using a certain term, which by definition is correct. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only correct as far as the US is concerned but the US is not the whole world and the rest of the world has a different view of socialized medicine. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree: I've never heard the term "socialised medicine" used in Australia (or "socialized" if you're from the USA). It's like roads, police/fire, water and education: universally needed and supplied regardless of income. NathanLee (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Wikipedia needs to realise that articles on Australia should be written to deal with Australian conditions. American standards in some quarters have been adopted. In others they have been roundly rejected. The system of public health in Australia is one that works generally well. In fact current democratic presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton came out to Australia during the presidency of her husband to actually look at the Australian system of public health care in an effort to improve the deplorable state of american health care. Her recommendations were rejected by the US Congress. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Standards

Before we get into an edit war lets hash it out here first. We need to gain a consensus.
Here is what I found:

• Using the Australian Hansard Style Guide:
  • Spelling uses the Macquarie Dictionary, see section 1.2, page 1.
    • The MD has program as the headword and says programme is a variant spelling.
  • Serial commas are not preferred, see section 5.4.12, page 55.
  • Unspaced em dash is preferred, see section 8.6, page 56–57. (Here, I stand corrected.)

On a personal note: I always used to prefer the use of spaced en dashes, but whenever I was reading a book or newspaper (published in Australia or the UK) those publications seemed to have a preference for spaced em dashes. Could we use spaced en dashes rather than the "unsightly" unspaced em dashes? – Axman (☏) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Hansard Style Guide is the relevant authority, Axman? AGPS style guide is used for actual governmental publications, and it is the dominant general publishing style guide beyond governmental work, too. (For those who like to use a distinctively Australian guide, that is. I don't!)

Hansard is used in all parliamentary documents, transcripts of proceedings, etc., so I do think it has some official relevance. But it probably is not used for government documents or external publications, which is what the AGPS style guide is for. – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie's wretched dictionary is one authority (unfortunately). It started as a poor copy of a poor American original; and it hasn't got much better. Collins English Dictionary, 4th Australian edition, 1998, has programme first, and program second (marked "American"), except for computers, etc. In any case, I make no objection if you prefer program: just use chosen forms consistently, except when citing the title of a text that uses another form.

Well then, the Collins Dictionary is living in the past, and hasn't come into the 21st century yet. Over the years the Macquarie Dictionary has improved to become a pretty good dictionary. Many Australian organisations and agencies prefer the spelling "program" over "programme" — which is considered by some as an archaic spelling like "gramme", "connexion", etc. — and the Macquarie reflects this preference, as a dictionary is supposed to. – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One wonders who you are to judge the Collins Dictionary? Macquarie is hardly a respected dictionary. "Connection" is not a word in the english language. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AGPS prefers unspaced em dash. You and I do not; but the article was established that way, and there is no reason apart from personal preference for moving away from that. I gritted my teeth, some weeks ago, and brought consistency to those dashes. Let's suppress the opinion that we happen to share, and maintain stability and consistency. My wording:

...and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash...

The question concerns the style to be used for the sentence dash: not the dash used in ranges of years, etc. I mean that the style established for the sentence dash is unspaced em dash (like it or not), as opposed to the common alternatives that I mention. Of course the en dash should be used for ranges and the like, as it is now. See WP:MOS. If you would like the hidden note to explain this more fully, by all means expand it.

I'll believe you on what the AGPS prefers, as I've never read it and this is the first time I've heard of it. Do you know where I can get my hands on a copy? – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Axman, here's the number you need: ISBN 0701636483

You can get it from Angus & Robertson or Borders for $A50, or online from these people for a bit less. It's good value (I have two copies!), but as a collector of dictionaries and style manuals I rate it not as highly as the major international manuals. It is respected in Australia. The manual recommends the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian Oxford, which is better, in my opinion (as someone who has studied these dictionaries for twenty years).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it in one of those stores. – Axman (☏) 12:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial commas? I never claimed that they are Australian style. They are advocated in major style guides, though (New Hart's Rules, Chicago Manual of Style). Again, I saw that they predominated in the article, and in accord with WP:MOS I sought to maintain consistency in such matters. Hence my editing of commas (some time back); and hence my wording in the hidden note.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

````I friggin' love this place. thank you to everyone that contributed to this article.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.38.128 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial Comma

Aren't there some places where the serial comma is required and other places where it's not?

• Eg, "The neighbouring countries are Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea to the north, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the north-east, and New Zealand to the south-east."

  "The choices for a breakfast juice are apple and blackcurrant, orange, or orange and mango."

  "Great nineteenth-century Australian explorers were Burke and Wills."

Where the serial comma is separating groups within a series. – Marco79 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs fixing. This is very much an American style, not an Australian (or British) one. We use: The first, the second and the last. The hidden comment is wrong and needs to be fixed up. NathanLee (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so, Nathanlee. For a start, the hidden comment did not claim that serial commas were Australian style: only that they had been used consistently in the article:

PLEASE USE AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH THROUGHOUT, i.e., use centre not center, neighbour not neighbor, and maximise the use of -is- rather than -iz-. Other style: the serial comma is established in this article as default usage; and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash (see WP:MOS). Maintain consistency of style, suppressing personal preferences.

Second, it is not true that there is a well-documented and clear preference against the serial comma in Australian usage: nor in any other usage, I should add. (For British New Hart's Rules and the Oxford Style Manual).

Please do not change the style of the article without discussing it first, here.

I am reverting your changes, as not having consensus.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! In Australia, American forms of spelling are not accepted. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done that editing, now. Some changes were to other commas, not serial commas. They especially brought infelicity, and momentary uncertainty for the reader; but so did some of the serial commas. Even if we didn't want consistency with the serial comma, it is well to take note of those cases that more or less demand one for clarity. Please, as I say: discuss such changes before making such a drastic stylistic change in future.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that if we're going to stick to Australian English, we really should stick to Australian styles. I have no problems with editing out the serial commas as appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree - although I actually see a lot of sense in serial commas, i agree that they should be removed for consistency. We either use "Aussie English", or we argue over each point, eg, spelling, then commas, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If there were a consistent Australian practice for the serial comma, I would agree that we should generally follow it. But there is not, neither for uniform use of it nor for uniform avoidance of it. See Serial comma; and note that AGPS Style is just one among several, calling nevertheless for the comma when needed to avoid ambiguity. There is often a need for that in this article, with its many lists that include complex items. Many Australian publishers follow British and American standards, and they are mostly in favour of uniform use of the serial comma.

In such an equivocal situation, it is best to stick to the practice that is most established in the article. For a long time that style has included uniform use of the serial comma; therefore we should stick with that! Consistency is a core desideratum in articles at Wikipedia (see WP:MOS). I myself suppress certain preferences of mine, when editing this article. Perhaps we should all be ready to do that.

If anyone can make out a convincing case that there is an established Australian preference, then by all means let's see it; and then let's change the article accordingly. But without that case, there is no warrant for change.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again FWIW, when I was taught English at primary school in the 1960s I was taught the usage as explained by Marco79. Kids are still taught that way (I work at a primary school) so I believe that there is a consistent style. The serial comma is generally to be avoided but there are occasions where its use is appropriate. Since Australian English is based on British English, British texts would be more authoritative than U.S. texts on this subject. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Aussielegend. As someone who has laboured to counter the neglect punctuation suffers in our Australian schools (working with tertiary students in NSW and Victoria), I have little confidence in such anecdotes. I see all the time the results of teachers' ignorance even of basic punctuation.

Do we follow British practice? Very well. You can't get much more British than Oxford.

The Oxford Style Manual, 2002, Chapter 5, section 5.3 Comma:

For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain [the serial comma] consistently, [...] but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. [...] Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer. (pp. 121–122)

Any other thoughts?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) My first thought is that your response was somewhat of an over-reaction. My point was that use of the serial comma is being taught the same way now as it was 40 years ago so there is a consistency, despite your insistence to the contrary. I have as little confidence in your anecdotes as you apparently have in mine. Now, where does that get us? As for your quote, I'd like to see the whole section to get an idea of the context. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Noetica - are you Australian or aware of the Australian style of writing? I went to the effort of fixing up an article to remove a very NON Australian habit with commas which you then reverted: that's just pointless. This article NEEDS to have the commas fixed to suit the Australian preferred. Perhaps some few instances might need serial commas. Perhaps YOU could discuss before reverting what was quite a bit of work and did not leave the article in an inconsistent state (so you really had no reason). The parliamentary/govt standards are an Australian reference, Oxford is NOT an Australian reference and there are plenty of other British examples (pretty much all except for Oxford it must be, funny that since it is called "The Oxford Comma").

• [7]

Most British and Australian style guides also discourage use of the serial comma in simple lists, allowing it only "when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase" (Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers).

Check the major newspapers in Australia and I think you'll find they avoid superfluous commas unless absolutely necessary to reduce ambiguity. I would almost lay money you will never find a government publication that uses commas in the serial fashion. University style guides also reflect this from my memory of uni days.

Wikipedia says to use the style that is appropriate to the country if it is a country specific page. Can't get much more about Australia than the page on Australia.

So do you have an Australian reference that says to use commas in the fashion you reverted to protect? I haven't been able to find one or any popular use of the "serial comma"/"Oxford comma". NathanLee (talk)

So does anyone have any objection to:

a) re-removing serial/"oxford" commas (except in cases where it is ambiguous e.g. "Vegemite, peanut butter and honey, and jam sandwiches" might be an example of a sentence that needs it) to make it match the Australian preference

b) changing the header comment to reflect this

As so far the only reference we have that suggests using oxford/serial commas is Oxford. We also have Australian government/parliamentary style guides suggesting they are to be avoided, a page or two (including wikipedia) on grammar suggesting Australians don't like them, several Australians commenting on this talk page who grew up learning that they are not the preferred Australian way, newspapers like Sydney morning herald/The Australian/AP etc who do not use them except when faced with ambiguity.

If it is ok, I'll re-apply the de-serialising changes I made to the article, update the header comment paying special attention to the two or three sentences which may need serial/oxford commas. NathanLee (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am against that change, NathanLee. For one thing, mere anecdote counts for nothing. Yes, I was educated in Australia, and I have been an Australian educator – including teaching in this very area. In my experience, not only is there is no consensus on the serial comma in Australia, there is deep confusion here about many matters of punctuation. But as I say, I don't expect that to carry weight: I only want to set aside all such assertions founded on what we learned (or failed to learn) in primary school. You claim that Australian newspapers have a policy of not using the serial comma as a default; but you give no authoritative source for this. Even if you could give such sources, that would show little that is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but has more in common with academic publication. As such, guides like the Oxford Style Manual (cited earlier) are much more relevant. A great number of Australian academic journals use that Oxford style; a great number of others use CMOS, perhaps with adaptions for Australian spelling; and very many others use APA style. All of these mandate the serial comma.

Since all that is so, it is simply an error to suggest the existence of an Australian standard against the serial comma, in publications of the sort we are engaged in here. It may also be an error to assert the existence of the contrary style. Since there is no settled national style to appeal to, keep to the style that is most apt in a serious encyclopaedic article of this sort, and which was already established in this article: default use of the serial comma. WP:MOS enjoins us not to supplant an existing style: in such a case "it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so". There is no reason to do so here, and good reason to maintain the established style, which assists the reader to scan accurately some rather complex lists with complex items and interpolations. The reader is helped by having a consistent expectation concerning the serial comma, which should not be subverted simply on spurious "nationalist" grounds.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford style guide is not an Australian guide. Of course it would promote the use of OXFORD COMMAS. We have an Australian guide that has been mentioned: the parliamentary one. Since there are no other AUSTRALIAN guides which suggest the use of the oxford/serial comma: I suggest we use the Australian government produced parliamentary guide. NathanLee (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As this seems to have stalled, the only Australian reference we have suggests use of serial/oxford commas is not the preferred style. Any Australian references that contradict this? Otherwise I suggest this article be fixed. NathanLee (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of something to the contrary I'd say that following the parliamentary guide is the way to go since that is used when writing all of the laws of the land. In any case I'll try to find out if there is an authoritative teacher's text when I'm working at the school tomorrow. Hopefully the principal will know. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool Question

Cool question! Wikipedia is an international undertaiking. So in the English-speaking site, what variant of English should prevail? Australian?American? South African? Jamaican? Irish? Scottish? Working class Melbournian? Do we write homogenise or homogenize; program or programme; tomato sauce or ketchup; jam or jelly? Surely the question has been dealt with before.--Gazzster (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline can be found here --Melburnian (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gazzster (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay Image

The Hervey Bay image is going to be put back as it is the gateway to Fraser Island and The Fastest growing city in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other editors might like to visit the history of the addition of this image and the comments made at L.Wadsworth regarding this image.--VS ^talk 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a reason to have a Hervey Bay image? The article has enough images already. JPD (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The demographics section states that "64% of Australians call themselves Christian: 26% identifying themselves as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican". It is not clear to me if 26% of all Australians call themselves Catholic, or if, of the 64% of Australian Christians 26% call themselves Catholic (so that only 16.6% of all Australians are Catholic). Someone who knows where this stat came from should clearify. Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What the stat says is that 26% of Australians identify themselves as Catholic, 19% as Anglicans and all up 64% identify themselves as Christians. This leaves 19% as Christians who are neither Catholic or Anglican. It seems clear to me. The figures come from the ABS and they tend to express figures as a percentage of the whole, not as a percentage of a percentage. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 consensus website has some good information. I read that a growing number of people are claiming no religion, almost the same as the number of anglicans. Should this be mentioned? --Simpsons fan 66 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to Government Type in Infobox

I would like to change the Government Type in this article's Infobox to "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The current description is "Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy". Reasons:

• This does not remove any links that are in the existing description
• It adds a link to Federation, an important and noteworthy basic feature of Australia's system
• It avoids the redirect that is in the current description (Parliamentary democracy redirects to Parliamentary system)
• It puts the description into one single phrase instead of two separate ones.

--thirty-seven (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.201.184 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto

AFAIR, Australia's motto is "Advance Australia" isn't this right, and shouldn't it go under "Anthem" on the right side ? Thanks.DaveDodgy (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? "As Far As I Recall" is not sufficient; Wikipedia requires sourcing for all assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have one.[8] "Australia has never adopted any official motto or faunal emblem." Google is your friend. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Advance Australia" was used as a motto on the 1908 coat of arms, but was replaced with simply "Australia" in the new arms in 1912. It is true that no motto has ever been adopted in its own right. JPD (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

Australia has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of Australia, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is used to show Australia's location on the world map, not to indicate which countries Australia recognises as independent. Although the map will be updated eventually, I don't think it will be a high priority since the borders of Kosovo are not relevant to finding Australia on the map, -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I also know it's of little relevance, but it is still procedural. It's important to have a world that Australia recognizes, not an outdated map. Australia is part of the world and it can't ignore the changes that happen, especially those they have approved themselves. Bardhylius (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the scale of the map on the page, it would be all but impossible to make out the borders of Kosovo, which after all is a very small country. In fact it is very hard to make out national borders at all on the map. So from the point of view of this page, the change would not be beneficial. However you could, and probably should, take this up on the map's discussion page on Wiki Commons. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid someone may find this disrespectful. Kosovo is a small country and it can hardly be seen in this large-scale map, but it should be included just like other non-populated islands are. I will now take the matter to Wiki Commons. Bardhylius (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that you've made the same request on many pages. If you're so keen for the change to occur, you could always make the maps and do the changes yourself. That said, I agree with Michael Johnson. It would be virtually impossible to see Kosovo on the map even if you did do the changes, assuming you know how to edit svg files, which I don't. Since the whole point of the map is to show the location of Australia in the world, which it does now, and people looking at the map won't be looking for Kosovo, I can't see that the effort involved is justified. It's not a case of disrespect, it's a case of sheer practicality. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the sole purpose of the map is to show where Australia is, why are the other states divided and separated in lines? I think that the map shows more than Australia. It shows what Australia recognizes around it, the world it is part of. Kosovo wouldn't be seen in the regular map, but it would in the zoomed view. Anyway, what I understood from the context of these replies is that I have permission to create a map with Kosovo. Thanks. Bardhylius (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to click on the image you'd see exactly why the other states are divided and separated. Image:Location Australia.svg, as used in this article, is based on Image:BlankMap-World6.svg which was created "with grouping enabled to connect all non-contiguous parts of a country's territory for easy colouring." The image has nothing to do with showing what countries Australia recognises. I'm afraid you're mistaken there. It is just based on an already existing general purpose image that has the countries divided and is used, as we have already pointed out, simply to show Australia's location in the world. Further, if you continue to click through to the instruction page you'll see that it states, quite clearly, "Kosovo is also represented on the map, but without a border. If desired to be used, will have to be selected by searching for its id tag ("kosovo")." So there you go. Kosovo is already on the map and, according to the history, has been there since at least September last year. It's amazing what you can find when you look. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's in the map. But is it divided from Serbia?! You clearly have no clue of the matter, maybe you should look up more into that before discussing this. I do not care what the map was spawned about. A map serves to show the WORLD and its STATES. Kosovo is a new state, FULLY and FORMALLY RECOGNISED by Australia. Full stop. Bardhylius (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You should care what the map was spawned about since it shows that your theory on what the map is supposed to represent to be wrong. It really doesn't matter whether or not Kosovo has borders since it's not relevant to the article. And please, be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, for Kosovo it doesn't matter whether there are borders, while for all the other countries in the world it does? Why wasn't the map entirely blank with only Australia marked? Please be reasonable. Bardhylius (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because Kosovo is not relevant to finding Australia on a world map. I'm not sure how many times we have to say this. Other countries have borders because they had borders when the original map was created. Kosovo didn't. The borders weren't blanked out because it's a lot of extra work blanking them out and blanking the borders wasn't justified. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind (India, Brazil, Belize etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on Australia with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bardhylius, if it bothers you that much, you can get yourself some software capable of editing SVGs (Inkscape is generally recommended for Wikimedia purposes) and go edit all the world maps to turn on the border for Kosovo. As Chuq says, it's simply not a high priority for most people since the map is all about finding Australia with respect to the rest of the world, and on the thumbnail in the article Kosovo won't even be visible anyway even when the border is turned on. --bainer (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank heavens I found this dialogue on the Talk:Australia page. I couldn't for the life of me understand why, when i looked at the map where Australia is in relation to the world's continents and major political boundaries, why an extraordinarily important place like Kosovo, which holds such vital visual relevance to Australia's position within the Pacific and globally, wasn't included in bold in the map. At least now i can rest assured that someone is going to steps to remedy this ghastly oversight, for heavens sake what is the matter with you Australians? HelloMojo (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on the related topics table

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, as I am new to this editing stuff, but I just wanted to bring to attention the vandalism under the related topics table on the Australia page. I'd happily have removed it myself but as I say I am new to this. Lemonmeringuepie (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good pick up - since removed by a bot (robot). Feel free to revert yourself where you are sure it is vandalism like that clearly was.--VS ^talk 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Education

I would like to bring to the attention of who ever that Queensland's education ages are not listed. Queenlands education starts at the age of 6 (grade 1) and finishes at the age of 17 (grade 12), with the option of leaving at age 15 (grade 10). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.89.69 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know the names and addresses of Austrialian newspapers, particularly those mainly concerned about religion.

Manuel Borda email address <redacted> 78.133.49.7 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed your email address: posting it anywhere on Wikipedia is a sure way to be hit with massive volumes of spam. List of Australian newspapers may help you with your query; if you indeed need something more specific, you may ask at the reference desk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ta soeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.31.89 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Schule in Australien

Alle Schulen in Australien sind kagge :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.40.26 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia

Wikipedia Administrator

(1) I changed and insert some images to improve the article of Australia. I noticed some images were reversed back, which seems a bit disingenuous to replace it with a poorer quality, less pretty photo that illustrates less credibility. Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:Ruckwork.jpg obviously give viewers of the free encyclopedia a better and clearer quality images and express the description of the images accordingly.

(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.

(3) Image:Ayers Rock-view from 50k.jpg reflects Australia natural beauty and wonders. Ayers Rock is typically one of Australia’s icons. Image:MelbCBD.jpg represents the second largest city in Australia. I see these images fundamentally support the article’s narration of Australia and do not believe this is too much images, which will destruct the readers. I am the author of some of these images but don't want to tread on people's toes and appear self-serving.

In the meantime, I insert these images again to enhance the article and any comments are welcome.

--Donaldtong (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pics aren't placed to be pretty. They are placed to be informative and must relate directly to the article.

(1)The pic of Sydney Harbour is meant to show the urban nature, not to look pretty. It is arguable that your pic is better, but it does not show the urban nature better.

(2)Not sure what your point is here. How specifically does it relate to your photos? Which ones?

(3)An Uluru pic is irrelevant to that section and needs to be removed. Uluru is not even mentioned in the article. Again, the criteria for pics is to be informative and relevant first. "Prettiness" is optional once the main criteria are met. As for Melbourne pic, we don't need to create a pic for every city, or every point in the article. It's an article, not a gallery.

--Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into whether or not specific images are needed or not but if you do intend adding images please make sure they don't break up the article by introducing large amounts of whitespace. Whitespace may not be evident at whatever resolution you're using so you need to check 1024x768, 1280x1024 and probably 800x600 as a minimum. I've just had to adjust the same image again after I fixed it a day or two ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia

(1) The said comment; “Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG does not show the urban nature better”, cannot be substantiated by the fact. Please specify where Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not related directly to the article and does not show the urban nature better comparing to the Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg.

(2) It seems unnecessary and unimportant discussion might be brought here. Which photo and whose photo is not important. Please just click the images to find out the answers (the image author) to the question.

(3) It may be a bit bias if a comment on whether an image is informative or relevance to the article only based on a single context in the narration of the image.

(3.1) Ayers Rock is located in Northern Territory, which is mentioned in the article of Australia and also illustrated by the Australia map within the article. (3.2) Uluru is the name of the Ayers Rock from Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal culture is of a significant influence in Australia, especially in Arts. (3.3) Furthermore, the topic of Aborigines forms as an important part in the article of Australia. There are more implied expressions of the image, but the above points are sufficient to clarify the discussion.

(4) There is no argument that we don’t need images for every city and an article is not a gallery, but Melbourne is the 2nd largest city in Australia (e.g. some top large manufacturing industries and corporate headquarters are allocated in Melbourne). Again, please specify where Image:MelbCBD.jpg does not meet the main criteria and what is the main criteria? --Donaldtong (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I must say that I agree with Merbabu. Your image is taken from a high angle and shows the very "centre" of Sydney while the previous image is taken from a lower angle and gives a better idea of the extent of urban sprawl in Sydney. Your image is prettier but it's not as informative.

(3) I don't see what the picture of Uluru brings to the article. The picture of Sydney demonstrates the urban sprawl and with the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House included it is immediately recognisable as Australian. The Barossa Valley is internationally known so it too is recognisable as being Australian. The image of it is fairly representative of rural Australia (if there was no caption I honestly couldn't tell if it wasn't of the Hunter Region of NSW, where I am) and is used to highlight that only a small proportion of Australians live in rurual areas. Even the Perth image provides the reader of a view of (allegedly) the most expensive place in Australia. All the Uluru image does is show Uluru. I'll expand on this in the next paragraph...

(4) There is an issue of practicality and pactically there are only so many images that can be put into an article before it becomes so picture heavy that it becaomes a gallery rather than an encyclopaedic article and loses its value. In an article of this size with so many images that could potentially be included it's very important to minimise the number of images that aren't directly relevant to the article. I've explained why the Sydney, Barossa Valley and Perth images are directly relevant in the previous paragarph. The Melbourne image shares the same problem as the Uluru image. It doesn't really add anything to the article and it isn't really relevant. That it is Australia's second largest city really isn't enough to justify inclusion on it's own. There are lots of places that have a single outstanding point. Darwin is Australia's most northern capital, Stockton Beach has Australia's largest shipwreck, the Solar Thermal Array at the CSIRO National Solar Energy Centre in Newcastle is the largest ‘Solar Power Tower’ system in the southern hemisphere and so on. This doesn't justify them for inclusion. Nor would being the second most northern capital, the second biggest shipwreck or the second largest solar array. Images used in this article need to highlight something already in the prose or add extra information that is significant. Neither the Uluru or Melbourne images do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia (Continued)

• (1) Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. This is one of the guidelines quoted from Wikipedia – How to improve image quality. The comment about “higher” and “lower” angle of the image is quite personal rather than rational (e.g. lower angle is informative but higher angle is not informative). It is impractical and most unlikely that a better quality image can be 100% at the same lens angle to shot the same object. There is no such a reality that one measurement can fit all sizes. If the logic was followed that when an old image was replaced by a better quality image in a Wikipedia article, that better quality image must be exactly at the same caption or angles, etc., thus even a Wikipedia featured picture could still be criticized or opposed by the argument of “higher” or “lower” angles. So that the old images in Wikipedia articles would be stuck there forever and the discussion of the image improvement in an article of Wikipedia could be endless. If the prettier of the Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not denied, why not at least keep the better one?

• (2) The primary purpose and goal of Wikipedia is to provide free education and knowledge exchange. The point 3 & 4 in the last responded discussion seems a bit of contradict and ambiguous. For example, the comments said, images such as Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, Perth, and Barossa Valley are immediately recognizable as Australian. Thus this comment implied that image of Melbourne would not be immediately recognizable as Australian (why?), and Uluru would be definitely excluded. However, article Uluru in Wikipedia under the section of Description, firstly it said; Uluru is one of Australia's most recognizable natural icons. So let’s respect the expression from Wikipedia article Uluru.

• (3) If images that were added into a Wikipedia article were not well-composed and generally well-executed, or not relevant and informative, then the article would lose value or became picture heavy. But simply using the words such as “look like a gallery” or “lose value” cannot be substantiated. The article of Shrine of Remembrance does not lose any value, but has been recognized as a Wikipedia featured article since 2004 although there are many images within the article. Having said that, it does not mean the article of Australia should copy the same format like the article of Shrine of Remembrance, but see that as a reference. Wikipedia featured article, Canberra may be another example. There are many images well presented, especially under the section of Culture. These articles neither look like gallery nor lose value.

• (4) So far, the image improvement can be seen from the last editing, therefore. no more questions.

--Donaldtong (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(1)"Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good" is not written in stone. A really great looking image can be less informative than a poorer quality image and therefore the poorer quality image can be the better image. There needs to be a balance. The caption of the image in question is "Most Australians live in urban areas. Sydney is the most populous city in the country." The comment about angle is not personal, it's fact. You can quite clearly see the difference between the two images. One, the original image, gives a much better view of the extent of the urban sprawl and the size of Sydney than yours.

"If the prettier of the Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not denied, why not at least keep the better one?" You are assuming that "prettier" = "better". It does not.

(2) Your question regarding Melbourne was pretty much answered in my previous response. The Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House are well known internationally. People who look at a photo of them know immediately that they're looking at Sydney, Australia, just as anyone who sees the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty or the World Trade Center know they're looking at New York, USA or somebody who sees the Great Pyramid or Sphinx knows they're looking at the Giza Plateau in Egypt. Melbourne has no internationally recognised buildings. Uluru is a different issue. Yes, it's Australian but it's just a picture of Uluru and, while Australian, isn't really relevant to the article as I explained in my previous response.

(3) While Shrine of Remembrance may be a FA, I disagree with you. I think it has far too many images (3 are extremely similar) and there is a large amount of whitespace at 1280x1024 and above that detracts from the article. Being FA doesn't mean the article is perfect and FAs can have their FA status removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• (1) If the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia must be written in stone, obviously, that means the discussion would go nowhere in the subject of Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg .

• (2) The expression that Uluru is one of Australia's most recognizable natural icons is written by Wikipedia. It sounds this also must be written in stone, otherwise, it would not be immediately recognizable as Australian.

• (3) It is quite surprising that an active Wikipedian would have so many different personal opinions against Wikipedia’s guidelines, article’s expression and even recognized Wikipedia featured articles (e.g. Shrine of Remembrance and Canberra). However, it is no question that every personal opinion has the right to be reserved.

--Donaldtong (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going no where, simply repeating itself. Donaldtong, my advice is not to push overally hard for your own images - some people might think you are not being completely objective. If the case for their inclusion was clear, then you wouldn't need to write so much in attempt to convince people. Each of your posts are very long and people don't read such long posts. regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also point out that very little is set in stone in Wikipedia, that none of the things you have referred to are actually "guidelines", that the notion of a featured article is changing over time (as are the articles - both Shrine of Remembrance and Canberra did not have so many images when they were nominated as featured articles - it is very misleading to use them as justification for having many images), and that it is very bad form to quote from another article to prove a point. In any case, your argument that it makes a big difference if images look good is just one of the factors we must consider. Noone actually disagrees with the statement, it is just that it does not overule the idea that images are there to illustrate the article, not simply look good. JPD (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to mention some inadequacies regarding the images in this article. Queensland and especially South East Queensland, is not featured prominently enough. Something tropical, an image from Port Douglas, Noosa, Queensland or the city of Ipswich the countries fastest growing city would be good. There are no photos of the countryside (except of the Barossa Valley) especially the bush, the outback or rangelands which make up a significant proportion of the landscape. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Governor-General

Michael Jeffery is no longer Australia's GG. Quentin Bryce is the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.181 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Quentin Bryce is only the Governor General designate and will not become the Governor General until she is sworn in on 5 September 2008.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

australias obesity epidemic

Australias obesity epidemic is not mentioned.Is this not a case of biased reporting because of worry over damaging a widely held view that Aussies are sporty?Chastity678 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obesity epidemic"? Hmm, firstly that term sounds like something out of tabloid magazine. Secondly, I don't know that this is overly important - perhaps it is if you could explain further. As for editors trying to hide it so as not to damage some reputation, i know that is not true. could you elaborate? --Merbabu (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned (briefly) in the article Health care in Australia --Melburnian (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a "gaol" supposed to be?

While reading this article I saw something about a "gaol". I was going to fix it but could not for the life of me figure out what they meant. Does anyone know what a "gaol" is intended to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only mention of the term "gaol" within this article is the image caption for the Port Arthur image under the History section. Gaol is an early Modern English spelling for jail, with the same pronunciation and meaning. -- Longhair\^talk 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So if it's Early Modern English, we should modify the spelling then to the current form right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because the current form is "gaol". Early Modern just means that it dates from a certain time. It's still the preferred spelling in Australia although "jail" is becoming more common, probably because we watch way too much American TV. Gaol is also a derivative of the original word while jail is an Americanisation in that Americans seem to prefer phoneticised spellings. In the USA jails and prisons are different while a gaol is also a prison. In Australia gaol and jail mean the same thing so the Australian "jail" has a different meaning to the American "jail". There is more information at Jail#Gaol, Wiktionary:gaol and dictionary.com. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia Extends Territorial Waters

I have added to the article what I have found by following this link: Australia Extends Rights over Sea. If there are any objections to my addition, please let me know --Maurice45 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was the rights over the continental shelf, not the waters. Apart form that, is this detail really important enought to be included in this summary article? JPD (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I figure that, if it's important enough to be on the BBC news website, it should (again, not sure, so don't attack this) be on the article --Maurice45 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First european sighting is off by 1500 years?

> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606. <

This is not ture in the strictest sense. There is a rock carving of latin text on the northern shore of Australia. A 1st century AD ancient roman ship participating in the yearly exotic goods trade shuttle between the Red Sea ports and India was swept away by winds and ended up down under. The poor imperial guys probably did not last long in that deserted area, so it is not a "discovery" where return of the crew is a must, but it still counts as a "sighting" and as a "landing". 91.83.19.148 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have a reference?--VS ^talk 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

I just made this edit and realised that my edit summary is very poorly worded so I thought I'd clarify it here. What I was trying to say was that while the Statute of Westminster was ratified in 1942 the adoption date was formerly backdated to 3 September 1939 within the Act itself[10][11] so that is the adoption date, not the 1942 date. While the document was formerly assented to on 9 October 1942 not 3 October 1942 as edited)[12] the commencement date is the more important date. This is no different to The Constitution, which received royal assent on 9 July 1900 but did not come into force until 1 January 1901. The commencement date of both is what is important. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about if further, since the date of commencement is the more significant date, the link should probably be [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|commenced]] rather than [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|adopted]] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities. Australia did not have the power to legislate itself completely freely before 1942, the backdated adoption date is a legal technicality, as shown by your own cite (11). It says "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" which was 9 October [[1942]. History documents when things actually happened - the backdate is a legal technicality. When your cite (11) says the law was "adopted" from 1939 it means they will apply it from 1939 if anything is discovered in that past time that relates to the law, but when it says it comes into "operation" in 1942 it means that they can only start applying the law from then because laws can't travel through time.

What I am trying to say is that the backdate is just to deal with the past and doesn't change the date the law actually came into force. As I said in my last edit, I apply the same logic to the Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1901 like the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 came into force on 9 October 1942 (I did accidentally type type 3 October rather than 9 October).--Supertask (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Why does the CIA have different population statistics for Australia. For example, it claims Australia has a smaller population and is growing at around 0.80%. The French page uses the CIA factbook and thus looks completely different to the English version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

I don't know why the CIA is wrong but it is. The official population clock is a far more accurate estimate and that's what should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Most desirable: Australia near the top

Someone should add in that Australia is ranked the third most desirable country to live in a United Nations report. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikunit (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Naaaaaah. If we are gunna add stuff like that lets add everything the United Nations have ever said about Australia. And if we do that, I am pretty sure it won't all be complimentary. Let's not open up that can of worms. Australia is a great place to live, but let's not brag about it to people. Ryan Albrey (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You Traitor! --Simpsons fan 66 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

major parties?

I don't think the Nationals Party is a major party. They are a minor party, who form government with a major party. I haven't changed this.Mickpower 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Historically the Nationals win about 10% of the seats in the house of reps, which although is admittedly well off the pace of the Labor or Liberal parties, is significant, and constitutes a major party. It is my opinion that the article should stay as is. dialagranny 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I guess Dialagranny has a point. I was going to argue the same point as Mickpower but thinking about it now... I dunno. I guess any party that is able to crack a few seats in the HOR probably deserves to be regarded as a serious (read: major) player in politics. But lets not get confused into thinking that this is because they have "major party" levels of support Australia wide. They have zero support in urban areas. They manage to score seats in regional areas because they have the unique characteristic among Australian political parties of having their power very centralised in particular areas of the country (farming country). If they had the same level of support they enjoy now, but it were spread more evenly (regional AND urban Australia) across the country they would have no HOR seats or very few (say like the greens). In summary they are a major party if you want to look at how many seats they have in the HOR but they are NOT a major party if you want to look at the overall level of support they have with the general population of Australia. Ryan Albrey (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the results of the recent (2007-11) election, there are two major parties, and two minor parties (Greens and National) with enough support to have more than a single seat in the Senate, or any seats in the HOR. Per Ryan's point, the Greens have more overall voting support than the Nationals, and the disparity between Green and National HOR representation is an artifact of voter distribution, not overall support. And even then, the gap between the two majors and everyone else is considerably greater than the gap between the Greens and Nationals and everyone else. Perhaps it would be fair to note that there are two 'major' parties, several minor parties with representation in Parliament, and everyone else. --Jlundell (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well is there a clearcut definition of "major party" that actually solves this one way or the other? (Preferably one that isn't a battleground of partisans trying to draw the definition in such a way to include or exclude their own preferred party.) Especially when it comes to parties that regularly fight elections as part of an established combination - is one of the major groups "the Liberals" or "the Coalition"? On the one hand you're right that the Nationals poll a significantly lower level of support (though it's dodgey to make absolute statements about "zero support" in areas where they don't stand at all for the House and run on a joint ticket for the Senate since this is untested), but on the other hand the Nationals are regularly part of the government at the Commonwealth level (as often as the Liberals have been) and arguably carry far more weight in politics that raw numbers suggest. For example can it be proved or disproved that either of the individual Coalition parties get first preference votes from voters who'd prefer the other party but don't have it on their ballot paper? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are likely to find any dictionary definition of the term "major party". Therefore I think we should resolve the dispute by removing the term "major party" which is a wishy-washy term with as many definitions as there are political parties. We should be specific. We should state the top 3 parties by HOR representation. We should state the top 6 parties by the number of first preference votes they each receive Australia wide. Ryan Albrey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Internal Links

I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kathleen.wright5. Much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.58.242 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ocean names

Interesting article. I see only one facet upon which Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) do not have an "authoritative leg up." Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). (Also see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....this article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .

For good or bad (bad if you're a fan of Australian maps and terminology), they have decided that Australia is a continent sitting in the Indian Ocean, with the Pacific along its eastern side. They publish this with carefully delineated borders for these water bodies (see that mentioned in the WP Great Australian Bight article. So, certainly not for Australian use, but for a worldwide English encylopedia, it's "Indian Ocean", not "Southern Ocean." The IHO very clearly ruled (after a vote of member nations) that the "Southern Ocean" stops at 60 degrees south, and north of that its the Indian Ocean. Not debatable, unless you want to try to overturn the worldwide and WP-wide acceptance of the IHO as the authority on these matters. (Water bodies that Australia does not share with other nations are a different matter, of course.)

This is how world geographers (and the IHO) avoid having several names for various sides of various oceans. Having done the South Coast Track in Tasmania and looking southwest off the cliffs (an amazing place; huge old growth trees, remote beaches) and saying something to a local about the big Indian Ocean waves and getting an incredulous stare, I know this doesn't make sense locally.....But it's an international encyclopedia.DLinth 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

origanly the indian ocean was called Arseotopia ocean but got change in year 1742 by captain john yorknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ally-nightmare (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, and apologies - I forgot to look at a map! (There have been a lot of edits in other articles to remove the "Southern Ocean"; in my haste, I presumed that this was the same thing.) I've made a minor edit to the text, and combined the two references into one. Again, sorry! (Darn Canadians...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an internal link to oceania, or something else that australia is a member of is our region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANZUS (talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems as good a place as any to try to centralise a discussion on what the name of the wet stuff immediately south of Australia is called. Here's what I've discovered so far:

It appears that Southern Ocean#History says that only 14 countries voted in favour of using the name "Southern Ocean" and defining it to be no further north than 60° South. That's not many countries, even out of only 68 members of the IHO. Neither article says what countries are bound by the decision, or whether it needs to be (or has been) ratified by their respective governments. Just because the IHO has decreed something maynot make it so (everywhere). Australia is a member of the IHO, represented by the Royal Australian Navy Hydrographic Service. A search for "Southern Ocean" in their Maritime Gazetteer of Australia (MGA) Search yields 34 results, only 6 of which are south of 60° South latitude. Particularly relevant to this discussion is the third match, at 35°0'S, 115°0'E, from chart Aus335 near Cape Leeuwin. I think the statement that Bass Strait and the Great Australian Bight are in the Indian Ocean and not the Southern Ocean is far from universally true.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Times Atlas (UK, #1 world atlas), CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names, etc., etc., and nearly all non-Australian atlases and maps strictly show the Southern Ocean as below 60 degrees lat. All sources go on and on about it being defined as an ocean due to its hydro characteristics....a cold, polar current circling Antarctica. So 35 degrees south is particularly far "off the charts" in the world's view....that's the same lat. as the Mediterranean! (for a "polar" ocean!??)DLinth 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but the Mediterranean is a polar ocean. --Pete 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been involved in arguments with cartographers about perpetuated errors in tourist maps of Indonesia and their sheer belligerence in maintaining obvious errors I am sorry but most of the authorities invoked in the previous message is totally unconvincing - I am more concerned that if there is an issue of international maritime law - or conventions - then just because a particular publication carries some information - or perpetuates an error - it does not an ocean make. CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names - there is indeed sufficient evidence internally in wikipedia that both of these sources carry errors for locations outside their original jurisdiction as to make them questionable sources - and I for one would never uses them if it got to a debate over errors ot otherwise for placenames on a place like Indonesia for a start. SatuSuro 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further - so perhaps there is someone who wants to make Australias designated southern ocean region the indian ocean because he finds secondary sources that claim that, and wants to remove any claims that australia has made to designate that area as the southern ocean.

Wikipeda is an online encyclopedia that must have an absolutely huge number of contested territory disputes within much smaller areas. So I propose that we do not under any circumstances accept one view over the other (short of good primary sources to determine one view over the other) - but make sure both versions are in a centralised separate article where both sides of the claims are adequately sourced from primary source materials not second (ie CIA fact book and atlases are not primary sources but potentially unreliable secondary sources) - which means bass straight, tasmania no longer have arguments about whether they are in the indian ocean - either on their article space or talk space - but simply see also/redirects to an article specifically that outlines the historical dimensions of the ocean that lies between terra sutralis and the south pole. Anything else would lessen the value of wikipedia in my view - tacky modifications to smaller local articles that are not to do with either internationaly or nationally designated spaces (oceans or otherwise)by treaty or law - simply reduces the quality of the articles.

So anyone Australia and the Southern Ocean - a good thorough cited outline of the issues? Not forgetting the problem of accepting secondary sources and dated material SatuSuro 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see....you characterize the world's most respected atlas, the U.S. most respected geographic authority, Websters, US Board on Geographic Names, and the CIA FactBook as "secondary sources" and "dubious sources." While ignoring the fact that the world community (and WP community) recognizes the IHO as the authority over ocean body names/extents (extent as in their decision that the S. Ocean is from 60 S to Antarctica, not 35S (Australia's S. shores.) What's do you suggest for "primary sources?" I've not seen you produce any contradictory sources or recognized authorities which, until you or other do so, in other words, there are primary sources that actually disagree, makes any "third party oversight" pointless, yes? Scott (below) has a measured approach....yours, SatuSuro, seems a bit irrational. As a cartographer and geographer, I'm sorry that their "belligerance" about using internationally recognized standards and authorities, a good thing for WP, was upsetting to you.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's beginning to sound like the suggestion of an article about name and extent is useful. I'm not sure if it should be a separate article, or part of Southern Ocean or Great Australian Bight. Perhaps we should start writing it, then see if it needs to be merged somewhere.

I found a 9th Edition Times Atlas (1992) at work. It does not support the assertion that the Southern Ocean only extends to 60° S, nor that the water south of Australia is the Indian Ocean:

• Plate 10 (Australia) carries the Indian Ocean name only North of Dampier, but only names the Great Australian Bight, Bass Strait and Tasman Sea in the south. (no evidence either way)
• Plate 12 (Australia, South East) only names the Great Australian Bight and Bass Strait (no evidence either way)
• Plate 14 (Australia, West) labels the Indian Ocean in the small strip of water on the west side of the map, and the Great Australian Bight to the south. Not really evidence, but there is more space to have written Indian Ocean at the south, if that is what they believed.
• Plate 9 (The Orient : Pacific Islands) main map has Indian Ocean labeled north of 20° S, and the Southern Ocean labeled just below 50° S, written between Kerguelen Island and Heard Island, but much closer to Kerguelen. If anything, this suggests that the Times cartographers believed that Kerguelen Island was in the Southern Ocean, as it could have been written either further east or further south if that was not their intent.

Addressing accuracy, the Times Atlas clearly identifies the North Pacific Ocean, South Pacific Ocean, North Atlantic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean as four distinct oceans, not just two, on maps such as Plate 8 (World Political, which does not contain the Southern Ocean, nor name the water south of Australia), Plate 9, Plate 12, Plate 16 (Eurasia) etc.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 09:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The IHO made its decision in the year 2000! You're using a 1992 edition. The 2007 12th edition (covered quite a bit upon its release a couple weeks ago in the media) starts out with both Plate 1 and Plate 2, world maps, with "Southern Ocean" clearly placed to ":squeeze in" between Antarctica and 60S. On not a single map does "Southern Ocean" appear above 60S latitude, including all of those plates that you cite above.

By the way, I agree with that observation of yours that the IHO dramatically overextends the extent (east and west limits) of the Great Australian Bight, and agree with what I think is your position that the IHO should not be considered to have authority over anything with regard to how a country names and defines limits for its own bodies of water such as the Bight. For international oceans, though, they simply are the authority, and that is recognized worldwide and in WP, even when they unfortunately ignore common practices such as where Australians usually place the "Southern Ocean.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The CIA World Fact Book identifies the water south of Australia as the South Pacific Ocean, just to confuse this discussion further!![14] --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope again. The CIA World Fact Book, despite that gliche on their 2005 map that you found, clearly labels "Indian Ocean" due south of Australia on its 2007 map of "Oceania", its main map covering the region in question. And its world maps have consistently for years squeezed in "Southern Ocean" between 60S latitude and Antarctica, not in the waters south of Australia.DLinth 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created Australia and the Southern Ocean and would appreciate further input, with references, or suggestions and questions on its talk page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a clear case of systemic bias as the article on Australia is being rewritten to suit to US sources and ignoring the local sources. When referring to naming in Australian Territories in article an about Australia then the naming should be that as defined by Australian sources. Difference in naming/boundaries should be within the Southern Ocean article especially where the naming is only a recent adoption and hasnt been adopted/accepted within Australia. Official government maps in Australia define the Indian Ocean and Southern as meeting at Cape Leeuwin. Gnangarra 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, it is an international source, and in theory the governing body of such things. Wikipedia's practice is to use international standards where available. (I can understand your concern, but it happens all across the encyclopedia. Pluto is described as a dwarf planet, respecting the authority of the IAU. Canada's Arctic waters are described as being a disputed claim, based on international status rather than the position of the "local" government.) Please note that the changes go to great lengths to point out the local difference, through footnotes and even a new article about the discrepancy. -Ckatz^chat_spy 03:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see your point about Pluto. Are you saying that Wikipedia describes it as a dwarf planet despite the local Plutonian government saying it's a fullsized one?

My concern with the footnotes is twofold: 1) when reading the article, they look like references supporting the "Indian Ocean" rather than actually a footnote explaining a disputed title. 2) The footnotes have been phrased (Most Australians describe the body of water south of the continent as the Southern Ocean, rather than the Indian Ocean as officially defined by the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). In 2000, a vote of IHO member nations defined the term "Southern Ocean" as applying only to the waters between Antarctica and 60 degrees south latitude.) to suggest that most Australians have a false view of the world, rather than identifying that the IHO name is different to the official Australian name. To choose another comparative example, the Myanmar article identifies in the main text that this is the official English name preferred by the current government of that country, but that several other countries use a different name for it, preferred by a previous government. The world fact book article about it doesn't even mention Myanmar until nearly half way down the page, and only then to note that name is not used by the USA.

Wikipedia is supposed to adopt a neutral point of view, not necessarily an official point of view, especially when there are different "officials" with different views. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Choice of photos

I have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I'm going to give an opinion, because Australia is my country.

I am offended by the inclusion of the photo of the Japanese solidier about to behead an Australian soldier. It happened. It did indeed! So have a lot of other absolutely ghastly things and brutal things in the history of the world. The photo appears to convey courageous resignation of behalf of the Australian solidier. Other than that, it says nothing about Austrlians, except to remind us alll that we do like to cling to our prejudices, don't we? And this effectively feeds them, doesn't it?

I want it removed.

• This is a generic article about Australia. The pic says little about Australia
• It is about hatred
• It is a constant reminder to every Japanese person who looks at this site of actions for which the many have expressed regret
• This is the generic article about Australia, used by thousands of kids. It is a horrible and entirely unnecessary pic for the kiddies to look at, doing their school projects.
• It belongs in the article about Australian prisoners of war. Older kids, doing research on this subject will find it appropriate there.
• There are thousands of photos of Australia. Let us give a positve image to the eyes of the world.

NOTE: This is not about censorship. This is about suitability. Things need to suit the context and the requirements of the user. There are many images of Australia and Australians that are more pertinient than this. Amandajm 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You of course can be bold and remove it yourself. But I must say I disagree with you on almost every point. This is an iconic picture, and summarises the Japanese treatment of POW's, for Australians one of the most significant aspects of WWII. Wikipedia is not censured for children, in any case this is not an especially horrific photo. The photo may indeed be about hatred, but not Australian hatred. As for Japanese sensibilities, unfortunately very few of them are familier with the policies and actions of their government and armed forces during WWII. Their education system ignores this period of their history. I have no problems with them becoming more aware of their history. --Michael Johnson 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda. I have removed it. That picture did not tell readers about Australia. The picture above to the left does.--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I mostly agree with Amanda and Scott here. I don't see any photos of Yagan's severed head in this article. And in regards to the notion that children don't get taught about that part of history, I studied history last year in high school for my TEE, and we spent a hell of a lot of time on WWII and the possibility of a Japanese invasion. Black-Velvet 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also on the choice of Photos, the Photos of Australia are still not very attractive, especially compared to the photos chosen for articles on our major cities. Our tourism industry gain $117 Million dollars a year more at least if this article was more attractive, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.142.62 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First sight from the seven hills

> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606 <

If I understand correctly an ancient roman latin text carved into stone has recently been found on northern australian shore. It says XY on his ship QZ has suffered shipwreck there. They were enroute from Red Sea port to India, a usual journey done yearly at the height of Roman Empire to trade chinese goods. They were swept away by unusual monsoon winds and ended up in Australia after some months. Of course they could never return, so it may not count as a discovery, but it is still amazing how far mankind has gotten even in antiquity! 91.83.20.91 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Islands in the Southern Ocean

A recent edit comment noted that "Australia has islands in the Southern Ocean no matter what your conception of it". Which islands are they? I saw Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but they are at about 53 degrees south. A quick scan of the list at List of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands didn't reveal any islands claimed by Australia. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Macquarie Island is an example straight off the top of my head. HelloMojo 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, but Macquarie's at approx. 54 south - not in the Southern Ocean (per the official 60 degree line). --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Population Growth

I noticed that according to the numbers listed, Australia gained over 1.2 million people from 2006 to 2007, an increase of over 6 percent in one year! That seems very rapid, possibly inaccurate. By comparison the United States only gained two million in the same period.

The Demography of Australia page list different numbers than those listed here. Angry Aspie 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the 2007 figure is an estimate, it was taken from the ABS population clock (see reference). I don't think it is very accurate but its from the ABS so its official. --Mgill 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the links for the 'census' table links to the United States census! This needs to be fixed. Also, Australia doesn't have censii in 1990, 2000, etc, but in 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006. Tonzo 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is because the census figures use a template that is inappropriate here. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Demography data

I've just removed pre-1900 data that the source at http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm admits does not include Aborigines; it looks like 1896 is the first year which does include the aboriginal population, though the text implies its 1901.

If another editor prefers to include that data and copy the note, that would be fine by me, though I think it's rather silly to reproduce a population claim of 2,100 for an island with a population of some 300,000.

RandomP 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"predominantly of British or Irish origin"

Has been removed as it is simply false. The majority of Australians are NOT of British or Irish origin.

Well false or not did it require removing in the way you did? I feel it's always better to edit something false so as to make it true rather than to delete it outright. The majority of Australians might not be of British or Irish origin but those of British or Irish origin certainly make up the biggest ethnic demographic. Why cant you write that instead? Ryan Albrey (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The majority of Australians are of Anglo-Celtic ethnic origin.

Table 1. Top Four Ancestry responses for the 2006 and 2001 Censuses Ancestry

Ancestry	2006	2001
Australian	7 371 823	6 739 594
English	6 283 647	6 358 880
Irish	1 803 736	1 919 727
Scottish	1 501 200	540 046

2006 Census

ZwickauDeluxe (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Early European Colonisation

"...350,000 at the time of European settlement". European sounds weirdly vague, pointlessly so. Australia was almost exclusively colonised by the British, for the first hundred years. There weren't any Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or any other European colonies, just the British! There might have been a few non-British whalers paying visits to ports but so what! They had about as much impact, and probably less so, on the early colonisation of Australia as the British pirates had on the early Spanish colonisations of Cuba or Peru. The Spanish Colonised Peru not Sir Francis Drake, the Spanish destroyed the Inca empire not British pirates and similarly the British took Australia from the Aborigines and brutalised them, not the Europeans whalers.

Non-British colonisation of Australia before 1900 was almost insignificant. The colonisation of Australia was very different from the colonisation of America, the USA. There was only one European nation involved in the colonisation of Australia, solely Britain.

So, the native population of Australia was 350,000 at the time of British settlement. Britain maybe part of Europe but it also part of Eurasia, the northern hemisphere and the world, but Britain is far more specific and much more relevant a concept than Europe, in this context and time period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.251.23 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the settlement of Australia was an enterprise of the United Kingdom government, there have always been noticeable minorities of non-British settlers, dating even from the convicts of the First Fleet. You also run against the problem of the Irish, clearly a very substantial part of the European invasion, however many Irish would object to being lumped into the "British". --Michael Johnson 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: What became the continental United States was originally settled almost exclusively by the British ( or English, if you prefer ). The French were more concerned with their interests in what is now Canada, and the Spanish were more focused on what is now the American Southwest ( Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona ) and Latin America ( now Mexico and points south ). While subsequent waves of new people came ( to what became the US ) from various countries, including those in Europe, the first to break ground and settle were English. ( I exclude the Norse settlements, because they left or died off. ) ( The Discovery of North America © 1972 American Heritage Press ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski mohawk (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This might seem kind of picky, but could somebody change "South Australia was founded as a "free province"—that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts." It seems kind of contradictory. It seems that from the first sentence that "free province" implies "never a penal colony", which seems to be contradicted in the second sentence. I think "South Australia ... 'free province' rather than a penal colony..." would work better. This seems like a minor and obvious change but apparently I don't have access to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbrinda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Median household income

The following information may be of interest:

Since 2000 Australia has made substantial gains in median household income. Australia, along with New Zealand, were not affected by the the early 2000s recession that impacted upon most other advanced countries. The combination of high growth in Australia, along with negative growth in United States, has allowed Australia to close the income gap. As of 2006, Australia's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United states.

	Period	2006 Median household income (PPP US$)	Average household size	Real growth (%)	Growth performance
USA	2000-2006	$48,200 [15]	2.6 people [16]	- 2.0	Disappointing
New Zealand	2000-2007	$39,937	2.7 people [17]	+24.2	Good
Australia	2001-2006	$38,420	2.6 people [18]	+13.2	Good

For more information about median household income in Australia follow the link.

Cheers

Badenoch 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly Australia has posted impressive economic growth over the past 5+ years. But the figures you've quoted are not very useful:

1. A per capita figure (GDP, PPP) would be a more accurate measure of economic performance.

2. The 2006 US figure is an estimate, which you failed to note.

3. Any time frame that is so short while including the 9/11 attacks (and aftermath) in the US represents a skewed picture of economic performance. As such, I don't think it's an appropriate comparison. Perhaps a comparison of Australia with West European economies (GB, France, Germany) would be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that these figures may not be correct. According to an article I read recently, the average salary in Australia is now around AUS$48,000 per annum. It would be very rare indeed to find someone on a salary as low as $38,000 per annum unless they were unskilled and working in a very low paying job, worked in a factory or had a part-time position. Most employees in Australia are well educated with white collar positions. What sets us apart is that the cost of living here is still very good. Everybody complains that Sydney is expensive but in comparison to exorbitant cities, like Paris, London, Dublin and New York, it is not overly priced and still maintains its fantastic quality of life. Low paying positions monopolised by unskilled peoples (who are often migrants with little or no English) are offset by Government pensions and rebates which assist those people classified within the lower socioeconomic scales. In regard to quality of life, there are an infinite range of factors to take into consideration other than the amount people are paid. The costs of housing, food, clothing, education, health and the generosity of its government in relation to welfare and its ability to deal with crime, are just some considerations. KathyBoots; 4.47 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

New External Link

I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.

Here is the link:

• Australia Travel Guide from GlobeGnome.com Shaun Wright 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate you want to get exposure for your website Shaun but I don't think wikipedia is the place. I cannot support the inclusion of this link at this time as per WP:EL - Links normally to be avoided (no. 13): "open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" --SRHamilton 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Language

What is the official language of Australia? English - Yes - But which English, British or American...? I'd expect British, but they write words like "Labor" without the "u"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.159.2 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Australians speak Australian English. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian English PookeyMaster (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We should make the official language of Australia Australian English instead of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.58.242 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we have more of the british english but we dont use the same way of speaking them. so Aussie english sounds good yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by -The Great One- (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "English" spoken in Australia is absolutely unique. The term "strine" was used to describe the nation's quirky idiom. This is reinforced by the hundreds of "translation" books published to provide the English-speaking tourists from the US, Canada and the UK a reference source from which to understand the local transliteration. The Australian penchant for abbreviations such as "cossie" for costumes, "mossie" for mosquito or "brekky: for breakfast, is firmly entrenched, however, it is unfortunate that the wonderful, entertaining Aussie phrases are slowly dying out. With the increasing Americanisation of our local television, it is rather regrettable that the colourful slang used by the First World War generation of Australians (as well as the parents of the Baby Boomers) is slowly being phased out and overwhelmed by the Americanised global slang of the Y Generation. KathyBoots; 4:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, most Australians I know, including myself, definitely spell it colour, labour, favourite, etc. I believe the 'labor' you're referring to is to do with some political party spelling that was based off the American system for some quirky reason. It is NOT the common spelling of labour. - A random 210.215.140.180 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Election

As of 10 pm the 24th of November, 2007, John Howard is replaced as Prime Minister by Kevin Rudd. Unless Howard manages to get another 30 seats and about 8 of the certain labor seats are recounted, it will not be possible for him to be PM for the next Term. I wrote this so someone could update the article seeing as its locked PookeyMaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment is inaccurate until such time as Howard accepts defeat. This has not occured as at 10.29pm and I will maintain the protection until that occurs. Thank you however for your interest.--VS ^talk 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd isnt PM until sworn in by the Governor General which isnt normally until 7-10 days after the election Gnangarra 11:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Page now unprotected at 10.37pm as John Howard has just conceded. --VS ^talk 11:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC) However I concur with Gnangnarra - for accuracy Rudd is only the incumbent.--VS ^talk 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard is the incumbent. The word means "current occupant of the position". Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister-elect would be a more accurate term would it not ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No because Prime Ministers are not directly elected. Though it would be no more innacurate than saying Kevin Rudd *is* Prime Minister, when he isn't. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically the PM would be vacant with JH the incumbent being a "caretaker" PM until KR is confirmed by the party and sworn in as PM by the Governor General this normally takes 7-10 days. Gnangarra 12:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to "John Howard (caretaker)" or similar. But this assumption that Kevin Rudd is already PM is extremely irritating and wrong. They need a damn good thrashing. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be listed as n/a or have (de facto) after it or something similar? GoodOrEvil (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The PM page on the Australia Government website states, "Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in." As such, a parenthetical "caretaker" after Howard's name would make sense, as would the below suggestion of adding Mr. Rudd as Prime Minister-designate in the infobox until he is sworn. -Rrius (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we run into this problem in Canada as well whenever an election results in a change of government. The Canadian contingent has found that the most effective solution available to us is to list both the outgoing and incoming leaders in the relevant infoboxes and navboxes during the transition period — but the incoming leader is noted as "Prime Minister-designate" (or "Premier-designate"), since we obviously have the same problem with "-elect". We do still occasionally have editors who'll revert that one way or the other, but it becomes much less frequent and more manageable. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding Kevin Rudd to the infobox in the manner I've described here: he's listed on a second line, under Howard, with the parenthetical "(designate)" following his name. Don't feel obliged to keep it if it causes another set of problems, but as I've noted it is a practice that really cuts down on the edit wars when it comes to Canadian elections. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a draft policy or guideline proposal at User:Bearcat/Post-Election Edit War Syndrome, regarding how to minimize this type of edit warring. I'd like to invite any interested editors to come offer some input. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who read this in the future, there's been quite an amount of debate about "Prime Minister-elect" vs. "Prime Minister-designate" at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia, and "PM-elect" is the clear consensus. There's also a new article Prime Minister-elect. -- JackofOz 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the apparently incessant revert warring, I have fully protected this article temporarily, so the involved parties can sort out on this talk page the 'incumbent' question/who to list as current PM. - Mark 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New primeminister

I would of edited it myself, but since it's protected for whatever reason, I can't. Kevin Rudd just won the election, hence Prime Minister "John Howard" would change to Prime Minister "Kevin Rudd". 58.168.127.168 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's protected because people are trying to do that. Read the two sections just above. JPD (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The winner of an election does not immediately become the incumbent on election night. John Howard is still the PM today, and tomorrow, and Monday, and every day after that until Kevin Rudd is actually sworn into office by the Governor General approximately two weeks after election day. Wikipedia's job is to be correct, not to reflect common misunderstandings. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

census links

When you click on the dates next to the population figures it links to the united states census, which isn't relevant. I'd change this myself but the page is protected.--Towerdefence (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where you're seeing this? The main article hasn't been edited since several hours before you posted this, but I can't find a population figure in the article that's sourced to the US census instead of the Australian one. Am I just missing it? Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the demography section there is a sidebar with historical population numbers by year. when you click on the year it sends you to the article about the US census of that year.--Towerdefence (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it uses {{USCensusPop}} hence the programmatic US links. We could probably subst it and then alter the links, but I'm short of time currently... --Stephen 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit-Warring re:2007 Election

There appears to be a substantial amount of edit-waring and confusion over the correct denotation of the prime minister of Australia, both on this page and also most of the other pages with reference to the position. It seems to be largely fuelled by unregistered new editors enthusiastically coming along and attempting to update the pages with reference to the recent elections (i.e. changing the current prime minister from Mr Howard to Mr Rudd). As it appears to me that there is a fairly sound consensus to stick with current wikipedia precedent - to wait until the prime minister delegate is officially instated before updating wikipedia - I suggest that this page and all others of similar nature should be either

• Tagged temporarily to the effect of "Please read this article's talk page before making edits", or;
• Fully protected until the prime minister delegate is officially instated prime minister delegate is officially instated

Comments? (To be honest I have just gotten back from a 6 month break from editing wikipedia. This is why I'm not actually tagging/protecting the articles myself.) Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The page has already been fully protected due to edit warring until December 24, but I'd be happy to unprotect the page after this dispute has been solved. Spebi 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Designate" is incorrect and not commonly used as a noun in Australia. Regardless of whether Rudd was directly elected PM or not, the official appellation is Prime Minister elect. Turn on the TV folks...it's the only way you will hear him described. Wayne (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there actually exists an "official appellation": in a Westminster system, nothing is official until the Crown says so, and the Crown will "officialize" the whole shebang upon Rudd's swearing-in. Personally I prefer "-designate" for accuracy, even though in Canada, our media too (probably more influenced by the US) uses "-elect". But I can live with either: just don't say Mr. Rudd (or Mr. Harper, almost two years ago) is prime minister just because the TV stations are saying it, or the incumbent has conceded (the incumbent doesn't have the power to actually hand over the job to anyone). Kelvinc (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True, Rudd didn't become PM on election night just because some elements of the media started calling him that straightaway. However, it's a longstanding feature of Australian politics that losing incumbents concede defeat, with Howard being the latest of a long line of such people. Again, that doesn't imply an instantaneous change of government, but it's an acknowledgment of the reality of the outcome of the election. It would have been extremely odd if Howard hadn't conceded defeat given the loss of coalition seats to Labor; courtesy would have demanded that Rudd cool his heels before being able to claim victory. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody elects the Prime Minister directly in the same sense that the US President is elected, so it's probably not accurate to call the winner of a general election the Prime Minister elect (or Premier elect). I can't think of a good phrasing, actually. Delegate, designate, apparent - all sound pretty clumsy to my ears. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This received a thorough thrashing-out over at Talk:Prime Minister of Australia recently. I'm just not getting into it here. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem

I noticed the Australia article seems to be the only article on one of the Commonwealth realms that doesn't include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Can this be added to bring this article into line with all other articles on Commonwealth realms? Signsolid 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens at other articles has limited, if any, bearing on this article. See this and other discussions on that page. --Merbabu 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should it have limited, if any bearing on this article? Australia is a Commonwealth realm just like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize etc... yet all these have the Royal Anthem mentioned in their info boxes because all of them are Commonwealth realms, just as Australia is. I think it's quite obvious to all that saying what happens on other articles bears little on this article is really an excuse for anti-monarchists to remove mention of the Royal Anthem from the info box and so in some deluded way think they are seriously making people think Australia is a republic or as close to it as they possibly can. Australia is a monarchy whether it's liked or not and I remind editors whom it may concern that Wikipedia is strictly for stating the facts only, not making the world seem how you might like it to be. Signsolid 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read all the other discussions about it - you are not the first to bring this up. Decision has been made by the community. Can you explain specifically why we need to copy other articles?

By accusing others of bias, you are assuming bad faith which is not conducisive to collaboration. --Merbabu 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't decided who is right or wrong, but can you both use the article's edit summary boxes to summarise what you did in the edit, rather use the edit summary to discuss the content? Otherwise it's hard to follow the article's History page to see what changes have been made. Discussion is better here in the talk page, as it lets others join in. Thanks, Lester 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no other discussion on the subject and only one editor seems to be rejecting including the Royal Anthem. It would appear most editors on Wikipedia favour including the Royal Anthem as they have on the articles on Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Bahamas etc... These no real excuse not to include the Royal Anthem as it is an official anthem of Australia and all other articles on Commonwealth realms have included it. It's not for editors to pick and choose what's official about a country or not and there only seems to be one editor rejecting the official Royal Anthem here. Signsolid 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a huge amount of discussion on the page that Merbabu refers to. "Other articles have it so we must" is a terrible argument to make on Wikipedia, in this context or any other, and it has nothing to do with republicanism or anything else. "It is official so it must go in the infobox" is likewise a terrible argument in any context. If you can't see what is wrong with these arguments, at least read the discussion in the archive.

As for the details of this case, "Royal Anthem is offically on equal status as the Australian Anthem." is fairly meaningless - they have the same status in the sense that they are both officially, but they are officially different things with different uses. The status of "official national anthem" is not the same as the status of "official royal anthem". The royal anthem doesn't even have the same status in all the different Commonwealth realms. The different realms' infoboxes should not contain GSTQ as the royal anthem simply because they are realms. New Zealand includes it as a national anthem, because that is its status in that country. The royal anthem in Canada is officially usd in more situations than it is in Australia. I hope that GSTQ has been added to other boxes as the royal anthem only after someone has checked that it is either officially or in practice actually the royal anthem, not just assumed that it must be so, but I suspect in some cases it might be incorrect. That leaves us simply with a fact about an Australian official royal anthem, and the question of whether it is important enough to include in an already over-large infobox. JPD (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To be told the arguments made for including an official anthem in the info box is spurious and is ironic considering what arguments have been desperately spun to ensure it's not included in the info box. There has yet to be even a reasonable excuse why this article on Australia should be the only article on Wikipedia about a Commonwealth realm not to include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Ironic also that editors are not taking any notice of WP:NPOV in that they have broken with fact and are promoting a political point of view by making it appear to readers that Australia has no Royal Anthem. It's clear there are a few editors who intently keep an eye on this article to remove as much references as they can get away with to anything outside their own political view. I suppose you could say hence Wikipedia's reputation today. Signsolid 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that one article must follow others? It doesn't. And again I point out that trying to cast aspersions as to editors' political motivations is a sign of bad faith and makes productive collaboration difficult. Notice how no-one has pointed out that you might have your own political motivations.

As has been mentioned previously and now here again, putting the royal anthem on an equal footing is against WP:WEIGHT and misreads a reader. Undue weight is a POV problem. Thus there was a clear footnote (which you've removed several times) actually providing an in-depth explanation. Can you claim that the Royal Anthem is not just a technical obscurity? --Merbabu (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add one more voice that disagrees with Signsolid. This article is not for Australians, be they Republicans or Monarchists, to push their own ideological agenda. It is to provide information about Australia to Wikipedia users, the majority of which are unlikely to be Australians. To suggest to those that would have no way of knowing any better, that GSTQ is as important to Australians as Advance Australia Fair would be misleading in the extreme. Official this and official that be damned. Ryan Albrey 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the arguments given against including the royal anthem, my comments above and the WP:NPOV policy. You have yet to give one reason why it should be included, let alone addressed the arguments given. Your arguments have been extremely spurious:

• Claims that Merbabu is the only editor who objects to the extra line in the infobox, after having been pointed to evidence that at least 10 editors object.
• Ad hominem attacks, which are never helpful. (I can't speak for everyone who has removed the extra line, but I have no reason to have any opinion at all about the Swedish monarchy, and still think that the royal anthem does not belong in the Swedish infobox either - perhaps you just haven't understood our argument. By the way, did you know that in recent Australian history it has generally been monarchists that have played down the significance of the Queen and the royal anthem, not anti-monarchists? Also, one of the editors arguing for the inclusion of the royal anthem has previously caused controversy by insisting that Australia is a "crowned republic", and yet you are saying that this is the viewpoint of those opposing the inclusion of the anthem.)
• Claims that this article should follow similar articles. There are at least two problems with this - firstly, uniformity in general is not the way Wikipedia works, and uniformity is definitely not a good thing when the situation is not the same in all the different cases. (See more discussion on this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#National and royal anthems.) Secondly, the uniformity argument has one of the same flaws as the other stuff exists argument - maybe the royal anthem shouldn't be included in all the other realms' infoboxes either. I have my doubts as to whether it is actually true in all cases, let alone appropriate for an infobox.
• Factually incorrect claims. You implied that GSTQ should be in the infobox here and elsewhere simply because these countries are Commonwealth realms. However, having a royal anthem does not automatically follow from being a Commonwealth realm. When someone went around adding the anthem to all the Commonwealth realm articles without checking the individual situations, that was a mistake. It would be fairer to say that some countries have GSTQ as a royal anthem for the same reasons that they are Commonwealth realms.
• The idea that WP:NPOV means that every fact should be included in the infobox. Yes, the anthem is official. Most of us actually agree that this should be mentioned, and it is in the footnote. But being official is not a reason to put something in an infobox. It is quite possible to maintain a neutral point of view without including every single fact. Editing is a matter of choosing which facts are most important/relevant. I think you know this - the national colours of green and gold are just as official as the royal anthem, but you are not arguing to include them in the infobox. You are also not arguing that the Queen's relevant royal standards be included, in this infobox or the UK one, even though it is a fact that they exist, and they help to demonstrate that the countries are monarchies. It is a matter of giving everything due weight. As Ryan points out, to include too much can even be misleading.

If you have an argument that is more than "it is true" and "others have it", then it might be worth considering again (although it is worth checking whether it has already been discussed to death in the previous discussions). In any case, it would be best to leave behind your assumptions concerning both facts and motivations, and stick to sensible discussion. JPD (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Signsolid has not read past debates on this page. The lack of comments is probably because most editors are bored with this topic being continually raised against the page consensus. Whatever the "official" status of the anthem, the reality is it is so rarely used as to place it in the infobox would be misleading as to its status and a clear case of giving it undue weight. --Michael Johnson 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to bring things into context the National Symbols page on the Australian Government website makes no mention of the Royal Anthem at all. Given this page stands as it was under the previous, decidedly royalist, government, accusations of political bias seem to wear rather thin. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read very much of that preceding fun exchange. The last comment Michael, shows you needed to find http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/National_symbols/index.htm to read Ninian's proclamation of it as our Royal Anthem. He was our Governor General and had the full title The Right Honourable Sir Ninian Stephen Governor-General of Australia, KG, AK, GCMG, GCVO, KBE, QC. All of those letters made it official. That was directed at the preceding fun exchange. Hwhat I reckon (as a citizen and a scientist with a republican ((note the lower case)) view) is that it's a fact and it remains. Where do we put that bit of information? I don't reckon we should leave it out like we do if there's a regular style to these types of data. We, as a category have a reference that aught, politics aside, be put in. What I really reckon is that we need a reference to how this big land was taken from the original owners and straight out pwned by England, in the introduction. I don't want to write it out tonight, but soon. Soon. ... anyway. I don't think it's OK to forestall a reasoned debate on the inclusion of the aforementioned reasonably pointless bit of minutae because people haven't taken the time to pore through tomes of past rhetoric on the matter. How very average would a journal be if it omitted irrefutable facts its editors didn't think much of. Menswear (talk)

I'm on the fence about this issue, so maybe my opinion doesn't carry any weight. I would just say, though, that just because a fact is irrefutable (as this one is) does not necessarily of itself mean that it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Irrefutability does not equal encyclopediality (if I may mangle the language). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a pity that Menswear didn't read the previous debate, because he will find that the debate is not about whether the Royal Anthem exists, because it clearly does, nor about whether it should be mentioned, because it is. Rather the debate is where it should be mentioned. The consensus was that it is a fairly obscure symbol, and mentioning it beside the National Anthem in the info box is not appropriate. After all there are many irrefutable facts about Australia, they cannot all be mentioned in the infobox. The question is if people can't be bothered reading the previous debate, why should the rest of us have to rehash it all over again? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh at those who think that all facts are of equal weight, just because they appear in an infobox. Is the population the same as the Prime Minister? Of course not. The National Anthem itself is fairly obscure, but there it is. Australia has a Royal Anthem as well as a National Anthem, but only an idiot would suggest that they have the same status or importance. They are different things and they have different labels. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't agree that the National Anthem is obscure. It's become iconic, if anything; it gets played at footy matches, cricket matches, and all sorts of places these days. It might be obscure to people whose only knowledge of any national anthems is the Marsellaise, the Star-Spangled Banner and God Save the Queen - but to those people, there may as well be only 3 national anthems in the entire world because, to them, there are only 3 of any prominence. We of course know that's not the case. The Australian Royal Anthem - now that's a different story altogether. (Btw, best not to characterise those who hold opposing views as "idiots".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh. OK. If someone suggests that the National Anthem has the same importance and status as the Royal anthem then they are not an idiot, they are something else equally stupid. Advance Australia Fair is obscure to most readers of Wikipedia. Very few would have heard of it at all, let alone heard it. Our readers come to Wikipedia seeking knowledge, not things they already know, and while it is our responsibility to package the information, it isn't appropriate to predigest it as well. --Pete (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. Let's discuss content, not contributors personally, eh?

As I said, I'm on the fence about the Royal Anthem. I'm just trying to understand the arguments pro and con. I happen to know a fair bit about it, and I can understand that to some people it is very important. I can also understand that to the general populace, it is less than nothing. I think the obscurity angle has no more real merit than the irrefutability angle. To many people in the world, Australia is a quaint land-locked country in Europe with a German-speaking population, so from the obscurity point of view, we shouldn't have an article on Australia at all. From the knowledge angle, if we're here to educate people about all manner of things Australian, do we educate them only about things that most Australians know, or about other things that most Australians don't know? Also, are the people we're here to educate just overseas people, or Australians themselves as well? For example, I'd be surprised if many Australians know about the first use of the word "Australia" (by some Dutch or French guy in the 16th century, apparently) - but there it is in the article, large as life. What makes the inclusion of this sort of information ok, but not the Royal Anthem? - neither of them is actually remotely relevant to the way we go about our daily lives, so where is the dividing line drawn, and by whom, and why? (I honestly don't know the answer to that - just putting it out there). What about the Constitution? Most Australians seem as abysmally unaware that we even have a constitution, much less have ever read it, as they are unaware or care about the Royal Anthem. But the former is considered to be nevertheless important enough for it to rate a mention because it is actually relevant to law, government, politics etc - while the latter is not. And the National Anthem is regularly sung all the time all over the place, whereas the Royal Anthem only ever surfaces when the Queen is here (and we even quibble whether we'll use it then - eg. Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006 debacle). Is that it? -- JackofOz (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt yourself targeted by my comment. Certainly not my intention. I'm just pointing out that pretending that all facts mentioned in the template are of equal status is a ridiculous argument. Listing the Royal Anthem as well as the National Anthem, each one clearly labelled, doesn't make them equivalent. I think it says a bit about who we are. Even if some Australians would prefer that we didn't have a Queen at all (and I'm one of them) the fact remains that the Queen is held in high regard by many, and we have a Royal Anthem. Maybe this will change in future, but it is the situation now, and when it comes to writing an encyclopaedia I prefer to tell it like it is, not how we editors feel it should be. --Pete (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel personally targetted. I just abhor the use of such language in any context. It's understandable coming from children, but not from adults. It's against Wikipedia rules, for one thing. But more importantly, it undermines the writer's arguments. If the argument - whatever it is - is strong enough, it will win out on its merits. If the writer feels the need to say words to the effect of "If you don't see it my way, you're an idiot", that suggests they don't actually have the confidence that their own argument is persuasive enough all by itself. If it isn't persuasive, so be it. Abuse won't change that. It reflects far more badly on the writer than on the supposed idiocy of the reader. That's my philosophy. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural resources?

request --Sigmundur (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Brick Road. ;-) — Rickyrab | Talk 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ally

Would anyone have an objection to the statement "New Zealand is Australias closest friend & ally"? (♠Taifarious1♠) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Or is that just your personal opinion? If you can reference it, then we can discuss whether it would be appropiate to include it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I object. Apart from verifiability concerns (let alone accuracy), the statement seems meaningless and vague to the point of being useless. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is true. We should have at least a paragraph on our relationship. Trans-Tasman government committees are routine. The NZ government stationed a squadron of strike aircraft here for some years. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and think Australia and New Zealand are much closer than allies! Aussies and New Zealanders are like siblings: always squabbling with one another over petty issues but having a deep love and respect for each other. The bonds that tie us together are very strong. We are two isolated sisters alone in a huge antipodean world with very parallel histories, similar qualities of life and an "interchanging" population. Many New Zealanders come to live and work in Australia and most Australians love New Zealand! New Zealand seems to "balance" Australia with its magnificent mountain and lake scenery whilst Australia has the beaches, big cities and deserts. Whenever I travel to Europe or America and hear that familiar, friendly Kiwi accent, its like a member of the "family" is in the room. We were recently at The Oktoberfest in Munich and I noticed how Aussies and Kiwis always gravitate towards each other. I really cannot think of two other countries that are closer. KathyBoots; 4.20 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a kiwi, and I agree with the dude above. The first time I travelled by myself was a three-month backpacking trip through Southeast Asia, and it was always great to shack up with some Aussies and (invariably) get drunk. More recently, my girlfriend and I bumped into a couple of Aussies in Nepal and ended up spending two weeks hiking 210km over the Annapurnas with them. Despite all the bitching and moaning, Kiwis and Aussies get on great when they meet on "neutral turf".

Federal vs constitutional monarchy

Australia is not a constitutional monarchy

Australia is a Federal monarchy, not a Constitutional Monarchy. Quote from the Sydney Morning Herald:
The Crown is not an Australian institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir, Afternoon Light. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution.
Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy. We have a monarch at the moment, but it's not constitutionally demanded.Lester 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some would argue with the interpretation you quote, but whether it is correct or not, there is no contradiction between being a federal monarchy and a consitutional monarchy. The term "constitional monarchy" does not imply that the constitution requires a monarchy, but that there is a monarch who operates within a constitutional setting. JPD (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Australia is clearly a constitutional monarchy. This is outlined in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The High Court of Australia has also ruled that The Australian Crown exists quite separately from any British Crown. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of Federal monarchy (FM), it seems that the set of FMs overlaps the set of CMs. There are some countries that are FMs but not CMs; there are some countries that are CMs but not FMs; and there are some that are both. Australia is in the latter category. It's a CM because of what JPD said, and it's an FM because we just happen to be a Federation which is a monarchy. Maybe we should call it a Federal Constitutional Monarchy.

Australia is a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To address your point "Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy" - how would you describe a country that is not a federation, and their constitution does not state in so many words that it's a monarchy, but it has a monarch? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We (i.e. the article) do say "Federal Constitutional Monarchy", which redirects to Federal monarchy. I can't see the problem. JPD (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if people start calling for 'constitional monarchy' to be changed to 'republic' and Elizabeth II to be removed from this article infobox? I'm gonna bite my eybrows. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be an extremely ridiculous and incorrect move clearly not illustrating the current reality of Australia governance and ignoring the referendum of November 1999. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While Richard Woolcott is an interesting and influential figure, he is a former diplomat and not a constitutional lawyer, and certainly shouldn't be taken as a reliable source, especially in an op-ed piece arguing a partisan point of view. While he would have been correct in 1901, subsequent changes in the relationship has established the British and Australian crowns as separate legal entities, even if held by the same person. But what that has to do with "federal monarchy", I'm not sure. Australia is a federation and a monarchy, so I guess "federal monarchy" is an accurate description as far as it goes, but hardly helpful in describing the relationship of the monarch to the political system. BTW Woolcott appears not to have an article, he is certainly notable enough to have one. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go, I started the Richard Woolcott stub. Up to you to add something to it. Bring your references with you :) Lester 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution"

This is totally incorrect. The office of monarch is defined in the Australian Constitution. The Australian Parliament and people regulate the governance of Australia and no other authority. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This quote from above seems plainly wrong to me. As far as I know, the succession to the head of state in Australia is regulated by the Act of Settlement 1701 as imported into the laws of the various Australian colonies at settlement. A change to the monarchy in the United Kingdom would thus have no impact on the line of succession to the throne in Australia. - Mark 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct! The Australian Parliament can also alter the Act of Succession in relation to the Australian Crown should it wish to do so. In fact the abdication of Edward VIII was not legal in Australia until the passing of necessary legislation by the Australian Parliament. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Federal Monarchy is Original Research?

I've just looked at Federal monarchy article, and frankly it looks like original research. In 35 years of involvement in the Australian political process I have never heard anybody describe Australia as a "federal monarchy" before this article. Can anyone provide any source that supports the use of this term, and indicate that it is more than the product of the fertile imagination of some Wikipedian? --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty spurious to me. The concept of the divided crown is a familiar one, but I can't see any reason to describe Australia as a federal monarchy rather than the more familiar constitutional monarchy. --Pete (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorta like the Prime Minister-elect -VS- Prime Minister-designate dispute. The Aussies use different terminology. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What ever we think of the term "federal constitutional monarchy", I think there is good reason to have the word federal somewhere in that line of the infobox. We are speaking of the structure of Australia's government, not simply the relationship with the queen. I would guess that the article Michael objects to (and the similar "federal republic") was created simply to be a handy link in these cases, but perhaps it would be better to have the links federal, parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy separately in some order. (GoodDay, you seem to be implying that "federal monarchy" is actually a common term in Canada - if so, perhaps you could provide some sources for that article?) JPD (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

...it would be better to have the links federation, parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy separately in some order. Hear, hear! We are all those things seperately, but not all of them in one phrase. --Pete (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to throw a spanner in everyones works but why don't we just describe Australia the same way it is described on federal government websites. Quote: "Australia’s formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia is a constitutional democracy based on a federal division of powers within which there are four divisions: Commonwealth, state, territory and local. The form of government used in Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy." Wayne (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that best fit on one line in an infobox? JPD (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's just call it what it is, a constitional monarchy. This trend of setting Australia (and related articles) apart from the other Commonwealth monarchies is unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, no... the current wording is generally in line wth most other Commonwealth realm infoboxes, which say parliamentary democracy before constitutional monarchy, too. Canada says "parliamentary democracy (federal consitutional monarchy)" which is clearly setting it apart from e.g. New Zealand, which is not a federation. Whether or not "federal consitutional monarchy" is a relevant term in any country, it is quite clear that it is appropriate to make this distinction - we are trying to describe the government structure, which in New Zealand is quite clearly different from Australia and Canada in one aspect, even if it is similar in others. Please don't reduce everything to a consistency argument. JPD (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your correct. The last time I pushed for consistancy (at Kevin Rudd), it met mixed reviews (to say the least). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no objection to Australia being described as a federation, parliamentary democracy, and constitutional monarchy. Together they accurately describe the Australian political system and are terms commonly used in political dialogue. IMHO Federal Monarchy is a term in search of a meaning, and using it to describe the political system in Australia is not encyclopedic. As for consistency with Canada, I don't edit the Canadian page, as I am not familiar with their political system., so can't comment. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect 'federal monarchy' is a Wikipedian invention. The article has an original research tag, and provides not one reference for use of the term. It has been introduced into Monarchy of Australia and I've raised the issue at the talk page.--Gazzster (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Federal constitutional monarchy

King Wiston has changed constitutional monarchy to Federal constitutional monarchy several times now. I looked at the Federal constitutional monarchy article which states "A federal monarchy is a federation of monarchies under one single monarch, retaining a federal structure, and the status of the monarchs of the constituent states." It seems to relate to a group of states with different monarchs. Australia has a group of states but they've all had the same monarch so I don't see how this relates to Australia. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an important point either way and should be changed back until a case can be made for the change. Am I right? --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If one goes to Federal monarchy it is obvious that there are problems with the term. But as a loose descriptive term, why not? Aus is a monarchy and a federation. But it has no constitutional status. 'Federal Comnmonwealth' has been used in context of the Constitution. But 'constitutional monarchy' is fine. Why get so riled up over a few words?--Gazzster (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia is of course a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state! All elements are mentioned quite clearly in the Australian constitution. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Australia is ...... why not use its actual Constitutional status as defined by its own Law ?

The preamble to the Australia Acts 1986 clearly states that the purpose of the Act is to bring Australias Constitutional arrangements into conformity with Australias status as a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .'

Australia is ...... a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .

It is also a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy which are descriptions of its operating procedures . It is a Commonwealth realm which means no more than it happens to be one of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations that acknowledges a particular person as its ( titular ) Head of State . Australia is very often described as the ' Land Down Under ' and the ' Wide Brown Land ' .

But the international status of Australia is ' Sovereign , Independent and Federal Nation.

If you doubt the above check the Australia Acts - UK & CTH and the request and consent Acts of all the States of the Commonwealth - NSW , QLD ,WA ,SA , VIC and Tasmania .

Lejon (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stolen generation comment

"The removal of children from their families, which some historians and Indigenous Australians have argued could be considered to constitute genocide by some definitions,[13] may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population. Such interpretations of Aboriginal history are disputed by some commentators as being exaggerated or fabricated for political or ideological reasons.[14]"

I think this section is a bit bizarre. It sounds like two people arguing more than a coherent statement on both the historical facts and contemporary opinions on the stolen generation. Given the touchy nature of this topic I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Bold is really the best approach.

At this point something like -

"The removal of children from their families (known in Australia as the Stolen Generation) may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population, However questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[13][14]

might be a little better

Part of me thinks this might be a little bias towards the side of the debate that "plays down" the stolen generation but I think it's a start.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a comment about "the stolen generation". Much is spoken and written about this topic but it should be noted that DURING THE TIME such children were removed from their families, the churches or institutions removing these children firmly believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing the right thing. Many of the aboriginal children were seen to be living in abject squalor and poverty. Unfortunately, such institutions were making judgements on conditions of life based on their own cultures and standards. They saw these young children from a western perpective: living in terrible conditions, without education, no chance of a good future (through THEIR eyes). Whilst the actual deed of removing the aboriginal children from their families could be argued to be misguided, the actual INTENTIONS of those people responsible for their removal was one of concern and benevolence. The removal of aboriginal children was not done in malice or vengeance, the motives were typical of the times, ie patriachal intervention through misguided concern. Its also important to mention that Aboriginal children were not the only ones removed, there were thousands of white English children removed to Australia during the war and suffered the same fate and hardships (along with unfortunate incidences of abuse in awful institutions) that some aboriginal children suffered. Even in these enlightened times, there was, only last year, recent controversy about the removal of aboriginal children from communities where alcoholism, petrol-sniffing and sexual abuse was endemic. The suggestion was made by a very concerned female aboriginal elder! In my opinion, aboriginals are extremely talented, artistic and clever and it is regrettable that, on the whole, they don't look FORWARD and relinquish the past. The current generation of white Australians cannot be responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. Move on and go FORWARD - you (aboriginal communities) have so much to offer the world! You have some fantastic role models who show your youth the enormous capacity of aboriginal achievements. Don't dwell on past deeds and misunderstandings; it only embitters life and life is too short to waste time on needless regrets. Don't mourn what you cannot change. Spend all your energies on the aboriginal youth of today. By harping about past hardships, it fosters any feelings of worthlessness, despair and anguish they may feel! Instead, talk about POSITIVE things. Talk about the FUTURE! Give them hope for a great future and provide them with all the encouragement, education and love they deserve. KathyBoots; 5.19 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Kathy Boots, I wasn't aware that the 1970's was over 100 years ago but apparently I stand corrected. Soundabuser (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find the suggestion that it was genocide as offensive and disrespectful to actual victims of genocide such as Holocaust survivors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.31 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Why is this article missing so many Infoboxes? What about the Commonwealth, WTO, OECD, APEC and such? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By infoboxes I mean the nav boxes found at the bottom of articles. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and add appropriate templates, but you may want to look up the syntax for collapsing and merging them together in one block first. --Stephen 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is not an automatic answer to any and all content queries. Due to the suspicious lack of infoboxes I was wondering whether or not there's a consensus or something not to include them, eg. Indonesia, before I add the Anglosphere box. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You do mean navboxes, not infoboxes. They tend to get removed/moved to more specific articles fairly quickly - where do you stop with these things? JPD (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why stop? They take up a few bytes and are below the entire article, they aren't in the way. But I was just curious why there aren't any. That's all. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

socialized medicine

Does Australia have socialized medicine like England or france? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.9.131 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It has universal health care like most of the Western world. 'Socialised medicine' is a term that only gets used in American political arguments. - Aucitypops (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Going on from what Aucitypops has;,make that every 1st world country, except, of course in the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.79.84 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite the terrible slagging the Australian national health system gets in the media, recent studies have shown (what I have always believed) that we have one of the best and fairest health systems in the world. Unlike America (where only the very wealthy can afford any length of stay in hospital), the Australian citizen has the right to the best level of medical treatment in the world whether or not they can afford it. "Socialisation" may be an American term used by its politicians, but our system (along with the outstanding systems in France and England) are the envy of the world. A country's standard of living is judged by the egalitarian systems of health and education and by the way it treats its women, children and the poor. The only level lacking in terms of our health system is the Federal Government's complete inadequacy of funding towards medical research. This country is a world leader in medical research and we are losing a lot of our medical geniuses overseas. KathyBoots; 4.32 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if it is often a political term, the word "Socialism" does apply to a universal healthcare system. Don't jump on people for using a certain term, which by definition is correct. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only correct as far as the US is concerned but the US is not the whole world and the rest of the world has a different view of socialized medicine. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree: I've never heard the term "socialised medicine" used in Australia (or "socialized" if you're from the USA). It's like roads, police/fire, water and education: universally needed and supplied regardless of income. NathanLee (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Wikipedia needs to realise that articles on Australia should be written to deal with Australian conditions. American standards in some quarters have been adopted. In others they have been roundly rejected. The system of public health in Australia is one that works generally well. In fact current democratic presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton came out to Australia during the presidency of her husband to actually look at the Australian system of public health care in an effort to improve the deplorable state of american health care. Her recommendations were rejected by the US Congress. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Standards

Before we get into an edit war lets hash it out here first. We need to gain a consensus.
Here is what I found:

• Using the Australian Hansard Style Guide:
  • Spelling uses the Macquarie Dictionary, see section 1.2, page 1.
    • The MD has program as the headword and says programme is a variant spelling.
  • Serial commas are not preferred, see section 5.4.12, page 55.
  • Unspaced em dash is preferred, see section 8.6, page 56–57. (Here, I stand corrected.)

On a personal note: I always used to prefer the use of spaced en dashes, but whenever I was reading a book or newspaper (published in Australia or the UK) those publications seemed to have a preference for spaced em dashes. Could we use spaced en dashes rather than the "unsightly" unspaced em dashes? – Axman (☏) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says that Hansard Style Guide is the relevant authority, Axman? AGPS style guide is used for actual governmental publications, and it is the dominant general publishing style guide beyond governmental work, too. (For those who like to use a distinctively Australian guide, that is. I don't!)

Hansard is used in all parliamentary documents, transcripts of proceedings, etc., so I do think it has some official relevance. But it probably is not used for government documents or external publications, which is what the AGPS style guide is for. – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Macquarie's wretched dictionary is one authority (unfortunately). It started as a poor copy of a poor American original; and it hasn't got much better. Collins English Dictionary, 4th Australian edition, 1998, has programme first, and program second (marked "American"), except for computers, etc. In any case, I make no objection if you prefer program: just use chosen forms consistently, except when citing the title of a text that uses another form.

Well then, the Collins Dictionary is living in the past, and hasn't come into the 21st century yet. Over the years the Macquarie Dictionary has improved to become a pretty good dictionary. Many Australian organisations and agencies prefer the spelling "program" over "programme" — which is considered by some as an archaic spelling like "gramme", "connexion", etc. — and the Macquarie reflects this preference, as a dictionary is supposed to. – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One wonders who you are to judge the Collins Dictionary? Macquarie is hardly a respected dictionary. "Connection" is not a word in the english language. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AGPS prefers unspaced em dash. You and I do not; but the article was established that way, and there is no reason apart from personal preference for moving away from that. I gritted my teeth, some weeks ago, and brought consistency to those dashes. Let's suppress the opinion that we happen to share, and maintain stability and consistency. My wording:

...and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash...

The question concerns the style to be used for the sentence dash: not the dash used in ranges of years, etc. I mean that the style established for the sentence dash is unspaced em dash (like it or not), as opposed to the common alternatives that I mention. Of course the en dash should be used for ranges and the like, as it is now. See WP:MOS. If you would like the hidden note to explain this more fully, by all means expand it.

I'll believe you on what the AGPS prefers, as I've never read it and this is the first time I've heard of it. Do you know where I can get my hands on a copy? – Axman (☏) 13:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Axman, here's the number you need: ISBN 0701636483

You can get it from Angus & Robertson or Borders for $A50, or online from these people for a bit less. It's good value (I have two copies!), but as a collector of dictionaries and style manuals I rate it not as highly as the major international manuals. It is respected in Australia. The manual recommends the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian Oxford, which is better, in my opinion (as someone who has studied these dictionaries for twenty years).

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can find it in one of those stores. – Axman (☏) 12:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial commas? I never claimed that they are Australian style. They are advocated in major style guides, though (New Hart's Rules, Chicago Manual of Style). Again, I saw that they predominated in the article, and in accord with WP:MOS I sought to maintain consistency in such matters. Hence my editing of commas (some time back); and hence my wording in the hidden note.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

````I friggin' love this place. thank you to everyone that contributed to this article.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.38.128 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial Comma

Aren't there some places where the serial comma is required and other places where it's not?

• Eg, "The neighbouring countries are Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea to the north, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the north-east, and New Zealand to the south-east."

  "The choices for a breakfast juice are apple and blackcurrant, orange, or orange and mango."

  "Great nineteenth-century Australian explorers were Burke and Wills."

Where the serial comma is separating groups within a series. – Marco79 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs fixing. This is very much an American style, not an Australian (or British) one. We use: The first, the second and the last. The hidden comment is wrong and needs to be fixed up. NathanLee (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so, Nathanlee. For a start, the hidden comment did not claim that serial commas were Australian style: only that they had been used consistently in the article:

PLEASE USE AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH THROUGHOUT, i.e., use centre not center, neighbour not neighbor, and maximise the use of -is- rather than -iz-. Other style: the serial comma is established in this article as default usage; and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash (see WP:MOS). Maintain consistency of style, suppressing personal preferences.

Second, it is not true that there is a well-documented and clear preference against the serial comma in Australian usage: nor in any other usage, I should add. (For British New Hart's Rules and the Oxford Style Manual).

Please do not change the style of the article without discussing it first, here.

I am reverting your changes, as not having consensus.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear!! In Australia, American forms of spelling are not accepted. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done that editing, now. Some changes were to other commas, not serial commas. They especially brought infelicity, and momentary uncertainty for the reader; but so did some of the serial commas. Even if we didn't want consistency with the serial comma, it is well to take note of those cases that more or less demand one for clarity. Please, as I say: discuss such changes before making such a drastic stylistic change in future.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that if we're going to stick to Australian English, we really should stick to Australian styles. I have no problems with editing out the serial commas as appropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree - although I actually see a lot of sense in serial commas, i agree that they should be removed for consistency. We either use "Aussie English", or we argue over each point, eg, spelling, then commas, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If there were a consistent Australian practice for the serial comma, I would agree that we should generally follow it. But there is not, neither for uniform use of it nor for uniform avoidance of it. See Serial comma; and note that AGPS Style is just one among several, calling nevertheless for the comma when needed to avoid ambiguity. There is often a need for that in this article, with its many lists that include complex items. Many Australian publishers follow British and American standards, and they are mostly in favour of uniform use of the serial comma.

In such an equivocal situation, it is best to stick to the practice that is most established in the article. For a long time that style has included uniform use of the serial comma; therefore we should stick with that! Consistency is a core desideratum in articles at Wikipedia (see WP:MOS). I myself suppress certain preferences of mine, when editing this article. Perhaps we should all be ready to do that.

If anyone can make out a convincing case that there is an established Australian preference, then by all means let's see it; and then let's change the article accordingly. But without that case, there is no warrant for change.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again FWIW, when I was taught English at primary school in the 1960s I was taught the usage as explained by Marco79. Kids are still taught that way (I work at a primary school) so I believe that there is a consistent style. The serial comma is generally to be avoided but there are occasions where its use is appropriate. Since Australian English is based on British English, British texts would be more authoritative than U.S. texts on this subject. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Aussielegend. As someone who has laboured to counter the neglect punctuation suffers in our Australian schools (working with tertiary students in NSW and Victoria), I have little confidence in such anecdotes. I see all the time the results of teachers' ignorance even of basic punctuation.

Do we follow British practice? Very well. You can't get much more British than Oxford.

The Oxford Style Manual, 2002, Chapter 5, section 5.3 Comma:

For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain [the serial comma] consistently, [...] but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. [...] Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer. (pp. 121–122)

Any other thoughts?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) My first thought is that your response was somewhat of an over-reaction. My point was that use of the serial comma is being taught the same way now as it was 40 years ago so there is a consistency, despite your insistence to the contrary. I have as little confidence in your anecdotes as you apparently have in mine. Now, where does that get us? As for your quote, I'd like to see the whole section to get an idea of the context. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Noetica - are you Australian or aware of the Australian style of writing? I went to the effort of fixing up an article to remove a very NON Australian habit with commas which you then reverted: that's just pointless. This article NEEDS to have the commas fixed to suit the Australian preferred. Perhaps some few instances might need serial commas. Perhaps YOU could discuss before reverting what was quite a bit of work and did not leave the article in an inconsistent state (so you really had no reason). The parliamentary/govt standards are an Australian reference, Oxford is NOT an Australian reference and there are plenty of other British examples (pretty much all except for Oxford it must be, funny that since it is called "The Oxford Comma").

• [19]

Most British and Australian style guides also discourage use of the serial comma in simple lists, allowing it only "when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase" (Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers).

Check the major newspapers in Australia and I think you'll find they avoid superfluous commas unless absolutely necessary to reduce ambiguity. I would almost lay money you will never find a government publication that uses commas in the serial fashion. University style guides also reflect this from my memory of uni days.

Wikipedia says to use the style that is appropriate to the country if it is a country specific page. Can't get much more about Australia than the page on Australia.

So do you have an Australian reference that says to use commas in the fashion you reverted to protect? I haven't been able to find one or any popular use of the "serial comma"/"Oxford comma". NathanLee (talk)

So does anyone have any objection to:

a) re-removing serial/"oxford" commas (except in cases where it is ambiguous e.g. "Vegemite, peanut butter and honey, and jam sandwiches" might be an example of a sentence that needs it) to make it match the Australian preference

b) changing the header comment to reflect this

As so far the only reference we have that suggests using oxford/serial commas is Oxford. We also have Australian government/parliamentary style guides suggesting they are to be avoided, a page or two (including wikipedia) on grammar suggesting Australians don't like them, several Australians commenting on this talk page who grew up learning that they are not the preferred Australian way, newspapers like Sydney morning herald/The Australian/AP etc who do not use them except when faced with ambiguity.

If it is ok, I'll re-apply the de-serialising changes I made to the article, update the header comment paying special attention to the two or three sentences which may need serial/oxford commas. NathanLee (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am against that change, NathanLee. For one thing, mere anecdote counts for nothing. Yes, I was educated in Australia, and I have been an Australian educator – including teaching in this very area. In my experience, not only is there is no consensus on the serial comma in Australia, there is deep confusion here about many matters of punctuation. But as I say, I don't expect that to carry weight: I only want to set aside all such assertions founded on what we learned (or failed to learn) in primary school. You claim that Australian newspapers have a policy of not using the serial comma as a default; but you give no authoritative source for this. Even if you could give such sources, that would show little that is relevant here. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but has more in common with academic publication. As such, guides like the Oxford Style Manual (cited earlier) are much more relevant. A great number of Australian academic journals use that Oxford style; a great number of others use CMOS, perhaps with adaptions for Australian spelling; and very many others use APA style. All of these mandate the serial comma.

Since all that is so, it is simply an error to suggest the existence of an Australian standard against the serial comma, in publications of the sort we are engaged in here. It may also be an error to assert the existence of the contrary style. Since there is no settled national style to appeal to, keep to the style that is most apt in a serious encyclopaedic article of this sort, and which was already established in this article: default use of the serial comma. WP:MOS enjoins us not to supplant an existing style: in such a case "it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so". There is no reason to do so here, and good reason to maintain the established style, which assists the reader to scan accurately some rather complex lists with complex items and interpolations. The reader is helped by having a consistent expectation concerning the serial comma, which should not be subverted simply on spurious "nationalist" grounds.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford style guide is not an Australian guide. Of course it would promote the use of OXFORD COMMAS. We have an Australian guide that has been mentioned: the parliamentary one. Since there are no other AUSTRALIAN guides which suggest the use of the oxford/serial comma: I suggest we use the Australian government produced parliamentary guide. NathanLee (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As this seems to have stalled, the only Australian reference we have suggests use of serial/oxford commas is not the preferred style. Any Australian references that contradict this? Otherwise I suggest this article be fixed. NathanLee (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of something to the contrary I'd say that following the parliamentary guide is the way to go since that is used when writing all of the laws of the land. In any case I'll try to find out if there is an authoritative teacher's text when I'm working at the school tomorrow. Hopefully the principal will know. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool Question

Cool question! Wikipedia is an international undertaiking. So in the English-speaking site, what variant of English should prevail? Australian?American? South African? Jamaican? Irish? Scottish? Working class Melbournian? Do we write homogenise or homogenize; program or programme; tomato sauce or ketchup; jam or jelly? Surely the question has been dealt with before.--Gazzster (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline can be found here --Melburnian (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Gazzster (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hervey Bay Image

The Hervey Bay image is going to be put back as it is the gateway to Fraser Island and The Fastest growing city in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other editors might like to visit the history of the addition of this image and the comments made at L.Wadsworth regarding this image.--VS ^talk 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is that a reason to have a Hervey Bay image? The article has enough images already. JPD (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The demographics section states that "64% of Australians call themselves Christian: 26% identifying themselves as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican". It is not clear to me if 26% of all Australians call themselves Catholic, or if, of the 64% of Australian Christians 26% call themselves Catholic (so that only 16.6% of all Australians are Catholic). Someone who knows where this stat came from should clearify. Thanks, Dkriegls (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What the stat says is that 26% of Australians identify themselves as Catholic, 19% as Anglicans and all up 64% identify themselves as Christians. This leaves 19% as Christians who are neither Catholic or Anglican. It seems clear to me. The figures come from the ABS and they tend to express figures as a percentage of the whole, not as a percentage of a percentage. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 consensus website has some good information. I read that a growing number of people are claiming no religion, almost the same as the number of anglicans. Should this be mentioned? --Simpsons fan 66 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Change to Government Type in Infobox

I would like to change the Government Type in this article's Infobox to "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The current description is "Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy". Reasons:

• This does not remove any links that are in the existing description
• It adds a link to Federation, an important and noteworthy basic feature of Australia's system
• It avoids the redirect that is in the current description (Parliamentary democracy redirects to Parliamentary system)
• It puts the description into one single phrase instead of two separate ones.

--thirty-seven (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.201.184 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto

AFAIR, Australia's motto is "Advance Australia" isn't this right, and shouldn't it go under "Anthem" on the right side ? Thanks.DaveDodgy (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? "As Far As I Recall" is not sufficient; Wikipedia requires sourcing for all assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have one.[20] "Australia has never adopted any official motto or faunal emblem." Google is your friend. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Advance Australia" was used as a motto on the 1908 coat of arms, but was replaced with simply "Australia" in the new arms in 1912. It is true that no motto has ever been adopted in its own right. JPD (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

Australia has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of Australia, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is used to show Australia's location on the world map, not to indicate which countries Australia recognises as independent. Although the map will be updated eventually, I don't think it will be a high priority since the borders of Kosovo are not relevant to finding Australia on the map, -- Chuq (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know. I also know it's of little relevance, but it is still procedural. It's important to have a world that Australia recognizes, not an outdated map. Australia is part of the world and it can't ignore the changes that happen, especially those they have approved themselves. Bardhylius (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the scale of the map on the page, it would be all but impossible to make out the borders of Kosovo, which after all is a very small country. In fact it is very hard to make out national borders at all on the map. So from the point of view of this page, the change would not be beneficial. However you could, and probably should, take this up on the map's discussion page on Wiki Commons. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid someone may find this disrespectful. Kosovo is a small country and it can hardly be seen in this large-scale map, but it should be included just like other non-populated islands are. I will now take the matter to Wiki Commons. Bardhylius (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that you've made the same request on many pages. If you're so keen for the change to occur, you could always make the maps and do the changes yourself. That said, I agree with Michael Johnson. It would be virtually impossible to see Kosovo on the map even if you did do the changes, assuming you know how to edit svg files, which I don't. Since the whole point of the map is to show the location of Australia in the world, which it does now, and people looking at the map won't be looking for Kosovo, I can't see that the effort involved is justified. It's not a case of disrespect, it's a case of sheer practicality. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If the sole purpose of the map is to show where Australia is, why are the other states divided and separated in lines? I think that the map shows more than Australia. It shows what Australia recognizes around it, the world it is part of. Kosovo wouldn't be seen in the regular map, but it would in the zoomed view. Anyway, what I understood from the context of these replies is that I have permission to create a map with Kosovo. Thanks. Bardhylius (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to click on the image you'd see exactly why the other states are divided and separated. Image:Location Australia.svg, as used in this article, is based on Image:BlankMap-World6.svg which was created "with grouping enabled to connect all non-contiguous parts of a country's territory for easy colouring." The image has nothing to do with showing what countries Australia recognises. I'm afraid you're mistaken there. It is just based on an already existing general purpose image that has the countries divided and is used, as we have already pointed out, simply to show Australia's location in the world. Further, if you continue to click through to the instruction page you'll see that it states, quite clearly, "Kosovo is also represented on the map, but without a border. If desired to be used, will have to be selected by searching for its id tag ("kosovo")." So there you go. Kosovo is already on the map and, according to the history, has been there since at least September last year. It's amazing what you can find when you look. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's in the map. But is it divided from Serbia?! You clearly have no clue of the matter, maybe you should look up more into that before discussing this. I do not care what the map was spawned about. A map serves to show the WORLD and its STATES. Kosovo is a new state, FULLY and FORMALLY RECOGNISED by Australia. Full stop. Bardhylius (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You should care what the map was spawned about since it shows that your theory on what the map is supposed to represent to be wrong. It really doesn't matter whether or not Kosovo has borders since it's not relevant to the article. And please, be civil. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why, for Kosovo it doesn't matter whether there are borders, while for all the other countries in the world it does? Why wasn't the map entirely blank with only Australia marked? Please be reasonable. Bardhylius (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because Kosovo is not relevant to finding Australia on a world map. I'm not sure how many times we have to say this. Other countries have borders because they had borders when the original map was created. Kosovo didn't. The borders weren't blanked out because it's a lot of extra work blanking them out and blanking the borders wasn't justified. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind (India, Brazil, Belize etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on Australia with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Bardhylius, if it bothers you that much, you can get yourself some software capable of editing SVGs (Inkscape is generally recommended for Wikimedia purposes) and go edit all the world maps to turn on the border for Kosovo. As Chuq says, it's simply not a high priority for most people since the map is all about finding Australia with respect to the rest of the world, and on the thumbnail in the article Kosovo won't even be visible anyway even when the border is turned on. --bainer (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank heavens I found this dialogue on the Talk:Australia page. I couldn't for the life of me understand why, when i looked at the map where Australia is in relation to the world's continents and major political boundaries, why an extraordinarily important place like Kosovo, which holds such vital visual relevance to Australia's position within the Pacific and globally, wasn't included in bold in the map. At least now i can rest assured that someone is going to steps to remedy this ghastly oversight, for heavens sake what is the matter with you Australians? HelloMojo (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on the related topics table

I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, as I am new to this editing stuff, but I just wanted to bring to attention the vandalism under the related topics table on the Australia page. I'd happily have removed it myself but as I say I am new to this. Lemonmeringuepie (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good pick up - since removed by a bot (robot). Feel free to revert yourself where you are sure it is vandalism like that clearly was.--VS ^talk 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Education

I would like to bring to the attention of who ever that Queensland's education ages are not listed. Queenlands education starts at the age of 6 (grade 1) and finishes at the age of 17 (grade 12), with the option of leaving at age 15 (grade 10). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.89.69 (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to know the names and addresses of Austrialian newspapers, particularly those mainly concerned about religion.

Manuel Borda email address <redacted> 78.133.49.7 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed your email address: posting it anywhere on Wikipedia is a sure way to be hit with massive volumes of spam. List of Australian newspapers may help you with your query; if you indeed need something more specific, you may ask at the reference desk. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ta soeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.31.89 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Schule in Australien

Alle Schulen in Australien sind kagge :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.40.26 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia

Wikipedia Administrator

(1) I changed and insert some images to improve the article of Australia. I noticed some images were reversed back, which seems a bit disingenuous to replace it with a poorer quality, less pretty photo that illustrates less credibility. Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:Ruckwork.jpg obviously give viewers of the free encyclopedia a better and clearer quality images and express the description of the images accordingly.

(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.

(3) Image:Ayers Rock-view from 50k.jpg reflects Australia natural beauty and wonders. Ayers Rock is typically one of Australia’s icons. Image:MelbCBD.jpg represents the second largest city in Australia. I see these images fundamentally support the article’s narration of Australia and do not believe this is too much images, which will destruct the readers. I am the author of some of these images but don't want to tread on people's toes and appear self-serving.

In the meantime, I insert these images again to enhance the article and any comments are welcome.

--Donaldtong (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pics aren't placed to be pretty. They are placed to be informative and must relate directly to the article.

(1)The pic of Sydney Harbour is meant to show the urban nature, not to look pretty. It is arguable that your pic is better, but it does not show the urban nature better.

(2)Not sure what your point is here. How specifically does it relate to your photos? Which ones?

(3)An Uluru pic is irrelevant to that section and needs to be removed. Uluru is not even mentioned in the article. Again, the criteria for pics is to be informative and relevant first. "Prettiness" is optional once the main criteria are met. As for Melbourne pic, we don't need to create a pic for every city, or every point in the article. It's an article, not a gallery.

--Merbabu (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get into whether or not specific images are needed or not but if you do intend adding images please make sure they don't break up the article by introducing large amounts of whitespace. Whitespace may not be evident at whatever resolution you're using so you need to check 1024x768, 1280x1024 and probably 800x600 as a minimum. I've just had to adjust the same image again after I fixed it a day or two ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia

(1) The said comment; “Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG does not show the urban nature better”, cannot be substantiated by the fact. Please specify where Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not related directly to the article and does not show the urban nature better comparing to the Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg.

(2) It seems unnecessary and unimportant discussion might be brought here. Which photo and whose photo is not important. Please just click the images to find out the answers (the image author) to the question.

(3) It may be a bit bias if a comment on whether an image is informative or relevance to the article only based on a single context in the narration of the image.

(3.1) Ayers Rock is located in Northern Territory, which is mentioned in the article of Australia and also illustrated by the Australia map within the article. (3.2) Uluru is the name of the Ayers Rock from Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal culture is of a significant influence in Australia, especially in Arts. (3.3) Furthermore, the topic of Aborigines forms as an important part in the article of Australia. There are more implied expressions of the image, but the above points are sufficient to clarify the discussion.

(4) There is no argument that we don’t need images for every city and an article is not a gallery, but Melbourne is the 2nd largest city in Australia (e.g. some top large manufacturing industries and corporate headquarters are allocated in Melbourne). Again, please specify where Image:MelbCBD.jpg does not meet the main criteria and what is the main criteria? --Donaldtong (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I must say that I agree with Merbabu. Your image is taken from a high angle and shows the very "centre" of Sydney while the previous image is taken from a lower angle and gives a better idea of the extent of urban sprawl in Sydney. Your image is prettier but it's not as informative.

(3) I don't see what the picture of Uluru brings to the article. The picture of Sydney demonstrates the urban sprawl and with the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House included it is immediately recognisable as Australian. The Barossa Valley is internationally known so it too is recognisable as being Australian. The image of it is fairly representative of rural Australia (if there was no caption I honestly couldn't tell if it wasn't of the Hunter Region of NSW, where I am) and is used to highlight that only a small proportion of Australians live in rurual areas. Even the Perth image provides the reader of a view of (allegedly) the most expensive place in Australia. All the Uluru image does is show Uluru. I'll expand on this in the next paragraph...

(4) There is an issue of practicality and pactically there are only so many images that can be put into an article before it becomes so picture heavy that it becaomes a gallery rather than an encyclopaedic article and loses its value. In an article of this size with so many images that could potentially be included it's very important to minimise the number of images that aren't directly relevant to the article. I've explained why the Sydney, Barossa Valley and Perth images are directly relevant in the previous paragarph. The Melbourne image shares the same problem as the Uluru image. It doesn't really add anything to the article and it isn't really relevant. That it is Australia's second largest city really isn't enough to justify inclusion on it's own. There are lots of places that have a single outstanding point. Darwin is Australia's most northern capital, Stockton Beach has Australia's largest shipwreck, the Solar Thermal Array at the CSIRO National Solar Energy Centre in Newcastle is the largest ‘Solar Power Tower’ system in the southern hemisphere and so on. This doesn't justify them for inclusion. Nor would being the second most northern capital, the second biggest shipwreck or the second largest solar array. Images used in this article need to highlight something already in the prose or add extra information that is significant. Neither the Uluru or Melbourne images do that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in the article of Australia (Continued)

• (1) Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. This is one of the guidelines quoted from Wikipedia – How to improve image quality. The comment about “higher” and “lower” angle of the image is quite personal rather than rational (e.g. lower angle is informative but higher angle is not informative). It is impractical and most unlikely that a better quality image can be 100% at the same lens angle to shot the same object. There is no such a reality that one measurement can fit all sizes. If the logic was followed that when an old image was replaced by a better quality image in a Wikipedia article, that better quality image must be exactly at the same caption or angles, etc., thus even a Wikipedia featured picture could still be criticized or opposed by the argument of “higher” or “lower” angles. So that the old images in Wikipedia articles would be stuck there forever and the discussion of the image improvement in an article of Wikipedia could be endless. If the prettier of the Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not denied, why not at least keep the better one?

• (2) The primary purpose and goal of Wikipedia is to provide free education and knowledge exchange. The point 3 & 4 in the last responded discussion seems a bit of contradict and ambiguous. For example, the comments said, images such as Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, Perth, and Barossa Valley are immediately recognizable as Australian. Thus this comment implied that image of Melbourne would not be immediately recognizable as Australian (why?), and Uluru would be definitely excluded. However, article Uluru in Wikipedia under the section of Description, firstly it said; Uluru is one of Australia's most recognizable natural icons. So let’s respect the expression from Wikipedia article Uluru.

• (3) If images that were added into a Wikipedia article were not well-composed and generally well-executed, or not relevant and informative, then the article would lose value or became picture heavy. But simply using the words such as “look like a gallery” or “lose value” cannot be substantiated. The article of Shrine of Remembrance does not lose any value, but has been recognized as a Wikipedia featured article since 2004 although there are many images within the article. Having said that, it does not mean the article of Australia should copy the same format like the article of Shrine of Remembrance, but see that as a reference. Wikipedia featured article, Canberra may be another example. There are many images well presented, especially under the section of Culture. These articles neither look like gallery nor lose value.

• (4) So far, the image improvement can be seen from the last editing, therefore. no more questions.

--Donaldtong (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(1)"Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good" is not written in stone. A really great looking image can be less informative than a poorer quality image and therefore the poorer quality image can be the better image. There needs to be a balance. The caption of the image in question is "Most Australians live in urban areas. Sydney is the most populous city in the country." The comment about angle is not personal, it's fact. You can quite clearly see the difference between the two images. One, the original image, gives a much better view of the extent of the urban sprawl and the size of Sydney than yours.

"If the prettier of the Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not denied, why not at least keep the better one?" You are assuming that "prettier" = "better". It does not.

(2) Your question regarding Melbourne was pretty much answered in my previous response. The Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House are well known internationally. People who look at a photo of them know immediately that they're looking at Sydney, Australia, just as anyone who sees the Empire State Building, Statue of Liberty or the World Trade Center know they're looking at New York, USA or somebody who sees the Great Pyramid or Sphinx knows they're looking at the Giza Plateau in Egypt. Melbourne has no internationally recognised buildings. Uluru is a different issue. Yes, it's Australian but it's just a picture of Uluru and, while Australian, isn't really relevant to the article as I explained in my previous response.

(3) While Shrine of Remembrance may be a FA, I disagree with you. I think it has far too many images (3 are extremely similar) and there is a large amount of whitespace at 1280x1024 and above that detracts from the article. Being FA doesn't mean the article is perfect and FAs can have their FA status removed. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• (1) If the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia must be written in stone, obviously, that means the discussion would go nowhere in the subject of Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg .

• (2) The expression that Uluru is one of Australia's most recognizable natural icons is written by Wikipedia. It sounds this also must be written in stone, otherwise, it would not be immediately recognizable as Australian.

• (3) It is quite surprising that an active Wikipedian would have so many different personal opinions against Wikipedia’s guidelines, article’s expression and even recognized Wikipedia featured articles (e.g. Shrine of Remembrance and Canberra). However, it is no question that every personal opinion has the right to be reserved.

--Donaldtong (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going no where, simply repeating itself. Donaldtong, my advice is not to push overally hard for your own images - some people might think you are not being completely objective. If the case for their inclusion was clear, then you wouldn't need to write so much in attempt to convince people. Each of your posts are very long and people don't read such long posts. regards --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also point out that very little is set in stone in Wikipedia, that none of the things you have referred to are actually "guidelines", that the notion of a featured article is changing over time (as are the articles - both Shrine of Remembrance and Canberra did not have so many images when they were nominated as featured articles - it is very misleading to use them as justification for having many images), and that it is very bad form to quote from another article to prove a point. In any case, your argument that it makes a big difference if images look good is just one of the factors we must consider. Noone actually disagrees with the statement, it is just that it does not overule the idea that images are there to illustrate the article, not simply look good. JPD (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to mention some inadequacies regarding the images in this article. Queensland and especially South East Queensland, is not featured prominently enough. Something tropical, an image from Port Douglas, Noosa, Queensland or the city of Ipswich the countries fastest growing city would be good. There are no photos of the countryside (except of the Barossa Valley) especially the bush, the outback or rangelands which make up a significant proportion of the landscape. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Governor-General

Michael Jeffery is no longer Australia's GG. Quentin Bryce is the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.181 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Quentin Bryce is only the Governor General designate and will not become the Governor General until she is sworn in on 5 September 2008.[21] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

australias obesity epidemic

Australias obesity epidemic is not mentioned.Is this not a case of biased reporting because of worry over damaging a widely held view that Aussies are sporty?Chastity678 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Obesity epidemic"? Hmm, firstly that term sounds like something out of tabloid magazine. Secondly, I don't know that this is overly important - perhaps it is if you could explain further. As for editors trying to hide it so as not to damage some reputation, i know that is not true. could you elaborate? --Merbabu (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned (briefly) in the article Health care in Australia --Melburnian (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a "gaol" supposed to be?

While reading this article I saw something about a "gaol". I was going to fix it but could not for the life of me figure out what they meant. Does anyone know what a "gaol" is intended to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only mention of the term "gaol" within this article is the image caption for the Port Arthur image under the History section. Gaol is an early Modern English spelling for jail, with the same pronunciation and meaning. -- Longhair\^talk 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So if it's Early Modern English, we should modify the spelling then to the current form right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because the current form is "gaol". Early Modern just means that it dates from a certain time. It's still the preferred spelling in Australia although "jail" is becoming more common, probably because we watch way too much American TV. Gaol is also a derivative of the original word while jail is an Americanisation in that Americans seem to prefer phoneticised spellings. In the USA jails and prisons are different while a gaol is also a prison. In Australia gaol and jail mean the same thing so the Australian "jail" has a different meaning to the American "jail". There is more information at Jail#Gaol, Wiktionary:gaol and dictionary.com. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia Extends Territorial Waters

I have added to the article what I have found by following this link: Australia Extends Rights over Sea. If there are any objections to my addition, please let me know --Maurice45 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was the rights over the continental shelf, not the waters. Apart form that, is this detail really important enought to be included in this summary article? JPD (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I figure that, if it's important enough to be on the BBC news website, it should (again, not sure, so don't attack this) be on the article --Maurice45 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First european sighting is off by 1500 years?

> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606. <

This is not ture in the strictest sense. There is a rock carving of latin text on the northern shore of Australia. A 1st century AD ancient roman ship participating in the yearly exotic goods trade shuttle between the Red Sea ports and India was swept away by winds and ended up down under. The poor imperial guys probably did not last long in that deserted area, so it is not a "discovery" where return of the crew is a must, but it still counts as a "sighting" and as a "landing". 91.83.19.148 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have a reference?--VS ^talk 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

I just made this edit and realised that my edit summary is very poorly worded so I thought I'd clarify it here. What I was trying to say was that while the Statute of Westminster was ratified in 1942 the adoption date was formerly backdated to 3 September 1939 within the Act itself[22][23] so that is the adoption date, not the 1942 date. While the document was formerly assented to on 9 October 1942 not 3 October 1942 as edited)[24] the commencement date is the more important date. This is no different to The Constitution, which received royal assent on 9 July 1900 but did not come into force until 1 January 1901. The commencement date of both is what is important. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about if further, since the date of commencement is the more significant date, the link should probably be [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|commenced]] rather than [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|adopted]] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities. Australia did not have the power to legislate itself completely freely before 1942, the backdated adoption date is a legal technicality, as shown by your own cite (11). It says "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" which was 9 October [[1942]. History documents when things actually happened - the backdate is a legal technicality. When your cite (11) says the law was "adopted" from 1939 it means they will apply it from 1939 if anything is discovered in that past time that relates to the law, but when it says it comes into "operation" in 1942 it means that they can only start applying the law from then because laws can't travel through time.

What I am trying to say is that the backdate is just to deal with the past and doesn't change the date the law actually came into force. As I said in my last edit, I apply the same logic to the Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1901 like the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 came into force on 9 October 1942 (I did accidentally type type 3 October rather than 9 October).--Supertask (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Why does the CIA have different population statistics for Australia. For example, it claims Australia has a smaller population and is growing at around 0.80%. The French page uses the CIA factbook and thus looks completely different to the English version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

I don't know why the CIA is wrong but it is. The official population clock is a far more accurate estimate and that's what should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)