Talk:Emu War

earlier comments

Some context from Emu, perhaps about changing Australian ecological approaches to Emus would be better. Hard to see why this is separate. --Wetman 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty much a duplicate of the information I added to emu years ago. I see no pressing need to merge it, but have no objection either. Tannin 01:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

To the user who keeps wrongly capitalizing the word "emu" in this article - stop it. This is the English - not German - Wikipedia. In English nouns are only capitalized when they are proper nouns or the first word of a sentence. --Centauri 23:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. You also capitalise in a range of other circumstances. For example, the first letter of a scientific genus name is always captialised (and the first letter of a specific name never capitalised). Of more relevance to our discussion here, the common name of a species is always capitalised, so as to indicate that this is a particular exact species we are talking about. So, for example, you write Black Rat if you mean Rattus rattus but write black rat if you mean a dark-coloured rat of unspecified species. A little egret could be any of many smaller birds in the heron family (egrets are a form of heron), but a Little Egret is Egretta garzetta and no other.

Note, however, that a group of species is not capitalised - so we write wombat (because there are 3 species) or kangaroo (because there are 3 to 5 different species). Similarly with egrets, rats and herons above. "Emu" can be tricky, as the word "emu" has two distinct meaninmgs - it is both the group name and the name of one of the species within the group. Uncapitalised, "emu" means any of the several emu species (all bar one of them now extinct) - it is the name of the group; capitalised, it means Dromaius novaehollandiae, and not Dromaius baudinianus the Kangaroo Island Emu or Dromaius Ater the King Island Emu.

Follow? Tannin 01:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scientific and unique names are proper nouns and should be capitalized, as I have already stated above. Generic descriptions of animals are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. See my post on the Emu talk page for further detail.--Centauri 01:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further info

Considering this is an encyclopaedic article about a war, shouldn't the actual winners be mentioned? I can see a rough indication of casualties, fair enough, but it should be made clear who was the official victor in the conflict. Mr Poo 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Those slippery Emus. Koalorka (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this need its own entry?

I don't know if this article needs to be separate from Emu, to be honest, or if it needs the Infobox- it just strikes me as some kind of awful parody or "Onion" style entry, even though it isn't. The event wasn't really a "War" in the traditional sense, either. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. This article is nothing but a vandal-magnet and it would be difficult to expand it much beyond its present length. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it not deserve its own entry? The conflict is valid and genuine. Only Australian apologist revisionism wants this article erased. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What conflict? You can't have a "War" against a flightless bird species, for a start. Look, what happened was back in 1932 the Australian Government sent a couple of blokes with Lewis Guns and a couple of crates of ammo to cull some Emus. They managed to shoot about 12 of them in a fortnight or so, which is an embarrassing result by anyone's standards, but it's not a "War", it's not a "Conflict", and at best (IMHO) it's an amusing incident from nearly 80 years ago that belongs on the Emu page as a testament to the hardiness of the animals and how they were viewed at the time. There's no "Australian apologist revisionism" here- no-one is denying that the event happened and that the Australian Government was presumably embarrassed by the result, but it's not really that notable in the grand scheme of things- certainly not notable enough (again, IMHO) to warrant its own article. Especially not an article that reads like a bad parody. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources in external links seem to refer to this incident as a "conflict" and "war". I don't see why it should not be referred to as such. Additional sources would need to be found to say otherwise. However, it seems that the prejudiced revisionism wins either way due to unexplained sourced statement removal. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about with regards to "unexplained sourced statement removal"- I haven't removed anything and I understand that there's an editor facing a week long block for some sort of edit warring. My concern is that this is not a particularly notable incident- the only "official" reference in the article is from the National Library of Australia, which cites over 300 Emus killed and describes the incident as an "attack" (cull), not a "War" or "Conflict". Blogs are not reliable sources, and the other websites don't (IMHO) appear much better, with the exception of the NLA link. Now, 300 Emus killed is a lot more impressive than 12 (still not a lot, given two machine-guns and lots of time and ammo, but even so) and my reading of the source material is that the event was basically an unsuccessful cull that got picked up on by a local newspaper during a slow news day in late 1932. There's no revisionism here. Most Australians have probably never heard of the incident, and giving the incident its own article and trying to pretend it was an actual "War" or "Conflict" is just silly. Let me re-iterate that no-one wants to pretend this never happened and make it all vanish. The plan is to move it to the Emu article, where presumably even more people will see it. I just honestly don't think it really deserves its own article, especially not one that- as I've said- appears to be un-encyclopedic, for want of a better term. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay but needs a good rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic and less tongue-in-cheek. Referring to the operation as a war and misplacing it in war categories etc is just being silly. For a start, how about a rename to 1932 Emu cull? –Moondyne 08:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind after playing with this for a while in my sandbox [1] Its non-notable. –Moondyne 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I fail to see how this is notable, given that it only appears to have been picked up as a one-time alleged gaffe by the Australian government and/or armed forces. I imagine hunts like these occur all the time, with a variety of animals, and I fail to see why this is notable enough to warrant it's own article. I'd recommend merging it into emu as an example of the need to cull the animal in Australia, or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe this to be notable, but if someone felt the need to retain some mention of the incident, perhaps it could be merged to the article on Emus but as it stands it is misleading and to be honest makes Wikipedia look like a joke. To call this incident a war, and to use the military conflict infobox and include emus as belligerents is just being silly. Yes it is funny, but no it should not be included in an encyclopedia. (It may have been colloquially called a war, but clearly it isn't. A war involves two or more groups of human beings. If this stands, are we going to have articles on wars with possums, koalas, kangaroos, sharks, etc? (all of which have been or are subject to 'culls' or 'punitive expeditions'). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well put. The only reason we're having this discussion is that some editors think that its funny to edit this article to claim that it was a 'strategic emu victory', that the casualties included 'Australian dignity', etc, then harass the editors who revert this nonsense by accusing them of Australian nationalist POV-pushing and don't want to give up their fun. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the only other article that links to this page is Emu, so it seems logical to put the details of this incident in there. It is an interesting incident and would sit well in the 'Relationship with Humans" heading. I would probably describe it as an incident or cull, rather than a war though... or at least sub head it The Emu "War" or something like that. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro a little and I think it makes the whole article less silly, but if it's still not "worth keeping" maybe we could just throw the {{humor}} tag on it. Some guy (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you have improved the article, thanks. I feel that perhaps if the conflict infobox and the erroneous categories (certainly Wars involving Australia, but also possibly Military history of Australia) were removed, then maybe (emphasis on maybe) it could be kept. That is my opinion, anyway. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree- the whole thing is so absurd as to be farcical (Emus are not capable of organised resistance, establishing a high command, or engaging in guerrilla warfare for example) and Serventy is clearly writing with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Although Some Guy's edits do improve it, I think we need to lose the infobox and seriously consider merging this IMHO non-notable event into the main Emu article. If Wiki had an article on every "filler" piece run by local newspapers on slow news days, the servers would have overloaded years ago. Really, what encyclopedic purpose does this article serve? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually from digging through newspaper archives it seems that there is enough source material to both improve and expand this article enough to keep it. I will try to start adding additional sources and information/corrections tomorrow. Some guy (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, we're still missing the bigger picture: How is this encyclopedic? There are animal culls all the time here and they get reported on in the newspaper, but they don't get their own articles. Before you rush off and put lots of work into expanding this, let's make sure the consensus is in favour of keeping the article and not merging it. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How often are soldiers with machine guns tasked to slaughter hoards of 6-foot-tall birds? The Premiere and the Minister of Defence both supported the event, and it was discussed in the Senate. Adding additional sources and material makes the article more encyclopedic - it's better to expand the article and then decide if there is consensus to keep it. Again, I will do this tomorrow, which is not rushing and is my own endeavor so there's no need for you to worry about how much work I put into it. Some guy (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements

As many of you will probably notice, I have substantially rewritten the article based on all newspaper sources I could find through the National Library of Australia web newspaper archive. I feel it is much more encyclopedic (and accurate) now and worth maintaining as its own article. Any comments or additions/corrections/etc are welcome. Some guy (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work. I'd suggest that the infobox be removed though, as it's not appropriate in this article - as demonstrated by it being frequently targeted by vandals. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I feel that the article has been improved greatly. I also feel that the infobox should be removed and the "Wars involving Australia" category. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is definitely improved, but I've taken the liberty of A) correcting the Americanised spellings, B) removing the infobox, and C) removing the "Wars involving Australia" category, since no-one has objected and they're patently silly in the article anyway. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with infobox removal also. –Moondyne 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm glad everyone is happy with the changes. Thanks for removing the infobox and category, I don't know why I didn't do that :P . Should we remove the merge and pov templates? Some guy (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. This looks much better and much more worthy of its own article, well done some guy. It would be nice to get more links to it next - maybe history of Western Australia, or some link from wildlife and nuisance management. Or even a relation to other nuisance control in Australia like the Rabbit fence. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article still appears far to Australian revisionist. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask in what way you find the culling of birds Australian Revisionist? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The majority, if not all of sources refer to this as a "war", and that it resulted in an Emu Victory. Instead this is ignored and things like "nuisance wildlife management operation" are put into the article with no factual basis. Emu history is being lost to this revisionism. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Most seem to call it an "Emu War", indicating it is a name, not a war in the same sense as the Peninsular War where the words are separated to clarify the name of a war. This is probably because most sources realise this wasn't a war. As noted above this was neither a war nor a conflict, terms which would imply battle between two opposing forces. This was not even a battle - there was no organised resistance or strategy on the emus part. Nor is there an emu history to be lost. Do they call it a victory, or celebrate it with street parties? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the joke run its course? Some guy (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically disruptive editing. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am dismayed that the Emus are being denied their legacy, their valiant struggle will NEVER be forgotten. Wikipedia proves her systetmic bias yet again. I will disengage now. Koalorka (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the "Australian Lobby" wins this one. One day the The Great Emu War will have its place in history. The decisive victory over Australian Imperialism will always be remembered. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and WP:ANI discussion

An Administrators' Noticeboard discussion [2] over the recent block and tangentally the infobox content which provoked it has concluded that treating the article as a military campaign is probably too far into silly / humorous for Wikipedia's normal standards.

While this does not overrule other content decisions, I strongly recommend that anyone who feels that treating this incident as a military campaign / war versus as a wildlife management incident (with humorous military aspects) start an article Requests for Comment here on the talk page and generate a consensus prior to re-inserting the infobox or any other blatantly military-campaign-like content.

The current status of the article - discussing the military involvement and media reactions to the humorous aspects - seems like a good balance to me, personally, but that's just my personal opinion.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you post a link to the ANI report here at the time you made it? Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. I think someone might have pointed out that a blog is not generally a valid source, unless I'm missing something. Some guy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why is it that valid additions with sources are being reverted with no discussion? This article is blatantly biased. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How we lost the "Emu War" source

I'm not sure [3] is an appropriate source. Emugigs looks like just a web designer, nothing indicating the reliability needed. While it claims to be from GEO (magazine), I think until we have more detail on the exact issue, we shouldn't include the quote (which may be completely ridiculous). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that one, and I don't have any problem with it disappearing. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I thought that the source was marginal, but the article is probably better off without it. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emu War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article was subject to an edit war on 4 December 2009, but the page has not been edited since 11 December. I will undertake a more thorough review. Reviewer: Cnilep (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose is slightly confusing and not explicit enough on all points. For example, the article does not explain that emus are large flightless birds, or that Lewis Guns are automatic machine guns. In addition, some of the prose closely paraphrases sources (esp. Robin et al. 2009) and might be rewritten or else quoted directly.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Suggestions that the name "Emu War" was adopted by the media to satirize the affair seem to be conclusions based on the use of scare quotes in a single source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I would like to see more coverage of the drought of 1932 in Western Australia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Are there appropriate images of the event? If not, add free image of emu.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have numerous minor concerns, listed above. They may be met relatively quickly. I trust that the edit war will not flare up again.

   UPDATE 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Page is reasonably well-written and reasonably well sourced. However, the page is not entirely stable, having suffered an edit war in December and needing consensus on a couple of questions this week. (See Talk:Emu War and edits of 9 January 2010.) There is currently no photo. Some prose is a close paraphrase of sources.

There are various images of emus at commons:Dromaius novaehollandiae. Cnilep (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Source of the name "Emu War"

This article suggests that the name "Emu War" is a "satirical name" adopted by the media. Yet Robin et al. write, "He thought the Emu was a scourge to be routed, and that this would make excellent military target practice. Pearce declared an 'emu war'" (2009: 256). It is unclear from the portion of Robin et al. available on Google Books whether Sir George Pearce used the name in 1932 or it was created post-hoc by media commenters. Are other sources clearer on this point? Cnilep (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources which were listed actually state that the name "Emu War" was a satirical name which was adopted by the media. A few have "Emu War" in quotations. However, that means absolutely nothing. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem with the use of "satricial"? The Argus article refers to the emu war, both in the title and the body, and other articles use the term as well. So the term was in use in the media at the time. - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with just the terminology of "Emu War". The sources were being cited to support the notion that the name was somehow adopted as a satirical name, though. And none of the sources say that. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem then - would it work better if we just dropped the "satricial"? - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what I was thinking. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The majority of sources regarding the "Emu war" place the name in quotes to suggest it is not to be taken entirely literally. You will very rarely see the name of an actual war presented in quotes in this manner. Satire by nature does not usually directly state "I am a satire" - in fact, most effective satire goes to overwhelming lengths to pretend to be serious (Stephen Colbert, Maddox, etc). This book [4] notes the name "Emu war" is ironic but the way the passage is worded would make it a very weak source. Some guy (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Colbert. I'm a big fan. Even with The Colbert Report there are sources which say the show is satirical. Just putting assumptions into an article is original research. It also seems that the person who originally coined the term "Emu War" was Sir George Pearce. Perhaps he was a closet satirist himself? Lt.Specht (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

is this really real???

"The machine-gunners' dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month" --142.162.71.149 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly yes. :) The media of the day was rather creative in how they described the events, as they seemed to be enjoying it, and it appears that Serventy decided to have fun as well. He's quoted over at the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rain scatters Emus"

Regarding the source "Rain scatters Emus" [5]: the article states that the settlers requested the "post-ponement of the departure of the machine-gun party", which I took to mean that the soldiers were going to retreat from the area due to the rains, but were asked to stay. However, I see since then someone else has interpreted the article in exactly the opposite way, inferring that the settlers asked the miltary to delay the operation. I guess the determining factor here is whether "depart" means "leave on a mission" or "go home". Anyone have thoughts/analysis of the source? Some guy (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right - I didn't realise that there two ways of reading it, but yes, depart could go either way. I never thought of that, but both interpretations make sense in the context of the article. However, I just checked Johnson, and he describes it thus:

By early October 1932, all was in readiness for the military offensive when the unexpected happened: heavy rain fell in the interior and the emus temporarily withdrew from the wheat-lands. The respite was only short, however; the birds returned to attack the settlers' crops later the same month. Meredith and his gunners were hastily entrained in Perth on the Kalgoorlie express, alighting at Burracoppin on the morning of 2 November. ( "'Feathered foes': soldier settlers and Western Australia's 'Emu War' of 1932", p. 151).

As the Argus article was from October 1932, I'm assuming that it refers to the rain before they departed for Burracoppin. - Bilby (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the Johnson article as well, and I dont't think that section really explains what the soldiers did during the rainy period. They went to Burracoppin when the rain ended, but it's not clear where they were before the rain ended. Some guy (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

True enough. I guess my reading was that they were ready to go, but weren't sent until later that month when the birds returned. Perhaps we need another source clearly stating their deployment? - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, hopefully another source will clear it up. Some guy (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Military action"

If we're going to avoid phrases like "military action" that suggest this was actually a serious war (and I'm happy to avoid them, I didn't think that wording through when I wrote it) shouldn't we be removing words such as engagement, conflict, and ambush from the article? Some guy (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's tons of sources which use phrases like military action, engagement, conflict, etc. For the sake of maintaining a fair and balanced NPOV we should be sticking to the sources. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You realize that if you use the wording of a biased source, you are perpetuating their POV? Some guy (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The dozens of sources which use the wording are not POV. Some are highly reliable sources published by Cornell University Press and University of Michigan Press. They are also secondary sources, compared to newspapers like "The Argus", one of the only sources which uses words like "cull", and is actually a Primary source. Per WP policy the primary sources should be taken out of the article, until reliable secondary sources can be found for correct interpretation (e.g. "Rain scatters Emus" interpretation problems). Lt.Specht (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Argus, being a newspaper reporting on events they did not actively take part in, is a secondary source. Pearce would be an example of a primary source. You might want to read more about primary and secondary sources. Anyway, you have repeatedly demonstrated you aren't interested in cooperation or taking the article seriously, so we should wait for additional input. Some guy (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. After doing some quick searches there's tons of reliable sources which define newspapers from the period of the event as a primary source (including WP's cited definition, "an inside view of a particular event..", compared to the definition of a secondary source, "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field..."). A highly prestigious university, Duke University, defines first hand newspaper articles as primary sources.[6] Lt.Specht (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP: Gaming the system. That single example of a secondary source from Wikipedia policy doesn't exclude newspapers. The Argus articles aren't an inside view of the event. They are once removed from the subject which fits the definition of secondary source. A newspaper article would be a primary source if written by a field journalist or eyewitness but that does not seem to apply here.Some guy (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be no need to use phrases such as 'military action' for something which plainly wasn't. This was a cull conducted by soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"If we're going to avoid phrases like "military action" that suggest this was actually a serious war (and I'm happy to avoid them, I didn't think that wording through when I wrote it) shouldn't we be removing words such as engagement, conflict, and ambush from the article?" Some guy (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so. 'Ambush' is probably OK though, as I think that this is a tactic animal hunters often use. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Speciescide?

Dr. Dominic Louis Serventy writes in A Handbook of the Birds of Western Australia (with the exception of the Kimberley Division (page 63):

“ ...the affected farmers persuaded the Commonwealth and State Governments to become involved in that bizzare and fantastic interlude, the Emu War of November, 1932. This was an attempt at the mass destruction of the birds with machine guns operated by a military unit. The attempt proved an utter failure. In 1935 the Northampton and neighbouring districts suffered another severe Emu invasion and the Government agreed to pay a bonus of 1/- per head without insisting on corresponding subsidies from the local vermin boards. Altogether 57,034 birds were destroyed. ”

57,034 birds? This was no ordinary cull. The Oxford Dictionary also defines cull as "reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter", mass destruction fits this? Really? Lt.Specht (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you're not familiar with wildlife control on Australian scales then. As an example, it was recently seriously proposed that the Australian Government kill a million camels in Central Australia: [7] and the Kangaroo Industry Association states that permits are granted to kill 1-2 million kangaroos per year: [8]. Emus have always been very common, and 57,000 would be drop in the ocean. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't aware of that kind of scale. It just seems a little weird when looking at all the words like "mass destruction", "destroyed", "extermination", etc. Conservationists clearly have a different point of view regarding this "war" (as the conservationists did call it). Lt.Specht (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Specht, from what I've gathered from the article and sources I've read, the military's involvement was not nearly that successful and at most a few thousand birds were killed. The 57,034 bird total was reached through the bounty system that was implemented afterwards. So even if it actually were an unprecendented massacre it wouldn't be accurate to associate it with the military involvement. Some guy (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We're better than texas in australia - when we do things we do it big - just check the WA dimensions to see why we think we have something big about our landmass... - and when it comes to animal pests - we have them in big numbers too SatuSuro 08:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Emu War
An emu
Date November 2 – December 10, 1932 Location Campion district, Western Australia Result Emu victory
Belligerents
Australia	emus
Commanders and leaders
Sir George Pearce Major G.P.W. Meredith Royal Australian Artillery	emus
Strength
2 machine guns	20,000 emus
Casualties and losses
none	2,500 dead emus

So, obviously at this point we need to discuss what would be an acceptable infobox. The last one [9] seemed pretty good to me, as it doesn't suggest this was a legitimate military conflict. Everyone please throw your hat about what you would like to see in an infobox (or lack of infobox) in so we can decisively solve this issue. Some guy (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the historical event infobox works out best, and doesn't contain any disputable or objectionable things. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the historical event one, but the problem in the past wasn't that the infobox was necessarily a bad idea, but that it was a magnet for edit warring and vandalism. I'm happy to see it tried again, though. - Bilby (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I designed an alternative version of the infobox (on the right). =) JIP | Talk 10:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous concensus was not to use the military conflict infobox in this article. At best I'd support the nondescript historical event infobox, but not the military conflict infobox. Using the military conflict infobox is too tongue in cheek, IMO, and makes the encyclopedia look less than serious. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why an infobox is needed, but the historical event one currently in the article is OK. As AustralianRupert notes, the military infobox has been discussed previously and is clearly unsuitable. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's why I put it here first before putting it into the article, so as not to change the infobox without discussing it here first. JIP | Talk 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I also feel the conflict infobox is much too silly for the article; the historical event one seems fine. The article doesn't really need an infobox but it doesn't hurt and I'm so used to nearly every article having one I think we might as well use the historical one. Some guy (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit the infobox but someone reverted it back. I will revert my edits if no one else complains. I simply added the number of emus they were trying to kill (2000) and the number of emus they managed to kill (~1000) before they left (withdrew) which I think is something that most people would want to know right off the bat when looking at this article. The "results" pointing to "aftermath" is inaccurate because aftermath isnt the same thing as results. In fact in the infobox, the date given for this historical event are not the same as the events discussed in aftermath Absolutezero273 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been lots of discussions of this topic, and the consensus has been to not present this as a military conflict. Your addition of the nonsensical "Australian withdrawal" in the infobox and numbers of emus seems to go against this consensus. I've just reverted you, but am happy to discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I thoughtthe discussion was about using a military conflict infobox. Im happy to take out the "australian withdrawal" part. I just know that when I ran into this article, the number of emus present and killed was something that seemed to be important enough to summarize and present in the infobox. Absolutezero273 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the change as it's treading too close to silly. The infobox is fine how it is. Some guy (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Military info box inclusion. It gives more information more concisely than the other format of infobox. The fact that it is a clever application to an unexpected use of the word "war" should not be a reason to avoid presenting it if it is the clearest way to convey the most important information to the reader, which it is. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Military info box inclusion. The Title of the Article DOES say Emu War. The pun intended improves what would otherwise be a mundane page IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.2.179 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP only has two edits and should be considered a sock puppet. Bluerasberry, the military infobox is misleading, as it implies this was more of a full military operation than it was; the number of Emus and the number of casualties is not "the most important information", nor is it appropriate to call the Emus belligerents or imply they had commanders and leaders. Some guy (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not cool to call an IP a sock without giving a rationale, especially when the comment is constructive and serious. I came here from another website and probably that person followed the same link.

I do not think anyone would see the box and misunderstand anything or be misled. The box is the most efficient way to convey what happened, and if that field is the major concern, then the "leaders" section could be changed to "no leader". I do not know the difference between a "full military operation" and a "military operation" but what happened was an official recorded military function under the command of named official who directed a named artillery division, and the sources refer to the event as a war. I oppose making a judgement call that in contemporary times this would not be classified as a war when it was notable and reported using that term when it happened. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it's "cool", that is appropriate. "I came here from another website and probably that person followed the same link" is practically the definition of a sock (well, perhaps more accurately a meatpuppet). Common sense clearly dictates that the event was not an actual war, it's tongue in cheek humor. This was for all intents and purposes a wildlife control operation, and doesn't deserve to be called a military conflict any more than a training operation; would you think it was appropriate to have a military infobox for a shooting range, with participants "soldiers and paper targets" and casualties "ten thousand paper targets"? The important information is properly conveyed by the existing infobox. Some guy (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I still disagree. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI the image is trending on reddit [10] --George Spurlin (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up George. Some guy (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That helps explain the massive surge in page views ([11]), and vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is going to damage my ability to nominate the best Australian article no one reads at the next Wiki meet-up. Last time this one gave me the win. Otherwise, it is good that it is being read, and the comments there seemed positive and enjoyable. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for two days to stop the persistent vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fall 2012 military conflict infobox discussion

I've added the infobox for military conflicts for several reasons. First, as stated above, it is the most effective way to present the information given in the article. However, I agree that stating some things such as an "emu victory" would be inappropriate. "Australian withdrawal" is both more encyclopedic and more accurately portrays the situation. I do not think it is appropriate to have an entry for "leaders" on the emu side, as it's completely ridiculous to. The "strength" side currently says "2 machine guns". That is fine for now, however, I think that it could be better filled by giving an account of the number of human participants.

I feel like the main issue people take with the infobox is that is says "belligerents". That is fairly acceptable in my opinion, however, would it be possible to change it to 'participants' to better suit the article? I feel that it would be very informative and have not a bit tongue-in-cheekness or satirical undertones without the use of the term "belligerents". I think it is acceptable as is, though.

LusitsBotnet (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you actually think that is a logical argument? "most effective way to present the information given in the article"? Please. Cut out "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", and "casualties", and you have... a regular infobox. The only information different between the current infobox and the military infobox is how many emus died, though the current infobox's link to the Aftermath section is perfectly adequate.

You know what actually is the most effective way to summarize the information given in the article? The first two sentences of the article. Drop this childishness. Some guy (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Says the guy who proudly states all the video game articles he's created. Perhaps you are the one who should be doing the growing of up?

Article semi-protected for six months

As the only IP edits to this page are a slow but steady flow of vandalism, I've just semi-protected it for six months. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I went to add a link to Rabbits in Australia to cover the word rabbit in the intro, but you locked the article, so could you add it? It is necessary to explain why rabbits entering a broken fence in Australia are such a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.1.233 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion; Some guy (talk · contribs) has made this change. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

two things

This has become my new favorite article and I don't think there's anyway to improve this article, the opening line is perfect with describing the emu scum as "running amok." —  dain- talk   06:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)