Talk:Australia

Australia Royal National Anthem

I'm trying to add it, but there was an issue: |royal_anthem =
"God Save the Queen

Twillisjr (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

'God Save the Queen' has not been Australia's national anthem since 1984, when it was replaced by Advance Australia Fair, after a plebiscite to choose the National Song. Myk (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbeknownst to most Australians, it is indeed still the "royal anthem", used in the presence of the monarch when they come to visit (although this tradition may have fallen out of favour). However this has been discussed several times before and it was resolved each time not to put it on the information bar on the right hand side as "Advance Australia Fair" is the only widely known (or indeed, for the vast majority of Australians, the only known) anthem which is used in all situations except for Royal visits (not clear if god save the queen is still even used for these). Thus I would request you not to revisit the issue and attempt to add it again. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about the facts, not about what is commonly known? In addition, all other nations who are Commonwealth realm's list their royal anthem on their infobox, why is Australia any different? The Australian Royal Symbols page lists the Australian Royal Anthem as still in use and official and God Save The Queen lists it as the Royal Anthem for Australia. Also, references; 1234 Also, where would I find these previous discussions on the matter? Anjwalker ^Talk 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

To me there's a problem with the fact that Royal anthem is a redirect to Honors music, not even spelt correctly for Australian use. While I can see some merit in mentioning the Royal anthem, that seems a very clumsy way to be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that is strange way to do it but that requires a different discussion elsewhere to resolve. Anjwalker ^Talk 11:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

'God Save the Queen' should be clearly listed as the Royal Anthem in the infobox, as per Canada, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica and Tuvalu. There is no dispute as to whether GSTQ is the Australian Royal Anthem, so why is there a problem? The 'honours music' page is incredibly daft, but that is another issue completely. 'Royal Anthem' should link directly to: 'List of Royal Anthems'. Conay (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, include mention of the Royal anthem, but avoid using any hyperlink that takes us to Honors music. That really doesn't work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is listed already, however as a note. I believe this was the consensus that was reached several times in the past, given that the anthem is almost entirely unknown and even less used, however you would have to look at the previous discussions to see what the reasoning was.Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather fought most of his life to have Advance Australia Fair become the national anthem. Peter Dodds McCormick actually sought him out to explain how he came to write the song and the written explanation is now in the National Library. Both of those men would be surprised to see anyone claim that God Save The Queen is "almost entirely unknown". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Saruman's (lack of) age and/or ignorance is showing. Anyone aged over 50 (and yes, there's still some of us left) would know it off by heart. Younger folks must have heard it. If they ignored it, that's a personal choice, not reason to say it's "almost entirely unknown". HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The logic that the Royal Anthem be included only as a note because it's 'almost entirely unknown and even less used' is both incorrect and just illogical. The linking to 'honours music' cannot be helped, that must be changed through other means. However, the point of having the Royal Anthem included in the info box is that it's official. As AussieLegend said above, most people in Australia do know God Save the Queen (perhaps not the lyrics, but they know it's their Royal Anthem). It's very simple, just list 'God Save the Queen' as the Royal Anthem of Australia like they do in every other Commonwealth Realm (excluding New Zealand, as GSTQ acts as a secondary anthem as opposed to just a royal one). Conay (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone Conay's change, there is clearly no consensus. I have to agree with HiLo48, AussieLegend and Politas, God Save The Queen has not been an anthem in Australia since the mid 1980s. Bidgee (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really opposed to the addition. I just found the linked title Honors music rather silly. But as I think about this, I try to recall when I last heard GSTQ here. Apart from in a movie reflecting the 1960s, I haven't heard it for decades. I guess we play it when royals visit and attend ceremonial events in their honour (at least I can spell that word correctly), but we don't see many royals these days either. It's a pretty tiny part of our culture, much like other elements of protocol about how we treat the royals (such as not touching Her Maj), but we don't list those here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that GSTQ hasn't been an anthem since the 80s, nor would I since that is clearly wrong. It is still the official royal anthem, and likely will be for a long time yet. I don't really agree that it's a tiny part of our culture either. It might be right now because there are no royal visits, but Wikipedia doesn't concentrate on just "now". GSTQ was a very big part of our culture for most of Australia's history and since it is still recognised officially as the royal anthem I find it peculiar that it's not included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe we need to come to a consensus here. Do we formally include God Save the Queen as the Australian Royal Anthem, as is official and used on other Commonwealth Realm pages? Conay (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article. Yet, it is a trivial technicality in comparison to the rest of the (large) scope of this article. That other pages may do a similar thing is irrelevant. Don't elevate trivia to the highest prominence. --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By that logic the anthem shouldn't be there either. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's silly. Obviously the national anthem is used often at all sorts of ceremonial occasions, sports events, school assemblies, etc. It's common. The royal anthem isn't. Not a valid "by that logic" comparison. And in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we read "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in...content disputes..." In other words, just because it's in "other Commonwealth Realm pages" is not a reason to include it here. That leaves us with "it's official". That's obviously true, but it's much less significant than a lot of other facts, including the national anthem. If it's included it should not be prominent, which it is now. And sadly, the Edit summary for the most recent addition highlighted one of my concerns by misspelling Honours music. <- See what I mean? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. What you are saying is either an attempt at humour, or shows you haven't read what Conay and I said. He complained that GSTQ would be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial given the scope of the article. The anthem would also be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial. Regardless of being more important than GSTQ, the anthem is hardly central enough to the article to be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article". If Conay wants to argue that GSTQ is so much less important than the anthem, he is welcome to do so, but that is not what he argued in the passage I responded to. Personally, I couldn't care less whether both or either appears in the infobox, but that argument was weak enough to deserve a response. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you people sure you're not confusing me (Merbabu) with Conay? Anyway, to reiterate my position, it is an incredibly trivial piece of information that would be provided with an inordinate amount of prominence, exceeding its relevance many many times over. As for the National Anthem, indeed, it too could be argued that's it's give too much prominence, but the GTSQ inclusion would be many times worse than this. Personally, I see lots of faults in info boxes - the prominence given to national anthems being just one issue. Are they really more important than population, ethnic makeup, key economic indicators, history, etc, etc? In this case, the inclusion of national anthem as virtually the most prominent item in a wide scope article is a problem. And, the inclusion of GTSQ would be 100 times worse. The former issue (AAF) is an issue for another day perhaps, for now I'm happy to focus on the worse of the two issues - inclusion of GTSQ. Not including GTSQ doesn't meant we must remove AAF - but that would be nice. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

National anthems please nationalists. Royal anthems please royalists. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a great way to lower the debate. shame. So, by your logic, your input is based on your Royalist bias? For what it's worth, i'd be just as happy to see AAF gone too. It's just the lesser of two evils. And as for the ogg file at the top of the article, don't get me started.--Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that response to my post. And I don't think it's lowering the standard of debate at all. Whenever these matters are publicly debated it's obvious that many views are based on predetermined positions of the sorts of things that matter in a country. Is that happening here? BTW, you seem a little confused about my position. It's that the national anthem is of some significance because it is widely used. The royal anthem's ONLY significance is its official status, and it's of very minor importance here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - that the info box contains no sound file - if necessary find another article to take the burden of what for many australians (despite their politics or allegiances culturally) is increasingly swamped by other noises - and leave this article with some form of link/redirect to another which adequately imparts the info shared in this discussion (you could almost create a stub on Australian anthems from here) - in other words simply take out of info box and try somewhere else SatuSuro 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Infoboxes give disproportionate importance to everything they contain. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but we're not about to win consensus to remove info boxes - rather, IMO, the GTSQ issue is about "harm minimisation", and managing the worst excesses of the info boxes. --Merbabu (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with previous consensuses I would support leaving it as it is, in a footnote.Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I also support leaving GSTQ as a footnote, ie as it currently is. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue with including Australia's official royal anthem in the royal_anthem field that is provided specifically for that purpose. The Australian people decided that we would retain our status as a constitutional monarchy and that our links to the royal family, including GSTQ, would remain. As an official anthem it clearly has significance, especially since it has a higher order of precedence than AAF at some functions. Based on our decision to retain our royal ties, arguments that inclusion of GSTQ is "is an incredibly trivial piece of information" don't fly. The fact that we rejected change to a republic is significant, and GSTQ is part of that. Claiming that inclusion in the infobox provides GSTQ "with an inordinate amount of prominence" is really rubbish. GSTQ has been part of Australia for a lot longer than Quentin Bryce or Julia Gillard and they both get a mention. Country infoboxes provide readers with information with pertinent information about countries and anthems are pertinent information. There seems to be a misconception about what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means. It does not say that inclusion of content in other articles is not justification to include content here. Far from it. It says to use such information wisely. One of the examples it uses is that of a deletion discussion where one editor votes to retain an article because other similar articles exist. Another editor says that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. Neither editor has provided sufficient justification for retention or deletion of the article. This is the case here. On the merits, given its history, status and significance, especially since we rejected a republic less than 13 years ago, we should include the official royal anthem in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is being created by others when it really does not exist. Wikipedia is about the inclusion of facts, and the fact is that GSTQ is the Royal Anthem of Australia. As Wikipedia provides a 'royal_anthem' tag on the info box, it should be used in the proper way. Not only that, but what AussieLegend pointed out. Conay (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a "fact" is not the sole criteria for inclusion of info in a Wikipedia article. If it was, then we should immediately include everything in this page that is remotely related to "Australia" including my street and house, and yours. just saying.

Indeed, neither my street, or either anthem is actually mentioned in the article - we are only discussing the anthems because there is a field in the info box for them. No one thought it was relevant enough to put into the article. SO much for the info box summarising the article. --Merbabu (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(1984) - QUOTE = "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, ... hereby declare: that the anthem 'God Save The Queen' shall henceforth be known as the Royal Anthem" - Australian Bureau of Statistics (1986). Year Book Australia 1986. Aust. Bureau of Statistics. p. 44.... Moxy (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed an official Australian anthem, rarely used nowadays. Australia likewise has several official flags, but we only show one in the info box. The multiple flags and anthems belong elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There are no fields asking for multiple flags to be placed, but there is a field asking for the Royal Anthem of Australia. And as Australia HAS a Royal Anthem, it should be included as such. Like Canada or Norway. It's very simple logic. Conay (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But that’s the core of the problem – "simple logic" in this case is bad logic. So what if there is a field for it in the infobox? It doesn’t mean that we stop thinking, turn on auto-pilot, and just apply “simple logic” and then back it up by saying others are doing it too.

Neither anthem is even mentioned in the (feature) article - how important are they then? And, since when are infobox discussions the source of all wisdom and the key to a great article? Since when are those who get involved in those discussions about infobox fields the experts in writing a brilliant wikipedia article?

The case of other country articles is irrelevant. It may make sense in those articles, or it might be equally silly as it is here (I suspect the latter). I admit I don’t know about those cases, but that doesn't matter - the point is they are other cases and are not relevant to the appropriate choices here. It gets back to the proverbial childhood question “would you jump of a cliff because others did it?”

Again, it’s a technical obscurity (in comparison to the rest of the topic “Australia”) and simply because there’s an infobox field (due to other's wisdom or otherwise - again, i suspect the latter), you want to make it virtually the most prominent thing in the article. Um, no thanks. And yes, if I had my way, I’d remove a lot of other stuff from the over-bloated info box including AAF or at least demote it down – but I try to choose my battles with some care. --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That the anthems are not mentioned in the article is, perhaps, an oversight, but there is really no need to mention them. Help:Infobox doesn't mandate it: "They (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Note use of "generally". It does say "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles." The anthems are common to related (other country) articles. Given that other countries include their national anthems, and royal anthems where applicable, in the infobox I ask, directly this time, why we shouldn't include the fact in the infobox? Prominence in the infobox is not something we can fix here, that is up to those who maintain the infobox. Arguing along those lines because of personal beliefs about the significance of the anthem is not really maintaining neutrality. We should be presenting facts here, not opinions. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some might call it opinion vs facts, I’d call it discretion vs. prescriptive editing. Also the word judgement springs to mind. It’s why we have talk pages and work to consensus. If it’s just about the “facts” with no judgement or discretion, then all the info in the Australia Project would be in this article and we could remove the talk pages. Afterall, we’d just be reporting the facts and removing the need to discuss our collective judgement. --Merbabu (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A more appropriate question is “why copy other articles?” rather than “why not copy other articles?”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have made a judgement. Based on the fact that the vast majority of Australian war veterans died under the anthem of God Save the Queen, that Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden and Tuvalu all list their Royal Anthems, the fact that there is a 'royal_anthem' option in the infobox and the fact that there are numerous reliable sources that suggest and clarify that God Save the Queen is the official Royal Anthem of Australia (for example: The declaration quoted above). Whether or not you disagree where the Royal Anthem is places is completed irrelevant, as it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. Conay (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody dies under an anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But, even if they did, the majority would have been under the National Anthem which is included.--Merbabu (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm no. If they died under the national anthem, they died under God Save the Queen, which was the national anthem at the time and which isn't included. The position of royal anthem before 1984 didn't exist in Australia, as there was only one anthem. As for the question "why copy other articles?" the answer is simple and something that is desirable: consistency. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As HiLo said, no one dies under an anthem. And, if they did, they died under the national anthem - as you point out, there was no Royal anthem before 1984.

Consistency is the weakest argument on Wikipedia. A position could be consistently stupid or consistently wise. --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I also pointed out, the national anthem was God Save the Queen, not Advance Australia Fair. Consistency is hardly a weak argument when building an encyclopaedia. I'm still waiting for a reason why we shouldn't be consistent, why we shouldn't use provided fields to present facts that are not in dispute and, above all, why we shouldn't be neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. And I might point out that this can't be appealed to the High Court. So there. --Pete (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is not getting us anywhere. Despite the fact that some people may not know about the Royal Anthem, it is the official Royal Anthem, and as such is worthy of note. I doubt most Australians know what our GPD is, or our population density but we don't remove those facts from from the infobox do we? On this statement, I suggest we simply reach a consensus now. Aye or Nay? Anjwalker ^Talk 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether people know it or not, it's about relevance and significance. GDP is fundamental characteristic, the Royal Anthem is but a technicality - insignificant to the rest of the info here. As for "yae" or "nae" you are asking for a vote, not a consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that whether people know something or not is crucial to our function as an encyclopaedia. We should present the information and quite clearly at least one of us should know more about the subject. I don't think we need to have the Royal anthem in the infobox for something that only gets a run every few years when the Queen trots out, but perhaps there should be a section or even an article describing the interesting history of Australian anthems? And flags, for that matter. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that God Save the Queen should be included in the info box, as it is consistent and relevant. My post above essentially sums up my belief on the matter, it's ridiculous that it's even being questioned. Whether it is only used occasionally or not is another matter completely. When a country has a national anthem, we list their national anthem. When a country has a Royal anthem, how on Earth does not including the Royal anthem make any sense?Conay (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow - after all this discussion you still don't understand the other side's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but it's not that hard to understand. But, it's an age-old technique, ignore the core of the argument, or misconstrue an argument to obfuscate it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to put everything in the info box. Only the main, salient, important information. I wouldn't include a rarely used piece of music in that category. But that's just me. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's very rare to see every field in an Infobox used. I've often thought it would be hilarious fun to go around "correcting" articles by sticking something in every Infobox field. Might have a go one day, insisting that my changes were valid because the fields were there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. --Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were to actually read one's argument, you would realise that the field being there is just one of the reasons why God Save the Queen should be included in the Infobox. Pete, I understand where you're coming from. However, God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services, as well as Royal visits. A country's Royal Anthem, to me at least, is important information. Conay (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If "God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services", without any royals present, it's probably in breach of protocol, either through ignorance or because of reactionary, archaic, confrontational attitudes held by conservative organisers. We certainly wouldn't include that kind of thing in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's used enough to warrant being in the infobox. It's important enough to get a mention in the article. I can't see any consensus developing here for Conay's view. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Conveniently, we will have a few remembrance ceremonies next week; it might be interesting to see whether GSTQ gets played. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's rather interesting to seem some editors who usually make some pretty good arguments providing some very weak ones in this discussion. Of course it's rare to see every field in infobox filled. That's generally because there's no content for that field. When information is available, as is the case here, we fill the field. We don't pretend it doesn't exist. GSTQ (or GSTK) was Australia's national anthem for 186 years, it has a definite place in Australia's history, including the present. The protocols state when GSTQ should be played, not when it shouldn't. You can play it whenever you want, provided the protocols concerning the national anthem are followed. It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010. The RSL's decision to withdraw its use was controversial. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That it was the national anthem for a long time is completely irrelevant to a discussion about the royal anthem. And it was NOT played at every Anzac ceremony until 2010. That's just bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. GSTQ has been an anthem of Australia for its entire history. When Advance Australia Fair was finally declared to be our national anthem in 1984, GSTQ moved from national anthem to royal anthem. This clearly demonstrates it has significance that justifies its inclusion, especially since it has been the only royal anthem we've ever had. You're correct regarding individual ceremonies, however it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011, and its removal was controversial.[1][2][3][4] It's inconsistent and not presenting facts neutrally by not listing it where it should be listed. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I despair regarding your logic, and use of language. Yes, GSTQ WAS the national anthem, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the Royal anthem. And you first said "It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010." That is patently untrue. Without acknowledging your error, you now write "it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011", leaving out the word "ceremony" and hence talking about something quite different. And you have not even proven that claim. You presumably believe what you write, odd as it is, but here you have to convince others. Just saying it doesn't make it true. HiLo48 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try reading what I wrote again. I acknowledged my error very clearly when I wrote "You're correct regarding individual ceremonies". As the links I provided show, prior to 2010 GSTQ was part of the dawn service, at least in Melbourne, so my point is proven, as was the claim that it was played in 2011. As for the royal anthem, there has been argument that GSTQ is not significant, when clearly it is. Prior to Advance Australia Fair becoming the national anthem, we didn't have a separate royal anthem, as GSTQ served as both national and royal anthem. Had Wikipedia existed in 1974, GSTQ could have been used in both fields. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, so now we're talking about just the Dawn Service, and just in Melbourne, right? That's completely different from your first claim that it was played at EVERY Anzac ceremony. Are you sure you've got it right yet? You certainly haven't got the other bit right. It's obvious you just don't understand, so I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Without acknowledging that I actually did acknowledge my error you....No, I won't go down that path. Perhaps you should read this. Then have a look at what I wrote immediately after that, remembering that I did acknowledge my mistake. You're twisting yourself in circles unnecessarily. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, I wonder if these 'royal anthem' inclusion/exclusion discussions are occuring on all Commonwealth realm infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You were involved in the discussion on the Canadian Talk page, I believe. They came to the conclusion that they should include it in the infobox. Conay (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The other articles have smarter editors than here. We should just stop using our judgement, and copy them without any further thought. Their context is completely transferable to this page, and there is no way on earth that their opinions could be poor. How on earth could we do it better here?

Um, right? --Merbabu (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best to not have such a discussion and simply copy the other Commonwealth realm pages, however several people refused to let the Royal Anthem be included and so, because of Wikipedia policy, we now need a clear consensus. Anjwalker ^Talk 11:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested we should just 'copy' other Commonwealth Realm pages, simply follow their example. It makes sense to include a Royal Anthem in the infobox, just as it makes sense to include them on, not only other Realm pages, but most countries with a monarchy. Conay (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed my meaning (or else I didn't make it clear enough) but yes, that is what I was saying. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It appears that this conversation has wound down, yet no conclusion has been reached. Could people please cast a final vote, so we can work out this matter? Anjwalker ^Talk 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work by voting. It works by consensus. If this is decided on voting, then I will take it from this page through the dispute resolution processes. just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include for the reasons that I've outlined above. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. While I know it isn't regular, discussion didn't resolve anything so I tried starting a vote. Well, the voting appears to have failed anyway so there is no problem. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude from info box, leave as a footnote, eg per this version. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen. As the official Royal Anthem of Australia, it warrants mention in the infobox; it would be different if someone was proposing to include Waltzing Matilda or similar because they are unofficial anthems, but God Save the Queen is official. However, I do agree that the sound file is too instrusive Anjwalker ^Talk 11:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen.Not up to the editors here to decide what our readers read - All we can do is follow the sources - Does not matter that some believe the song is not relevant - its recognized by law. What we should be doing is simply regurgitation what is source-able - not up to us to decide what to omit (push a POV) because some dont like the idea of the Queen and crown. Facts are facts and its a fact that the song is legally recognized - who are we to omit it? .Moxy (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't decide what readers read? really? Who does then? so since we must publish everything that is true, there is therefore no limit to the amount of stuff that should go in here? No discretion? Are you kidding? --Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Who

We are not talking about everything - we are talking about one link to a legally recognized song. Can you explain how omitting information is good for our readers? Thus far the exclusion argument is "I dont like it despite its legal status". What we do here is regurgitate widely available information. So here we are with editors saying one link to a legal song is undue weight. So it should be omitted because the one link will make the article size way to mush? Come on - can anyone show us that the inclusion criteria has not been meet? Moxy (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your stated criteria in your 2nd most recent comments is, if I may paraphrase, "if it is true we must include it, who are we to decide?". In what way does that not mean we must include everything? You are saying use no discretion - include everything! In your most recent comment, you are saying we must not omit info. This is where you are wrong. We must omit most information. Because this subject is very broad, and GSTQ is relatively (i.e., comparatively) highly trivial. But of course you know we must omit info. You know we only include the most important aspects of the topic "Ausytalia" in this article due to WP:SUMMARY. So, in what way is GSTQ so fundamental to an understanding of Australia? And if it is so fundamental, why is it not even in the article prose?

No-one said they "didn't like it". That's rubbish. Rather, people said it was trivial, not relevant, and comparatively unimportant against the rest of the subject matter. Indeed, if it was such a natural inclusion, then why isn'tt it mentioned in the article proper? Because it doesn't have a place.

to make the problem worse, we would be giving the what is almost prime position in the article. Indeed, such prominence is undue weight. And I say "bollocks" to blindly saying "it's in the info box, we must use it". --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So omitting is the solution you believe - best thing to do would be to expand our readers knowledge on the matter - not omit because some believe one link is to much. So its trivial that the royal anthem has legal status but not for the national anthem? Can you see how outsiders see a double standards her because neutrality also applies to exclusion aswell. So again how is it harmfully to inform or link more information for our readers? All that said there is a note on the matter so I guess our readers will be informed if they read the note, that actually makes the topic standout more the it should. Moxy (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No double standard. I said above that I think the National Anthem is also an unfortunate inclusion. Probably more than once from memory. --Merbabu (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Australia Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Australia

100 percent agree with your point (sorry did not see it before) all or nothing is best - not just half the info. Perhaps the solution that the Canadian music article has come up with is a good idea here... that is a new article that explains all like Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada.Moxy (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very strongly with Merbabu on this. Wikipedia does not work by voting. In particular, consensus can never be achieved that way. They mean entirely different things. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm consensus is never achieved by voting but a wote! is used as a means to guage consensus, consensus should be decided by the weight if arguments presented but mostly its by the weight of numbers. I havet commented on this discussion but if I came here as a neutral admin I guage the weight of arguments and come to the conclusion that GSTQ should be include because of its official status, where as the exclusion side of the argument is about whether its in actual use. The position is Australia has two anthems it can officially use one is used more broadly than the other, which has a specific purpose in a specific context. My opinion is that both should be included in the infobox and linked but only AAF should actually have a play button as that recognises the position of both but only links to one which is the standard in use, under 99% of circumstances. Gnangarra 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair " Royal anthem: "God Save the Queen"

Hmmmm, that might work. It would also eliminate the problem that we have with button size and the annoying "i" icon. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Listing the royal anthem does not eliminate the button size and icon problem. In fact, it may make complicate matters. On the example above, the "i" button next to to the royal anthem name does not give information about the royal anthem! (I think) I understand why, but some of our less experienced readers may get confused. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On voting and consensus .... I for one (as currently the sole dissenter in the vote) will concede and accept the opinion of the significant majority if needs be. I still think the royal anthem is more appropriately mentioned as a footnote than prominent in the infobox, but it is only an opinion and the other opinions are reasonable and valid. (I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question, so there's no point in "fighting" for the "right" outcome.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be the sole dissenter, but there's a few abstainers. --Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No idea where this discussion/vote is (this page is a mess), but I still oppose having GSTQ in such a prominent place in the Infobox. Yes, it's a true fact about Australia, but it's fact that most Australians neither know nor care about, so don't give the world a false impression. Mention it somewhere in the text, but not where the Infobox forces it to appear. (Wikipedia really has to improve on the Infobox front. They should not control content so much.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree an infobox specific to Australian needs is the ideal solution but considerable effort by a few users over the last couple of years to consolidate everything into a one size fits all has been the general consenss Gnangarra 03:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think most Australians care about the Gini coefficient, purchasing power parity or Human Development Index? There are lots of things that most Australians neither know nor care about but we still mention them because this is an encyclopaedia, not a book of what's popular or general knowledge. The anthems are displayed in the location they are becaue we use a standard template. There's not much we can do about that, but it's not a reason for exclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's far too many posts here supporting inclusion which say, at least in part, "That's what the Infobox demands". I'm sorry, but that's NOT how to create a great encyclopaedia. It means we have a consensus (on Infoboxes) to include content which wouldn't be there without that Infobox. Stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point - why does this article not talk about its anthems? Odd to see mention of music without talking about the only legal music there is in the country. We build a good encyclopedia by informing our readers about valid information. I think acts of parliament recognizing these songs should be metioned long before any-other music. As seen here by this long long talk it is relevant to many - including the government that made them OFFICIAL songs. Your legally recognized anthems deserve mention over things like Mad Max any day. What has more cultural significant to our readers random movies or nation songs and symbols? Moxy (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have the US spell checker turned on. "encyclopaedia" became "encyclopedia". --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL - wife is laughing her head off at mee... You just made her day. :-)Moxy (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I can assure you of is that God Save The Queen has no cultural significance at all to most Australians aged under 40, and only historical significance to older Australians as the National Anthem from when they were young, NOT the Royal Anthem. It's a bit like that old Canadian flag with the Union Jack in the corner.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So we should gear Wikipedia towards people under the age of forty and forget what has passed over hundreds of years of history (dont for get the vets) - or should we include what is historical to ever generation born before 1970 and what young people may want to learn about? Best we link so all can learn its place now and in history . The Flag of Canada to use your example - is linked from the main Canada article and leads our younger (and old alike) readers to lean about the new and old flag and there place in history - the topic is not simply omitted. Thus far total omission from the body of the article is what is being advocated over advancing readers knowledge of a sensitive issue. A simple link - perhaps in the infobox or even in the culture section is not much. knowledge over ignorance of topics and there situations is always best for our readers. It has so much cultural significance that there was an Act of parliament to insure its place in history and to cement its place in the future.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You have just completely misrepresented my position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh - sorry for the rant then...my bad.Moxy (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

exclude from infobox, leave as a footnote at the bottom of the article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Due to the fact that no conclusion has been reached, I'd like to make a request for comment on the following question; Should the Australian royal anthem be included in the infobox? And if so, in what form (Wikilink to God Save The Queen or sound file)? Anjwalker ^Talk 07:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. You have no consensus to add the info. Now what do you expect to do if someone throws in their opinion? Are you looking for a casting vote from someone who probably doesn't know anything about the issue? If you don't get the result you want, then what? More forum shopping? --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Anjwalker is well within his rights to request input from other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ANd I'm well with in my right to say what I think of that. And to ask him how he suggest it's going to go. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I would be disappointed if the royal anthem was excluded from the infobox, we do need a conclusion either way. It might be the wrong one in my personal opinion, or it might be what I consider the right one, but I’m entitled to my personal opinion and at least it will clear up this point. Anjwalker ^Talk 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• No My reasons and more detailed view are above, several times. I hope you really don't expect me to repeat them again! (How will this be anything but another vote?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• No There are lots of "official" things associated with Australia that aren't in the infobox, because they aren't considered relevant or important enough. Off the top of my head, Australian of the Year, Australia Day, Floral emblem etc. Royal anthem is probably official, but it is not used very often and is not relevant to imparting knowledge about Australia to others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talk • contribs)
• No. Skimmed over the above discussion, agree with HiLo's and AussieLegend's comments. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hilo and I disagree. I think it should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh, obviously I skimmed too quickly. Thanks for catching that. Jenks24 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• No It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• No We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem. Bidgee (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Get out of the clouds and add info about the only legal music/songs the country has for our readers (In the article screw the info box). Ignorance is not what we wish for our readers - knowledge and relevant info is what builds the encyclopedia. Not exclusion of what the layman believes over official status. The "I dont like it" "Its not used often" is not a valid reason - need to come up with why it should be omitted Moxy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes I don't know about "We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem." or "It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way." but God Save the Queen (GSTQ) is played by some (though not all) elements of the ADF and ADFC on the Queen's Birthday! I have attended several navy and air force regimental/mess dinners and the tune has always been played at the start. GTSQ is as official as Advance Australia Fair (AAF) and so if GTSQ is to be excluded than so should be AAF! Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• No Many official thing not listed in infobox. Having a footnote is a good compromise. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If it is not used and yet official, then adding a footnote would be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• No For consistency with other national wiki pages the national anthem should be referred to in the infobox. I notice the Royal Anthem and the history re the 1984 vote is referred to in that article [[5]] which is appropriate. A footnote in the main article [[6]] would also be a good compromise. isfutile:P (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your vote explains why it should be referred to in the article, but it really doesn't explain why it shouldn't be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• No: While there are undoubtedly many 'official' flags and other formal fripperies recognised in Australia, there is only one national flag and anthem we take to the world. Representing 'God Save the Queen' as the Australian national anthem would be like doing the same for the USA with 'Dixie', which is undoubtedly played on many occasions, but never to represent the USA to the world. Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The aim is not to represent GSTQ as the national anthem at all, it's to represent it as the royal anthem. See Canada's infobox for how this is done. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dixie" was the unofficial anthem of the CSA. In the US, we only have one National Anthem. However, if we thought it was ok to have to kneel to some royal family - we would also have a Royal Anthem to pay respects to our sovereign. We wouldn't play the Royal Anthem to the World because the purpose of the Royal anthem is internal - to remind the subjects who is in charge. But as stated we don't have a royal family thus we do not have a royal anthem. A national anthem is for nationalistic pride and identity, and is why that anthem is played to the world. Patriot1010 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes The Commonwealth of Australia is a "country" Commonwealth - but here's the catch - whose form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Monarch as the head of state. That Monarch is the "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx which includes Austrailia, and this subordinate status is recognized by the Constitutionally mandated government. http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government Since the Country known as Austrailia is not an independant state, but under Monarch (Royal) rule defined in a Constiution, both the anthem decided by Constitutional authority (which applies in this case), "Advance Australia Fair" AND the anthem of the Monarch "God Save the Queen" under Royal authority (as specified in the Constitution) which is the "Nation" known as the "UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." This understanding feels "weird" for those who live in a Constitutional Republic like the US - but this situation should not be compared to the US since the US does not have a Monarch. I am sure this detail is contentious in Austrailia (sorry) and why a call for comments went out. The Government of Austrailia must play the Royal Anthem per their Monarch and Governor-General at events when appropriate, and the National Anthem when appropriate for national occasions - so both are appropriate and even the Governor-General concedes that both are played http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html- thus put both on there! Take the Royal one out if Austrailia becomes a Constitutional Republic at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have a very recent example of God Save the Queen being played at parliament House in Canberra without either a member of the Royal family or the Governor General being present - (link removed by Bidgee (talk) per WP:COPYLINK), for those of you who watch the video and wonder why our PM doesnt sing it is because she is a republican and our oppisition leader is a monarchist. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I bit my tongue before but it was painfully obvious when I read all this the first time the debate is not about the Royal Anthem - it is merely a proxy argument to use Wikipedia as your online mouthpeice rebellion against your monarch - you know the one you kneel to? Rebels want to show the world they are independent of royal rule by omitting it on this article....egged on by your Prime Minister's actions. Its interesting how an anthem can be a proxy for so many things - isn't it? The Royal Anthem stays until you man up and declare Independance. My 2 shillings. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I played GSTQ to two classes of 13 yo students the other day, and none of them knew what it was. I doubt that they'll remember either. Oh, and being older than our PM, I had established my opinions long before she came along. And what makes anyone think that Australians follow the lead of politicians? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure if I played the US National Anthem to 13 year old kids in El Paso, they would not know what it is either - but - Ignorance of one's national (or Royal in this case) anthems, and the failure of public school teachers to educate young Citizens of one's national (and Royal, if applicable) anthems does not mean they do not exist. Furthermore, if one's chieftain, or in Australia's case, Governor-General - decrees that there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia - then there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia! (at least until the Governor-general is beheaded in the town square). Once that happens whatever authority that follows will make that determination, be it Representatives elected by the People, or another Governor-General installed by the Monarch Patriot1010 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid and insulting post. The stuff about US kids is pure speculation and, I suspect wrong. I AM a public school teacher. What do you think I was doing by playing GSTQ to them? Guess what? I was attempting to educate them. So take your speculative and bigoted insults elsewhere! HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey there was a call for comments for people with NPOV and I was picked - you get your money's worth when I come. I am merely stating the obvious. Don't get angry at me there is 10 pages of text of Australians in denial that the National anthem of Australia is "Advance Australia Fair" and the Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen." Honestly......http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html and that is in every other commonwealth wiki page to boot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Patriot, I know we should all rise above it, and look beyond your style, but sorry, it's really clouding your message. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• No: When I went to school we had to sing GSTQ and salute the flag at morning assembly. Also, Church of England Religious instruction as a subject was compulsory, regardless of your own particular branch of Christianity, faith or lack of it. Just as compulsory CofE instruction is outdated, so is GSTQ. Apart from hearing it on TV several times a decade, I have not heard GSTQ played in public in over 40 years. Wayne (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• No For reasons I have explained before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Judiciary in InfoBox

In the Australia InfoBox, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is not listed. There are articles on French CJ and the position of Chief Justice of Australia. Rjgcooper (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "chief justice of australia" and "robert french" should be listed under PM in the info box, as with the US article, as the judiciary is one of the three vital arms of our government as set out in the Constitution. Saruman-the-white (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the position be marked as "Chief Justice", not "Chief Justice of Australia". The "of Australia" bit would seem redundant. Rjgcooper (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah sorry of course Saruman-the-white (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sound file for National Anthem

In the section on this page about the royal anthem, the sound file for the National Anthem gets a few mentions. It seems to me that this article (particularly the top of the info box where it's been inserted) is not the place for this file. While I suggest its a no-brainer that this article should mention the National Anthem some where (although perhaps not in the top of the info box - but that's another discussion), the inclusion of the sound file is a tad irrelevant. It makes much more sense to leave it to the Advance Australia Fair article - there is a very obvious and easy link to that page. We don't need to include ALL info on all Australia-related topics. Rather, WP:SUMMARY style requires, well, a summary with links to the details - i.e., the sound file.

I see at least three, maybe four, people supporting this in the mention above. This link shows the change in question - and shows that at least another editor supports keeping it out and we have one in suppoty of inclusion]. Can we confirm (or otherwise)? --Merbabu (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove the sound file from the Australia page infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it is one editor in particular who is adding it to a number of countries. I've suggested that they seek a consensus first as it's also being removed from other country pages. --Merbabu (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• "put up sound files" the national anthem is very important like the flag. im here to improve the articles not and i mean NOT to vandalize them. its easier to put the sound file on the first page. plus most of the world is done.im out to make wikipedia better! so please revert all edits- philpm930 4/21/12 9:50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpm930 4/21/12 9:55 —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair "

I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right ([[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. For this reason, it's better to just link to the anthem's article and include the sound file there. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes philpm930Philpm930 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps infobox needs updating to include less intrusive sound file link

Probably the main reason that I voted to remove the sound file is that the link is relatively large and obtrusive. I've proposed a solution at Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem? - although I don't know whether it is feasible to do. Interested parties should take up the discussion on that template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why include it at all? The fact that it is large is just an additional problem to the irrelevancy/redundancy of the music file in a country article. In an article on the song, that's fine. But not here. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My response - and ongoing discussion - on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation is uh-strail-yuh

I think that is incorrect. This saysThis says it is ah-strail-yuh.TheThomas (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is, the current pronunciation guide says "Australia ( /əˈstreɪljə/)". Which I believe is wrong.TheThomas (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this in the past. I suggest you check out the archives. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that my suggested pronunciation is incorrect? If so, you should say that. I am not likely to wander aimlessly through archives of 10,000 edits. I am seeing that the uh-strail-yuh pronunciation comes from Australian English, I suppose that is appropriate.TheThomas (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

archives to this page that is - as to whether something is wrong or right - you need more than a google search (or another wikipedia page...) - and my copy of Pearsall, Judy; Trumble, Bill (2002), The Oxford English reference dictionary (2nd ed., rev ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860652-9 agrees with the article - SatuSuro 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If something is correct/incorrect in your perception - it is better to place your comments here first with WP:RS to back it up and more than one - to confirm your suspicion - at large articles like this - the inordinate time spent dotting i's and crossing t's by editors means the effort is to be put in here before going onto the page - you can only expect grief if you edit the page and then state your claim swith a google search summary here - that simply is not the way to go about it SatuSuro 12:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many pronunciations of Australia. Firstly, there are those used by Australians, and by non-Australians. My view is that we should only consider the pronunciations used by the citizens of a place (does Wikipedia have rules on this?), and there are definitely more than one of those, depending on the formality of the speech and the location of the speaker. The way most Australians pronounce it when singing their national anthem is quite different from the more common spoken forms. Some routinely omit the "l" when saying the name. The sound of the second "a" varies a lot. Not a simple, clear cut thing at all. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The one in the article is the one used by Australians. In informal speech Australians may pronounce it as "straya" or similar, dropping letters, but clearly this is colloquial and should not be included, and when singing advance australia fair sometimes (including when julia gillard pronounces it, strangely), some say "aws-stralia" which is a mock british pronunciation, as choral style singing of nonpopular music in both australia and the us often uses by convention something similar to received pronunciation. Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I like HiLo48's response - which is a better answer to TheThomas than mine above, thanks for that - as HiLo48 and Sarumans replies infer - there are indeed multiple usages - and from that alone correct, right/wrong distinctions are problematic... are not the answer to the issue SatuSuro 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We needn't worry about colloquial pronunciations, but if the ah and uh pronunciations are both common in normal register, then we should consider using both. Then again, if it is a question of accent, we should consider the principles discussed at Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation (I don't have the patience right now to figure out if that guideline applies to intra-country differences). -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Two logical options. One two use all three common pronunciations (estralia, or there abouts, for Aust. English), (awstralia, or there abouts, for British English [RP]), (ahhstralia, or there abouts, for American English [Gen Am]). The other alternative is to just use the pronunciation that is used by about 99% of Australian English speakers (sans the exception of singing the national anthem for some), which the is pronunciation that is already there. This seems more concise, as i'm sure articles on England or the UK for example do not include American or Australian pronunciations, nor would the article on the USA or an american state or city include British or Australian pronunciations. Fair enough I say. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If the truth be known, you will probably find that all major cities have some variation in the way they pronounce vowels; vowels being represented by imprecise positions of the tongue in the mouth. So if one is arguing about whether or not a unaccented syllable has been reduced to a vocal schwa, no determinative national consensus may be obtainable. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

The Macquarie Dictionary is the best place to look as it’s accepted in academic arenas as the official Australian English spelling & pronunciation resource - maybe try http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/ --Amckern (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, documented estimations

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended content

"Human habitation of the Australian continent is variously estimated to have begun between c. 6,000[37] and 48,000 years ago,[38]" IS ESTIMATED. This is a passive statement about estimations, not about the fact. It is well documented that some scholars believe that the entire world was populated after c. 6000 years ago. Morris and Whitcomb are just two scholars among those with earned doctorates who hold such a view. The citation was given. Various estimates, if given, should be inclusive. Intolerant dogmatism is a disgrace and unscholarly. Kindly refrain from edit-warring & intolerance.(EnochBethany (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Please take your fringe, young earth creationist views elsewhere. They don't belong here. And I asked you to discuss. That doesn't mean changing the article again and then starting a discussion! HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I am not a young earth creationist. So kindly stop posting lies about my position. I am not giving my position; I am recording a corrected statement about estimations which intelligent persons have made. Being arrogant & dogmatic is not intelligent. Nor do you win a debate by calling something "fringe." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Cuz the Bible told you so? --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) PS - you could put that here. Indeed, you wouldn't even need to mention the 48,000 years. You could just ignore that bit of bullshit. Only problem is, before you register to edit, you have to be screened to ensure that you hold correct political, scientific, and religious views. --Merbabu (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Conservapedia is like Wikipedia; one's views have to be politically correct for their politic. I am not politically correct for them any more than for the intolerant secular humanists who control this venue.(EnochBethany (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) EnochBethany, I rise to support my colleagues here, though perhaps not their attitude. I understand your position, but we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity, is that humanity arrived in Australia at least 40 000 years ago. This is an important number, because it illustrates that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians arrived at this extremity of the earth well before humans reached (say) the Americas or New Zealand. While I understand and appreciate your passion, you would be best served finding a more appropriate forum to present your views. Seeking easier targets than places where actual scientists may be found is not a valid strategy - you'll be reverted, and your contributions will be checked to see that other examples are also reverted, and you'll eventually face sanctions. We're not a bunch of barbarians, we work together in a civil fashion and we achieve results. If we can produces articles like Evolution without too much drama, we should be able to find you a place where you can present your case in a collegiate atmosphere. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, they are not presenting a neutral point of view, but trying to be dogmatic. To be neutral, if you are recording estimates, you must be inclusive. I have a number of degrees, both from secular and Biblical institutions. The only institutions that included a serious discussing of the opposing POV's were the Biblical institutions. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Just having a look at the source provided by Enoch, I'm inclined to think that there is more recent scholarship that suggests objectively that Aboriginal Australians arrived in Australia a little under 50, 000 years ago. Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer. Darwin's view that the Tertiary Period was 300 million years long is similarly not found on the article for the Tertiary Period as it is also no longer considered valid. Comics (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The point is not on what is more recent. Proponents of young earth continue to exist. I don't consider myself one of them. But the POV needs to be included if you speak about "various estimates." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate, and they might estimate anything from "um, twenty years old?", based on personal experience, to "millions and millions of years", based on a confusion of dinosaurs. In point of fact, we don't have any historical records going back beyond a few hundred years, because nobody here before then was able to write. 1769 might be such an estimate. My point is that we don't have to include every estimate in this article. We don't have room to discuss every estimate, so we go for the best, based on scientific evidence. There are other estimates pushing the arrival of humankind in Australia even earlier, but we don't include them either. We go for the best information available, which is a range that is widely supported by reliable sources. If we had an article called List of estimates of beginning of human settlement in Australia (and you are welcome to begin such an article, because it is a fascinating subject) then of course the 6 000 year estimate would have a place there, on NPOV grounds. But not in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS. As suggested by Merbabu, if you want to write stuff like this try www.conservapedia.com. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't know that nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. The long and apparently serious article here deals with pure fantasy, for example. There are entire collections of articles based around Pokemon or Harry Potter, built and maintained by unsmiling nerds. Technically speaking, the 6 000 to 48 000 YA estimated date range is accurate. EnochBethany is probably serious about this and feeling aggrieved about his treatment here. Editors should not be abused and ridiculed for well-intentioned edits. The answer, I think, is to say that this article relies on a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one, and both have their appropriate but largely separate places. "Render unto Caesar etc." If we tried to barge into (say) Cars (film) and edit out all the obvious nonsense, like point out that cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing, we'd be intruding into a different reality and we'd be told to go mind our own business. And I hope we'd be told to do so politely. I think if editors are at the stage where they use abusive and mocking language (even in edit summaries) to make other editors feel bad, then maybe they should take a break, for a bit. --Pete (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This isn't an article about a fantasy world, so that comparison isn't valid. You might want to check the article's recent history. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC) That's my point. Wikipedia includes articles on diverse worldviews and this is a science-based one, at least when we're talking about topics such as geology or archaeology. A faith-based editor will accept that. We can nudge him towards more appropriate areas where his work will be accepted and welcomed. We can always find a way to be polite about it. --Pete (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and anthropologists and cited a creationist that has himself been ridiculed by mainstream scientists, which validates HiLo48's claim that this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism. It's not the first time this user has inserted fringe creationist theories into popular articles. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Of course. Let's make sure that this view doesn't last here more than a few minutes. And I might take a look at what else he's been doing, crusading through Wikipedia one article at a time. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) May I point out that this editor has blind reverted without an edit summary, has told Hi-Lo that he is edit warring, that he is editing by "dogma", is "unscholarly", "ignorant" and a "disgrace". Oh, and "intolerant". Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC) PS - and was blocked on 13 June for edit warring. --Merbabu (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Morris has a PH.D. in science. One should not be so dogmatic and intolerant. Ad hominem arguments are invalid. You may sort of win by having more power on Wikipedia than I. But might does not make right. Yes, I got blocked for a day once after a factual dispute in which I reverted 3 times (not more). Then the lie was made that I have reverted a 4th time. I documented extensively that the term "homophobia" was a slur word and that no such phobia exists. And of course the pro-sodomists who guarded their slur-word article had the power. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Really? Proof please. Look, I seriously suggest that you gain a bit of perspective and give up now. Trying to make that change to the article, especially without discussion, presents you as a religious nutter. I don't know if that's true, but your whole approach here does your cause no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Really what? I already posted the proof. Now you prove that no scholar believes in a young earth. That is not my POV; but I don't put my head in the sand and insist otherwise. The last I knew making a bold change in an article and then defending it was an approved approach. How does throwing out "religious nutter" prove anything? Are you an intolerant liberal with your head in the sand? It is simply a fact that the various estimates of the origin of the population include c. 6000 years ago. This is not a statement that such is the truth. Can you not stand having other POV's included in a list of various estimates? (EnochBethany (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) EnochBethany. You need to learn about what is a reliable source. I could find sites that state that the world is only 6000 years old, or was made by god in 7 days, or the world is flat, but they are all fringe ideas that don't stand up to scientific or historical analysis. Your point of view push is not only in error, it is annoying and disruptive. Please keep your fringe ideas to yourself or discuss them with other like-minded people at your local church. These ideas do not belong here and we are wasting time trying to convince you of that.--Dmol (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, I hold 4 graduate degrees, and I don't need you to tell me about reliable sources. What you need to learn, apparently, is not to stick your head in the sand and live in a delusional world where certain ideas you don't like, don't exit. I will not keep my ideas to myself. Who are you to tell me that? And if you read the discussion, you should know by now that I was not presenting MY idea, but documenting the existence of a POV which is not mine. I know it would be a waste of time to tell you that you don't have any proof for your theories. What do you believe except that someone told you so? It may be annoying to you to realize that your little comfort zone of dogma is not the only POV out there. But you need to have enough objectivity to accept that when one is tabulating a range of views, one should not stick head in sand. Your POV seems to be faith-based in the negative sense of credulity (not the only definition of faith of course). Learn to think out of the box and accept reality as it is. This insistance on excluding a significant POV from the objective statement "is estimated," is a clear violation of neutral POV, as is the label of a POV of many serious scholars as (scoffing) "fringe."(EnochBethany (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Enoch, sorry to but in here but we're arguing about using a source from 1961 in addition to a 2002 source; if anything I'd say that what it shows is a consensus towards thinking maybe the Aboriginal Australian's got here earlier. Perhaps your source was valid in 1961, but almost 50 years have gone by. The world changes. That doesn't mean that they haven't got doctorates, it simply means that the technology now available can date things with greater certainty. The abstract for the 2002 article states: The dating of selected archaeological and megafaunal sites from the Australian region is reviewed, with emphasis on recent work at some of the oldest sites. Improved chemical procedures with decreased analytical background for 14C analysis, combined with new luminescence dating methods, has confirmed many of the results processed decades ago and significantly increased the maximum age for some others. The oldest occupation horizons in four different regions reliably dated by defendable multi-method results are in the range 42–48,000 calendar years ago, overlapping with the age range for similarly well-dated undisturbed sites containing the youngest extinct megafauna. There is less secure evidence suggesting some archaeology may be earlier and some megafauna may have survived later than this period. Yes, perhaps it's all just technobabble to disguise the fact that they know nothing. The point is that they've used methods that still stand up ten years later to arrive at an approximation as to when the Aboriginal Australian's arrived. The article obviously explores those points in more detail than the abstract does. Besides, with the 2002 approach we get to say we had Diprotodon and everything's better with Diprotodon, yeah? Comics (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I note the arrival of a NPOVD tag on the article. I think we have consensus here already, but just to be sure, let's test it. The Australia article includes the statement, Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago... and is supported by the source, Dating the First Australians. This statement belongs in the article. Support as per my contributions in discussion above. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support. I removed the NPOV tag before I noticed this continued discussion. I explained my reasons in the edit summary so I'll leave it removed for now. But I think it's time to stop feeding the trolls and close this once and for all.--Dmol (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support. The npov flag is always an attempt at hostage taking. It's rarely used as described in its guideline, and this occassion seems no different. Glad to see it removed so quickly. This editor may be bucking process, and may be doing it with excessive assertiveness, even uncivilly. And he may be the only one supporting his edit, but troll is the wrong word. I don't think he's doing it to stir us up and get a reaction (which is all a troll is about). I'm sure he's doing it because he genuinely (but mistakenly) thinks this is what the article needs. His edit and arguably his style/process are not inline with Wikipedia policies, but he is not a troll in my opinion. Certainly I agree that enough time has been spent on the issue. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Fair point. I've removed the term from my comments above.--Dmol (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support! I am gratified that so many support the NPOV label! For indeed the article does not have an NPOV. Now in response to some of the claims made by antagonists: 1) Someone says, "your fringe, young earth, creationist views." This requires an apology from the poster. I did not state my POV. So if I don't state it, how can you call it fringe, pray tell? And how can you call it "young earth"? Backquote me where I ever asserted such. How can you be objective if you judge like that? 2) Someone says, "They don't belong here." My what tolerance. Do you imagine that you prove your point by telling someone begone? 3) Some person, again being judgmental, sneered, "Cuz the Bible told you so?" Since we are reporting estimates of antiquity, and since the Bible doesn't give a bibliography on POV's regarding this estimate of antiquity, does this sneer make sense? How could be Bible record the POV's of persons living in the last 100 years? 4) Some persons tried to shovel me off to Conservapedia, though I never indicated that I agreed with Conservapedia. Did I indicate that I was a conservative Roman Catholic? a Schafley? 5) "before you register to edit [Conserapedia] you have to be screened." Well I would be screened out for them. But what does Conservapedia have to do with the need to record all POV's & be neutral here? This is an illogical red-herring. 5) "we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity." The POV I recorded (but did NOT endorse) is held by scientists. It was put forth by the head of a science department at a secular university (or college). This is just one example. I suppose that the majority of "doctors of divinity" would oppose young earth & endorse most humanistic POV's. Now inserting "doctor of divinity" is another red-herring, since I cited no such persons. 6) "I understand an appreciate your passion." I don't think so. I think like most of the responders, you just jumped to conclusions, instead of confining your comments to my edit. 7) "your contributions will be checked." Now how does attempting to intimidate me and personally attacking me support your POV? My edit was bibliographic. Your response indicates a lack of objectivity and failure to read, jumping to conclusions. Actually your attempt to intimidate me is barbarian. 8) "Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer." If you haven't read W & M then how can you say that? Now before I go to the bother of posting more citations, tell me what year you will accept? 1990 and later? Now tell me what year you will accept and that you are going to stop objecting to including a bibliographic reference to it before I do the work. Will you drop your objections to my edit if I post a more recent citation? 9) "I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate." What does that have to do with anything? Did I propose citing loafer instead of scholars? 10) "We don't have room to discuss every estimate." You are saying that the article doesn't have room for a change in the date range which involves about 2 words and is no longer than the original??? 11)"This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS." How do you know that it is a religious tract? Have you read it? How can something be obvious to you if you haven't read it? Is your POV in fact bigoted humanism? If a book is authored by the head of a university science dept, how can you dismiss it so lightly? "no place on Wikipedia"? So Wikipedia is an authority on something? Give me a break. 12)"a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one." IMHO this article is based on a credulity-based worldview held by persons who need to be politically correct among dogmatic humanists. Faith-based? For me proper faith is the resting of the soul in the sufficiency of the evidence & in the obviousness of the self-evident. It appears to me that in unobservable areas like ancient history (unrepeatable unique events of long ago), persons who hold to the party-line, hold those views mostly just because someone told them so, not because they themselves have handled ancient artifacts and done replicable experiments on them. What do you believe in this area except on the basis that someone told you so? 13) "cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing." What does talking cars have to do with this? 14) "The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and . . . this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism." Now what on earth does that statement have to do with my little edit? The issue is not whether or not I am ignored. I suppose that everyone who has posted on this talk page here has probably been ignored. How does using the term "mainstream" prove anything? I am the one being censored. I did not erase the ancient earth POV, nor assert it, nor deny it. I just record that another scientific POV exists, which it does. 15) "presents you as a religious nutter." Do you think that an insult commends the rationality of your position? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)) I'm not ignoring you. Just saying that we operate by consensus, and it looks like you are the only editor supporting the change. I do agree that some of the comments directed at you were impolite, and I trust that those editors find it in their hearts to apologise. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Well, let me add my support to EnochBethany, not to push a particular POV, but to simply avoide having a "long-age-only" POV presented. Supt. of Printing (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Let’s put the credibility of using religious or religious-based sources aside for just a moment and consider that what you are proposing would have huge wikipedia-wide implications. Are you suggesting that such consideration of the young-earth POV be implemented across all relevant articles? It would not make sense to have it only in this article. There must be thousands upon thousands of articles that could require such a change to be consistent – and up until now, almost all of them, including this one, had not been influenced by religious text, or sources based on religious texts. Is it legitimate concern about wikipedia-wide implications? Are you saying that you are supporting the present state of this article based on other Wikedpedia articles? Isn't it against the rules to use as authority for one article other Wikipedia articles? Now if you want to exclude even reference to young earth POV (as if it did not exist in your universe), what reliable sources can you site to support that? If you don't have such reliable secondary sources, how can you push the ostrich POV? (68.94.209.147 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) Given the clear opposition to your proposed text here, I suggest you now leave this debate here – for now – at least, and find a central location to establish a new wikipedia-precedent to incorporate. Then it will become clear, either way, whether you can roll out your POV across Wikipedia. Clarity is good. So, if there’s nothing further, why not take this away particular article, and move it to a central location proposing it for consistent wikipedia-wide implementation? Let us know your plans. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I could consider such a move after you find reliable secondary sources to support your suggestion that such be done. (68.94.209.147 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) I can't say if this user has read Wiki's article on NPOV or not, but I would just like to emphasise one point that, for this article at least, might suggest we don't include their suggested changes: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. Maybe, in the interest of fairness, we can say the source Enoch is suggesting falls under plausible, but currently unaccepted? Yes, we should reflect all viewpoints where possible. Comparing the plausible, but currently unaccepted theory proposed by Enoch's insistence we include this source in the interests of neutrality, to the accepted academic scholarship we give it undue legitimisation and importance. Yes, people going off at Enoch and calling them 'Young earth nutter' and the like does violate Wiki policy but we're talking to the same person who compared me to the Master on my Talk page. I think I in spirit agree with Merabu; let's end this discussion, take chill pills and see Enoch suggest changes in other areas of Wikipedia. It sorta pains me to see what should have been a simple discussion effectively transformed into a Religion V Science debate. Comics (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I say close and archive. If EnochBethany continues, we cut it off and move on to some sort of formal scenario like AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agree - what a time waster - close... SatuSuro 04:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agree. Close now. Let's implement any changes that come from a centralised request to incorporate the young earth pov across all wikipedia if that consensus comes (for which I won't hold my breath). This article is not the place for that discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Close now. It's only a waste of time as it would be unbelievable if the proposal was ever accepted to allow this would pass any centralised discussion. --Dmol (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) "Accepted Academic scholarship" is difficult to define unless it is said accepted "by whom." Are you saying that IF I can post citations that demonstrate that professors in accredited universities and colleges hold the young earth POV and that books written by persons with Ph.D.'s hold young earth, you will drop your objection to including this POV in your universe of ideas? Will you continue to insist that this is not accepted academic scholarship if I can cite such sources -- or do you intend to find some reason to exclude this willy nilly? And BTW, to call me a religious nutter is an insult. Both that and dismissal of the young earth POV appear to be based on editors' primary sources and original research, if not mere common prejudice, not on reliable secondary sources. For a person on a personal talk page to joke with an in-common Dr.Who fan about him POSSIBLY being the Master is not an insult. One can assume that a fan of Dr. Who has a sense of humor, at least if he be a fan of the Bakers in that role. And he should note that I never suggested he was the Black Guardian. This discussion needs to be here so all can note the protest vs NPOV. Is it not enough for you to 1) object to young earth POV, then 2) object to including it in the history ideas, without then trying to pretend that noone claimed claimed that this POV should be included? You really need to sweep it all under the rug for Linus-blanket security?(EnochBethany (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) We're likely at the point of chasing our own tails here. EnochBethany, I have read what you have to say carefully. I am sorry that you were treated impolitely by other editors. The "young earth" POV you mention is not a mainstream view, and in this article it would not be appropriate to include it, just as there are other minority views claiming that humanity arrived in Australia 60 000 BCE or earlier. We go with our best shot. The POV you support might be included in more detailed articles, as noted above. You do not appear to have consensus for the changes you support, and you are welcome to follow wiki procedures to get more people to look at the matter. I do, however, suggest you avoid any appearance of canvassing. Until you do that, any further discussion here is unlikely to give you any joy, and would be considered disruptive if you argue pointlessly. You have had a fair hearing here over several days. Please accept the situation. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Support and snowball close. If we're going to include mythical accounts of the origin of Indigenous Australians, surely we could at least start with their own creation myths rather than those written half a world away. And no, being able to produce a PhD who believes in YEC would not justify including it here. Producing a PhD at an accredited university in a relevant field would not justify it. They do exist - as an example, Marcus Ross is a paleontology PhD who somehow manages to compartmentalise things so he can believe in a 6000-year-old Earth and yet perform research where he dates fossils to millions of years old. But within their scientific fields, these have the status of fringe theories held only by a tiny minority. Those theories might merit coverage in an article on creation science, but NOT in an article about Australia. --GenericBob (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Do you mean Wikipedia:Snowball clause? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, BIGOTRY, MORE CITATIONS TO COME

(EnochBethany (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

Australia Royal National Anthem

I'm trying to add it, but there was an issue: |royal_anthem =
"God Save the Queen

Twillisjr (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

'God Save the Queen' has not been Australia's national anthem since 1984, when it was replaced by Advance Australia Fair, after a plebiscite to choose the National Song. Myk (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbeknownst to most Australians, it is indeed still the "royal anthem", used in the presence of the monarch when they come to visit (although this tradition may have fallen out of favour). However this has been discussed several times before and it was resolved each time not to put it on the information bar on the right hand side as "Advance Australia Fair" is the only widely known (or indeed, for the vast majority of Australians, the only known) anthem which is used in all situations except for Royal visits (not clear if god save the queen is still even used for these). Thus I would request you not to revisit the issue and attempt to add it again. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about the facts, not about what is commonly known? In addition, all other nations who are Commonwealth realm's list their royal anthem on their infobox, why is Australia any different? The Australian Royal Symbols page lists the Australian Royal Anthem as still in use and official and God Save The Queen lists it as the Royal Anthem for Australia. Also, references; 1234 Also, where would I find these previous discussions on the matter? Anjwalker ^Talk 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

To me there's a problem with the fact that Royal anthem is a redirect to Honors music, not even spelt correctly for Australian use. While I can see some merit in mentioning the Royal anthem, that seems a very clumsy way to be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, that is strange way to do it but that requires a different discussion elsewhere to resolve. Anjwalker ^Talk 11:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

'God Save the Queen' should be clearly listed as the Royal Anthem in the infobox, as per Canada, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica and Tuvalu. There is no dispute as to whether GSTQ is the Australian Royal Anthem, so why is there a problem? The 'honours music' page is incredibly daft, but that is another issue completely. 'Royal Anthem' should link directly to: 'List of Royal Anthems'. Conay (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, include mention of the Royal anthem, but avoid using any hyperlink that takes us to Honors music. That really doesn't work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is listed already, however as a note. I believe this was the consensus that was reached several times in the past, given that the anthem is almost entirely unknown and even less used, however you would have to look at the previous discussions to see what the reasoning was.Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My grandfather fought most of his life to have Advance Australia Fair become the national anthem. Peter Dodds McCormick actually sought him out to explain how he came to write the song and the written explanation is now in the National Library. Both of those men would be surprised to see anyone claim that God Save The Queen is "almost entirely unknown". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Saruman's (lack of) age and/or ignorance is showing. Anyone aged over 50 (and yes, there's still some of us left) would know it off by heart. Younger folks must have heard it. If they ignored it, that's a personal choice, not reason to say it's "almost entirely unknown". HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The logic that the Royal Anthem be included only as a note because it's 'almost entirely unknown and even less used' is both incorrect and just illogical. The linking to 'honours music' cannot be helped, that must be changed through other means. However, the point of having the Royal Anthem included in the info box is that it's official. As AussieLegend said above, most people in Australia do know God Save the Queen (perhaps not the lyrics, but they know it's their Royal Anthem). It's very simple, just list 'God Save the Queen' as the Royal Anthem of Australia like they do in every other Commonwealth Realm (excluding New Zealand, as GSTQ acts as a secondary anthem as opposed to just a royal one). Conay (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone Conay's change, there is clearly no consensus. I have to agree with HiLo48, AussieLegend and Politas, God Save The Queen has not been an anthem in Australia since the mid 1980s. Bidgee (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really opposed to the addition. I just found the linked title Honors music rather silly. But as I think about this, I try to recall when I last heard GSTQ here. Apart from in a movie reflecting the 1960s, I haven't heard it for decades. I guess we play it when royals visit and attend ceremonial events in their honour (at least I can spell that word correctly), but we don't see many royals these days either. It's a pretty tiny part of our culture, much like other elements of protocol about how we treat the royals (such as not touching Her Maj), but we don't list those here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that GSTQ hasn't been an anthem since the 80s, nor would I since that is clearly wrong. It is still the official royal anthem, and likely will be for a long time yet. I don't really agree that it's a tiny part of our culture either. It might be right now because there are no royal visits, but Wikipedia doesn't concentrate on just "now". GSTQ was a very big part of our culture for most of Australia's history and since it is still recognised officially as the royal anthem I find it peculiar that it's not included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe we need to come to a consensus here. Do we formally include God Save the Queen as the Australian Royal Anthem, as is official and used on other Commonwealth Realm pages? Conay (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It would be virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article. Yet, it is a trivial technicality in comparison to the rest of the (large) scope of this article. That other pages may do a similar thing is irrelevant. Don't elevate trivia to the highest prominence. --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By that logic the anthem shouldn't be there either. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's silly. Obviously the national anthem is used often at all sorts of ceremonial occasions, sports events, school assemblies, etc. It's common. The royal anthem isn't. Not a valid "by that logic" comparison. And in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we read "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in...content disputes..." In other words, just because it's in "other Commonwealth Realm pages" is not a reason to include it here. That leaves us with "it's official". That's obviously true, but it's much less significant than a lot of other facts, including the national anthem. If it's included it should not be prominent, which it is now. And sadly, the Edit summary for the most recent addition highlighted one of my concerns by misspelling Honours music. <- See what I mean? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. What you are saying is either an attempt at humour, or shows you haven't read what Conay and I said. He complained that GSTQ would be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial given the scope of the article. The anthem would also be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial. Regardless of being more important than GSTQ, the anthem is hardly central enough to the article to be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article". If Conay wants to argue that GSTQ is so much less important than the anthem, he is welcome to do so, but that is not what he argued in the passage I responded to. Personally, I couldn't care less whether both or either appears in the infobox, but that argument was weak enough to deserve a response. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you people sure you're not confusing me (Merbabu) with Conay? Anyway, to reiterate my position, it is an incredibly trivial piece of information that would be provided with an inordinate amount of prominence, exceeding its relevance many many times over. As for the National Anthem, indeed, it too could be argued that's it's give too much prominence, but the GTSQ inclusion would be many times worse than this. Personally, I see lots of faults in info boxes - the prominence given to national anthems being just one issue. Are they really more important than population, ethnic makeup, key economic indicators, history, etc, etc? In this case, the inclusion of national anthem as virtually the most prominent item in a wide scope article is a problem. And, the inclusion of GTSQ would be 100 times worse. The former issue (AAF) is an issue for another day perhaps, for now I'm happy to focus on the worse of the two issues - inclusion of GTSQ. Not including GTSQ doesn't meant we must remove AAF - but that would be nice. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

National anthems please nationalists. Royal anthems please royalists. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a great way to lower the debate. shame. So, by your logic, your input is based on your Royalist bias? For what it's worth, i'd be just as happy to see AAF gone too. It's just the lesser of two evils. And as for the ogg file at the top of the article, don't get me started.--Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that response to my post. And I don't think it's lowering the standard of debate at all. Whenever these matters are publicly debated it's obvious that many views are based on predetermined positions of the sorts of things that matter in a country. Is that happening here? BTW, you seem a little confused about my position. It's that the national anthem is of some significance because it is widely used. The royal anthem's ONLY significance is its official status, and it's of very minor importance here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal - that the info box contains no sound file - if necessary find another article to take the burden of what for many australians (despite their politics or allegiances culturally) is increasingly swamped by other noises - and leave this article with some form of link/redirect to another which adequately imparts the info shared in this discussion (you could almost create a stub on Australian anthems from here) - in other words simply take out of info box and try somewhere else SatuSuro 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Infoboxes give disproportionate importance to everything they contain. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but we're not about to win consensus to remove info boxes - rather, IMO, the GTSQ issue is about "harm minimisation", and managing the worst excesses of the info boxes. --Merbabu (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with previous consensuses I would support leaving it as it is, in a footnote.Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I also support leaving GSTQ as a footnote, ie as it currently is. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see the issue with including Australia's official royal anthem in the royal_anthem field that is provided specifically for that purpose. The Australian people decided that we would retain our status as a constitutional monarchy and that our links to the royal family, including GSTQ, would remain. As an official anthem it clearly has significance, especially since it has a higher order of precedence than AAF at some functions. Based on our decision to retain our royal ties, arguments that inclusion of GSTQ is "is an incredibly trivial piece of information" don't fly. The fact that we rejected change to a republic is significant, and GSTQ is part of that. Claiming that inclusion in the infobox provides GSTQ "with an inordinate amount of prominence" is really rubbish. GSTQ has been part of Australia for a lot longer than Quentin Bryce or Julia Gillard and they both get a mention. Country infoboxes provide readers with information with pertinent information about countries and anthems are pertinent information. There seems to be a misconception about what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means. It does not say that inclusion of content in other articles is not justification to include content here. Far from it. It says to use such information wisely. One of the examples it uses is that of a deletion discussion where one editor votes to retain an article because other similar articles exist. Another editor says that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. Neither editor has provided sufficient justification for retention or deletion of the article. This is the case here. On the merits, given its history, status and significance, especially since we rejected a republic less than 13 years ago, we should include the official royal anthem in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is being created by others when it really does not exist. Wikipedia is about the inclusion of facts, and the fact is that GSTQ is the Royal Anthem of Australia. As Wikipedia provides a 'royal_anthem' tag on the info box, it should be used in the proper way. Not only that, but what AussieLegend pointed out. Conay (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a "fact" is not the sole criteria for inclusion of info in a Wikipedia article. If it was, then we should immediately include everything in this page that is remotely related to "Australia" including my street and house, and yours. just saying.

Indeed, neither my street, or either anthem is actually mentioned in the article - we are only discussing the anthems because there is a field in the info box for them. No one thought it was relevant enough to put into the article. SO much for the info box summarising the article. --Merbabu (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(1984) - QUOTE = "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, ... hereby declare: that the anthem 'God Save The Queen' shall henceforth be known as the Royal Anthem" - Australian Bureau of Statistics (1986). Year Book Australia 1986. Aust. Bureau of Statistics. p. 44.... Moxy (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed an official Australian anthem, rarely used nowadays. Australia likewise has several official flags, but we only show one in the info box. The multiple flags and anthems belong elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There are no fields asking for multiple flags to be placed, but there is a field asking for the Royal Anthem of Australia. And as Australia HAS a Royal Anthem, it should be included as such. Like Canada or Norway. It's very simple logic. Conay (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But that’s the core of the problem – "simple logic" in this case is bad logic. So what if there is a field for it in the infobox? It doesn’t mean that we stop thinking, turn on auto-pilot, and just apply “simple logic” and then back it up by saying others are doing it too.

Neither anthem is even mentioned in the (feature) article - how important are they then? And, since when are infobox discussions the source of all wisdom and the key to a great article? Since when are those who get involved in those discussions about infobox fields the experts in writing a brilliant wikipedia article?

The case of other country articles is irrelevant. It may make sense in those articles, or it might be equally silly as it is here (I suspect the latter). I admit I don’t know about those cases, but that doesn't matter - the point is they are other cases and are not relevant to the appropriate choices here. It gets back to the proverbial childhood question “would you jump of a cliff because others did it?”

Again, it’s a technical obscurity (in comparison to the rest of the topic “Australia”) and simply because there’s an infobox field (due to other's wisdom or otherwise - again, i suspect the latter), you want to make it virtually the most prominent thing in the article. Um, no thanks. And yes, if I had my way, I’d remove a lot of other stuff from the over-bloated info box including AAF or at least demote it down – but I try to choose my battles with some care. --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That the anthems are not mentioned in the article is, perhaps, an oversight, but there is really no need to mention them. Help:Infobox doesn't mandate it: "They (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Note use of "generally". It does say "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles." The anthems are common to related (other country) articles. Given that other countries include their national anthems, and royal anthems where applicable, in the infobox I ask, directly this time, why we shouldn't include the fact in the infobox? Prominence in the infobox is not something we can fix here, that is up to those who maintain the infobox. Arguing along those lines because of personal beliefs about the significance of the anthem is not really maintaining neutrality. We should be presenting facts here, not opinions. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some might call it opinion vs facts, I’d call it discretion vs. prescriptive editing. Also the word judgement springs to mind. It’s why we have talk pages and work to consensus. If it’s just about the “facts” with no judgement or discretion, then all the info in the Australia Project would be in this article and we could remove the talk pages. Afterall, we’d just be reporting the facts and removing the need to discuss our collective judgement. --Merbabu (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A more appropriate question is “why copy other articles?” rather than “why not copy other articles?”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I also have made a judgement. Based on the fact that the vast majority of Australian war veterans died under the anthem of God Save the Queen, that Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden and Tuvalu all list their Royal Anthems, the fact that there is a 'royal_anthem' option in the infobox and the fact that there are numerous reliable sources that suggest and clarify that God Save the Queen is the official Royal Anthem of Australia (for example: The declaration quoted above). Whether or not you disagree where the Royal Anthem is places is completed irrelevant, as it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. Conay (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody dies under an anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But, even if they did, the majority would have been under the National Anthem which is included.--Merbabu (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm no. If they died under the national anthem, they died under God Save the Queen, which was the national anthem at the time and which isn't included. The position of royal anthem before 1984 didn't exist in Australia, as there was only one anthem. As for the question "why copy other articles?" the answer is simple and something that is desirable: consistency. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As HiLo said, no one dies under an anthem. And, if they did, they died under the national anthem - as you point out, there was no Royal anthem before 1984.

Consistency is the weakest argument on Wikipedia. A position could be consistently stupid or consistently wise. --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As I also pointed out, the national anthem was God Save the Queen, not Advance Australia Fair. Consistency is hardly a weak argument when building an encyclopaedia. I'm still waiting for a reason why we shouldn't be consistent, why we shouldn't use provided fields to present facts that are not in dispute and, above all, why we shouldn't be neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. And I might point out that this can't be appealed to the High Court. So there. --Pete (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is not getting us anywhere. Despite the fact that some people may not know about the Royal Anthem, it is the official Royal Anthem, and as such is worthy of note. I doubt most Australians know what our GPD is, or our population density but we don't remove those facts from from the infobox do we? On this statement, I suggest we simply reach a consensus now. Aye or Nay? Anjwalker ^Talk 11:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether people know it or not, it's about relevance and significance. GDP is fundamental characteristic, the Royal Anthem is but a technicality - insignificant to the rest of the info here. As for "yae" or "nae" you are asking for a vote, not a consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that whether people know something or not is crucial to our function as an encyclopaedia. We should present the information and quite clearly at least one of us should know more about the subject. I don't think we need to have the Royal anthem in the infobox for something that only gets a run every few years when the Queen trots out, but perhaps there should be a section or even an article describing the interesting history of Australian anthems? And flags, for that matter. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that God Save the Queen should be included in the info box, as it is consistent and relevant. My post above essentially sums up my belief on the matter, it's ridiculous that it's even being questioned. Whether it is only used occasionally or not is another matter completely. When a country has a national anthem, we list their national anthem. When a country has a Royal anthem, how on Earth does not including the Royal anthem make any sense?Conay (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow - after all this discussion you still don't understand the other side's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but it's not that hard to understand. But, it's an age-old technique, ignore the core of the argument, or misconstrue an argument to obfuscate it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to put everything in the info box. Only the main, salient, important information. I wouldn't include a rarely used piece of music in that category. But that's just me. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's very rare to see every field in an Infobox used. I've often thought it would be hilarious fun to go around "correcting" articles by sticking something in every Infobox field. Might have a go one day, insisting that my changes were valid because the fields were there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. --Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you were to actually read one's argument, you would realise that the field being there is just one of the reasons why God Save the Queen should be included in the Infobox. Pete, I understand where you're coming from. However, God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services, as well as Royal visits. A country's Royal Anthem, to me at least, is important information. Conay (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If "God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services", without any royals present, it's probably in breach of protocol, either through ignorance or because of reactionary, archaic, confrontational attitudes held by conservative organisers. We certainly wouldn't include that kind of thing in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's used enough to warrant being in the infobox. It's important enough to get a mention in the article. I can't see any consensus developing here for Conay's view. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Conveniently, we will have a few remembrance ceremonies next week; it might be interesting to see whether GSTQ gets played. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's rather interesting to seem some editors who usually make some pretty good arguments providing some very weak ones in this discussion. Of course it's rare to see every field in infobox filled. That's generally because there's no content for that field. When information is available, as is the case here, we fill the field. We don't pretend it doesn't exist. GSTQ (or GSTK) was Australia's national anthem for 186 years, it has a definite place in Australia's history, including the present. The protocols state when GSTQ should be played, not when it shouldn't. You can play it whenever you want, provided the protocols concerning the national anthem are followed. It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010. The RSL's decision to withdraw its use was controversial. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That it was the national anthem for a long time is completely irrelevant to a discussion about the royal anthem. And it was NOT played at every Anzac ceremony until 2010. That's just bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant at all. GSTQ has been an anthem of Australia for its entire history. When Advance Australia Fair was finally declared to be our national anthem in 1984, GSTQ moved from national anthem to royal anthem. This clearly demonstrates it has significance that justifies its inclusion, especially since it has been the only royal anthem we've ever had. You're correct regarding individual ceremonies, however it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011, and its removal was controversial.[7][8][9][10] It's inconsistent and not presenting facts neutrally by not listing it where it should be listed. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I despair regarding your logic, and use of language. Yes, GSTQ WAS the national anthem, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the Royal anthem. And you first said "It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010." That is patently untrue. Without acknowledging your error, you now write "it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011", leaving out the word "ceremony" and hence talking about something quite different. And you have not even proven that claim. You presumably believe what you write, odd as it is, but here you have to convince others. Just saying it doesn't make it true. HiLo48 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try reading what I wrote again. I acknowledged my error very clearly when I wrote "You're correct regarding individual ceremonies". As the links I provided show, prior to 2010 GSTQ was part of the dawn service, at least in Melbourne, so my point is proven, as was the claim that it was played in 2011. As for the royal anthem, there has been argument that GSTQ is not significant, when clearly it is. Prior to Advance Australia Fair becoming the national anthem, we didn't have a separate royal anthem, as GSTQ served as both national and royal anthem. Had Wikipedia existed in 1974, GSTQ could have been used in both fields. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, so now we're talking about just the Dawn Service, and just in Melbourne, right? That's completely different from your first claim that it was played at EVERY Anzac ceremony. Are you sure you've got it right yet? You certainly haven't got the other bit right. It's obvious you just don't understand, so I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Without acknowledging that I actually did acknowledge my error you....No, I won't go down that path. Perhaps you should read this. Then have a look at what I wrote immediately after that, remembering that I did acknowledge my mistake. You're twisting yourself in circles unnecessarily. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wowsers, I wonder if these 'royal anthem' inclusion/exclusion discussions are occuring on all Commonwealth realm infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You were involved in the discussion on the Canadian Talk page, I believe. They came to the conclusion that they should include it in the infobox. Conay (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The other articles have smarter editors than here. We should just stop using our judgement, and copy them without any further thought. Their context is completely transferable to this page, and there is no way on earth that their opinions could be poor. How on earth could we do it better here?

Um, right? --Merbabu (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it would be best to not have such a discussion and simply copy the other Commonwealth realm pages, however several people refused to let the Royal Anthem be included and so, because of Wikipedia policy, we now need a clear consensus. Anjwalker ^Talk 11:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I never suggested we should just 'copy' other Commonwealth Realm pages, simply follow their example. It makes sense to include a Royal Anthem in the infobox, just as it makes sense to include them on, not only other Realm pages, but most countries with a monarchy. Conay (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed my meaning (or else I didn't make it clear enough) but yes, that is what I was saying. Anjwalker ^Talk 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It appears that this conversation has wound down, yet no conclusion has been reached. Could people please cast a final vote, so we can work out this matter? Anjwalker ^Talk 11:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work by voting. It works by consensus. If this is decided on voting, then I will take it from this page through the dispute resolution processes. just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include for the reasons that I've outlined above. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. While I know it isn't regular, discussion didn't resolve anything so I tried starting a vote. Well, the voting appears to have failed anyway so there is no problem. Anjwalker ^Talk 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Exclude from info box, leave as a footnote, eg per this version. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen. As the official Royal Anthem of Australia, it warrants mention in the infobox; it would be different if someone was proposing to include Waltzing Matilda or similar because they are unofficial anthems, but God Save the Queen is official. However, I do agree that the sound file is too instrusive Anjwalker ^Talk 11:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen.Not up to the editors here to decide what our readers read - All we can do is follow the sources - Does not matter that some believe the song is not relevant - its recognized by law. What we should be doing is simply regurgitation what is source-able - not up to us to decide what to omit (push a POV) because some dont like the idea of the Queen and crown. Facts are facts and its a fact that the song is legally recognized - who are we to omit it? .Moxy (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't decide what readers read? really? Who does then? so since we must publish everything that is true, there is therefore no limit to the amount of stuff that should go in here? No discretion? Are you kidding? --Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Who

We are not talking about everything - we are talking about one link to a legally recognized song. Can you explain how omitting information is good for our readers? Thus far the exclusion argument is "I dont like it despite its legal status". What we do here is regurgitate widely available information. So here we are with editors saying one link to a legal song is undue weight. So it should be omitted because the one link will make the article size way to mush? Come on - can anyone show us that the inclusion criteria has not been meet? Moxy (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your stated criteria in your 2nd most recent comments is, if I may paraphrase, "if it is true we must include it, who are we to decide?". In what way does that not mean we must include everything? You are saying use no discretion - include everything! In your most recent comment, you are saying we must not omit info. This is where you are wrong. We must omit most information. Because this subject is very broad, and GSTQ is relatively (i.e., comparatively) highly trivial. But of course you know we must omit info. You know we only include the most important aspects of the topic "Ausytalia" in this article due to WP:SUMMARY. So, in what way is GSTQ so fundamental to an understanding of Australia? And if it is so fundamental, why is it not even in the article prose?

No-one said they "didn't like it". That's rubbish. Rather, people said it was trivial, not relevant, and comparatively unimportant against the rest of the subject matter. Indeed, if it was such a natural inclusion, then why isn'tt it mentioned in the article proper? Because it doesn't have a place.

to make the problem worse, we would be giving the what is almost prime position in the article. Indeed, such prominence is undue weight. And I say "bollocks" to blindly saying "it's in the info box, we must use it". --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

So omitting is the solution you believe - best thing to do would be to expand our readers knowledge on the matter - not omit because some believe one link is to much. So its trivial that the royal anthem has legal status but not for the national anthem? Can you see how outsiders see a double standards her because neutrality also applies to exclusion aswell. So again how is it harmfully to inform or link more information for our readers? All that said there is a note on the matter so I guess our readers will be informed if they read the note, that actually makes the topic standout more the it should. Moxy (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No double standard. I said above that I think the National Anthem is also an unfortunate inclusion. Probably more than once from memory. --Merbabu (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Australia Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Australia

100 percent agree with your point (sorry did not see it before) all or nothing is best - not just half the info. Perhaps the solution that the Canadian music article has come up with is a good idea here... that is a new article that explains all like Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada.Moxy (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm very strongly with Merbabu on this. Wikipedia does not work by voting. In particular, consensus can never be achieved that way. They mean entirely different things. HiLo48 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm consensus is never achieved by voting but a wote! is used as a means to guage consensus, consensus should be decided by the weight if arguments presented but mostly its by the weight of numbers. I havet commented on this discussion but if I came here as a neutral admin I guage the weight of arguments and come to the conclusion that GSTQ should be include because of its official status, where as the exclusion side of the argument is about whether its in actual use. The position is Australia has two anthems it can officially use one is used more broadly than the other, which has a specific purpose in a specific context. My opinion is that both should be included in the infobox and linked but only AAF should actually have a play button as that recognises the position of both but only links to one which is the standard in use, under 99% of circumstances. Gnangarra 21:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair " Royal anthem: "God Save the Queen"

Hmmmm, that might work. It would also eliminate the problem that we have with button size and the annoying "i" icon. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Listing the royal anthem does not eliminate the button size and icon problem. In fact, it may make complicate matters. On the example above, the "i" button next to to the royal anthem name does not give information about the royal anthem! (I think) I understand why, but some of our less experienced readers may get confused. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On voting and consensus .... I for one (as currently the sole dissenter in the vote) will concede and accept the opinion of the significant majority if needs be. I still think the royal anthem is more appropriately mentioned as a footnote than prominent in the infobox, but it is only an opinion and the other opinions are reasonable and valid. (I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question, so there's no point in "fighting" for the "right" outcome.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be the sole dissenter, but there's a few abstainers. --Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No idea where this discussion/vote is (this page is a mess), but I still oppose having GSTQ in such a prominent place in the Infobox. Yes, it's a true fact about Australia, but it's fact that most Australians neither know nor care about, so don't give the world a false impression. Mention it somewhere in the text, but not where the Infobox forces it to appear. (Wikipedia really has to improve on the Infobox front. They should not control content so much.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree an infobox specific to Australian needs is the ideal solution but considerable effort by a few users over the last couple of years to consolidate everything into a one size fits all has been the general consenss Gnangarra 03:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you think most Australians care about the Gini coefficient, purchasing power parity or Human Development Index? There are lots of things that most Australians neither know nor care about but we still mention them because this is an encyclopaedia, not a book of what's popular or general knowledge. The anthems are displayed in the location they are becaue we use a standard template. There's not much we can do about that, but it's not a reason for exclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There's far too many posts here supporting inclusion which say, at least in part, "That's what the Infobox demands". I'm sorry, but that's NOT how to create a great encyclopaedia. It means we have a consensus (on Infoboxes) to include content which wouldn't be there without that Infobox. Stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point - why does this article not talk about its anthems? Odd to see mention of music without talking about the only legal music there is in the country. We build a good encyclopedia by informing our readers about valid information. I think acts of parliament recognizing these songs should be metioned long before any-other music. As seen here by this long long talk it is relevant to many - including the government that made them OFFICIAL songs. Your legally recognized anthems deserve mention over things like Mad Max any day. What has more cultural significant to our readers random movies or nation songs and symbols? Moxy (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might have the US spell checker turned on. "encyclopaedia" became "encyclopedia". --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL - wife is laughing her head off at mee... You just made her day. :-)Moxy (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I can assure you of is that God Save The Queen has no cultural significance at all to most Australians aged under 40, and only historical significance to older Australians as the National Anthem from when they were young, NOT the Royal Anthem. It's a bit like that old Canadian flag with the Union Jack in the corner.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So we should gear Wikipedia towards people under the age of forty and forget what has passed over hundreds of years of history (dont for get the vets) - or should we include what is historical to ever generation born before 1970 and what young people may want to learn about? Best we link so all can learn its place now and in history . The Flag of Canada to use your example - is linked from the main Canada article and leads our younger (and old alike) readers to lean about the new and old flag and there place in history - the topic is not simply omitted. Thus far total omission from the body of the article is what is being advocated over advancing readers knowledge of a sensitive issue. A simple link - perhaps in the infobox or even in the culture section is not much. knowledge over ignorance of topics and there situations is always best for our readers. It has so much cultural significance that there was an Act of parliament to insure its place in history and to cement its place in the future.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You have just completely misrepresented my position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh - sorry for the rant then...my bad.Moxy (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

exclude from infobox, leave as a footnote at the bottom of the article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Due to the fact that no conclusion has been reached, I'd like to make a request for comment on the following question; Should the Australian royal anthem be included in the infobox? And if so, in what form (Wikilink to God Save The Queen or sound file)? Anjwalker ^Talk 07:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. You have no consensus to add the info. Now what do you expect to do if someone throws in their opinion? Are you looking for a casting vote from someone who probably doesn't know anything about the issue? If you don't get the result you want, then what? More forum shopping? --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Anjwalker is well within his rights to request input from other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ANd I'm well with in my right to say what I think of that. And to ask him how he suggest it's going to go. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I would be disappointed if the royal anthem was excluded from the infobox, we do need a conclusion either way. It might be the wrong one in my personal opinion, or it might be what I consider the right one, but I’m entitled to my personal opinion and at least it will clear up this point. Anjwalker ^Talk 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• No My reasons and more detailed view are above, several times. I hope you really don't expect me to repeat them again! (How will this be anything but another vote?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• No There are lots of "official" things associated with Australia that aren't in the infobox, because they aren't considered relevant or important enough. Off the top of my head, Australian of the Year, Australia Day, Floral emblem etc. Royal anthem is probably official, but it is not used very often and is not relevant to imparting knowledge about Australia to others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talk • contribs)
• No. Skimmed over the above discussion, agree with HiLo's and AussieLegend's comments. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hilo and I disagree. I think it should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh, obviously I skimmed too quickly. Thanks for catching that. Jenks24 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• No It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• No We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem. Bidgee (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Get out of the clouds and add info about the only legal music/songs the country has for our readers (In the article screw the info box). Ignorance is not what we wish for our readers - knowledge and relevant info is what builds the encyclopedia. Not exclusion of what the layman believes over official status. The "I dont like it" "Its not used often" is not a valid reason - need to come up with why it should be omitted Moxy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes I don't know about "We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem." or "It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way." but God Save the Queen (GSTQ) is played by some (though not all) elements of the ADF and ADFC on the Queen's Birthday! I have attended several navy and air force regimental/mess dinners and the tune has always been played at the start. GTSQ is as official as Advance Australia Fair (AAF) and so if GTSQ is to be excluded than so should be AAF! Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• No Many official thing not listed in infobox. Having a footnote is a good compromise. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If it is not used and yet official, then adding a footnote would be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• No For consistency with other national wiki pages the national anthem should be referred to in the infobox. I notice the Royal Anthem and the history re the 1984 vote is referred to in that article [[11]] which is appropriate. A footnote in the main article [[12]] would also be a good compromise. isfutile:P (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your vote explains why it should be referred to in the article, but it really doesn't explain why it shouldn't be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• No: While there are undoubtedly many 'official' flags and other formal fripperies recognised in Australia, there is only one national flag and anthem we take to the world. Representing 'God Save the Queen' as the Australian national anthem would be like doing the same for the USA with 'Dixie', which is undoubtedly played on many occasions, but never to represent the USA to the world. Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The aim is not to represent GSTQ as the national anthem at all, it's to represent it as the royal anthem. See Canada's infobox for how this is done. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dixie" was the unofficial anthem of the CSA. In the US, we only have one National Anthem. However, if we thought it was ok to have to kneel to some royal family - we would also have a Royal Anthem to pay respects to our sovereign. We wouldn't play the Royal Anthem to the World because the purpose of the Royal anthem is internal - to remind the subjects who is in charge. But as stated we don't have a royal family thus we do not have a royal anthem. A national anthem is for nationalistic pride and identity, and is why that anthem is played to the world. Patriot1010 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes The Commonwealth of Australia is a "country" Commonwealth - but here's the catch - whose form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Monarch as the head of state. That Monarch is the "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx which includes Austrailia, and this subordinate status is recognized by the Constitutionally mandated government. http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government Since the Country known as Austrailia is not an independant state, but under Monarch (Royal) rule defined in a Constiution, both the anthem decided by Constitutional authority (which applies in this case), "Advance Australia Fair" AND the anthem of the Monarch "God Save the Queen" under Royal authority (as specified in the Constitution) which is the "Nation" known as the "UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." This understanding feels "weird" for those who live in a Constitutional Republic like the US - but this situation should not be compared to the US since the US does not have a Monarch. I am sure this detail is contentious in Austrailia (sorry) and why a call for comments went out. The Government of Austrailia must play the Royal Anthem per their Monarch and Governor-General at events when appropriate, and the National Anthem when appropriate for national occasions - so both are appropriate and even the Governor-General concedes that both are played http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html- thus put both on there! Take the Royal one out if Austrailia becomes a Constitutional Republic at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have a very recent example of God Save the Queen being played at parliament House in Canberra without either a member of the Royal family or the Governor General being present - (link removed by Bidgee (talk) per WP:COPYLINK), for those of you who watch the video and wonder why our PM doesnt sing it is because she is a republican and our oppisition leader is a monarchist. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I bit my tongue before but it was painfully obvious when I read all this the first time the debate is not about the Royal Anthem - it is merely a proxy argument to use Wikipedia as your online mouthpeice rebellion against your monarch - you know the one you kneel to? Rebels want to show the world they are independent of royal rule by omitting it on this article....egged on by your Prime Minister's actions. Its interesting how an anthem can be a proxy for so many things - isn't it? The Royal Anthem stays until you man up and declare Independance. My 2 shillings. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I played GSTQ to two classes of 13 yo students the other day, and none of them knew what it was. I doubt that they'll remember either. Oh, and being older than our PM, I had established my opinions long before she came along. And what makes anyone think that Australians follow the lead of politicians? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure if I played the US National Anthem to 13 year old kids in El Paso, they would not know what it is either - but - Ignorance of one's national (or Royal in this case) anthems, and the failure of public school teachers to educate young Citizens of one's national (and Royal, if applicable) anthems does not mean they do not exist. Furthermore, if one's chieftain, or in Australia's case, Governor-General - decrees that there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia - then there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia! (at least until the Governor-general is beheaded in the town square). Once that happens whatever authority that follows will make that determination, be it Representatives elected by the People, or another Governor-General installed by the Monarch Patriot1010 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid and insulting post. The stuff about US kids is pure speculation and, I suspect wrong. I AM a public school teacher. What do you think I was doing by playing GSTQ to them? Guess what? I was attempting to educate them. So take your speculative and bigoted insults elsewhere! HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey there was a call for comments for people with NPOV and I was picked - you get your money's worth when I come. I am merely stating the obvious. Don't get angry at me there is 10 pages of text of Australians in denial that the National anthem of Australia is "Advance Australia Fair" and the Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen." Honestly......http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/nat_anthem.html and that is in every other commonwealth wiki page to boot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Patriot, I know we should all rise above it, and look beyond your style, but sorry, it's really clouding your message. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• No: When I went to school we had to sing GSTQ and salute the flag at morning assembly. Also, Church of England Religious instruction as a subject was compulsory, regardless of your own particular branch of Christianity, faith or lack of it. Just as compulsory CofE instruction is outdated, so is GSTQ. Apart from hearing it on TV several times a decade, I have not heard GSTQ played in public in over 40 years. Wayne (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• No For reasons I have explained before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Judiciary in InfoBox

In the Australia InfoBox, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is not listed. There are articles on French CJ and the position of Chief Justice of Australia. Rjgcooper (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "chief justice of australia" and "robert french" should be listed under PM in the info box, as with the US article, as the judiciary is one of the three vital arms of our government as set out in the Constitution. Saruman-the-white (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the position be marked as "Chief Justice", not "Chief Justice of Australia". The "of Australia" bit would seem redundant. Rjgcooper (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah sorry of course Saruman-the-white (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sound file for National Anthem

In the section on this page about the royal anthem, the sound file for the National Anthem gets a few mentions. It seems to me that this article (particularly the top of the info box where it's been inserted) is not the place for this file. While I suggest its a no-brainer that this article should mention the National Anthem some where (although perhaps not in the top of the info box - but that's another discussion), the inclusion of the sound file is a tad irrelevant. It makes much more sense to leave it to the Advance Australia Fair article - there is a very obvious and easy link to that page. We don't need to include ALL info on all Australia-related topics. Rather, WP:SUMMARY style requires, well, a summary with links to the details - i.e., the sound file.

I see at least three, maybe four, people supporting this in the mention above. This link shows the change in question - and shows that at least another editor supports keeping it out and we have one in suppoty of inclusion]. Can we confirm (or otherwise)? --Merbabu (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove the sound file from the Australia page infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it is one editor in particular who is adding it to a number of countries. I've suggested that they seek a consensus first as it's also being removed from other country pages. --Merbabu (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• "put up sound files" the national anthem is very important like the flag. im here to improve the articles not and i mean NOT to vandalize them. its easier to put the sound file on the first page. plus most of the world is done.im out to make wikipedia better! so please revert all edits- philpm930 4/21/12 9:50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpm930 4/21/12 9:55 —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair "

I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right ([[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. For this reason, it's better to just link to the anthem's article and include the sound file there. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

well it would make a better arctitcle which i think it should be put up for the people, not the editors preference. lets take a vote. vote yes for the sound box to be up vote no for it to be on a different link and i vote yes philpm930Philpm930 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps infobox needs updating to include less intrusive sound file link

Probably the main reason that I voted to remove the sound file is that the link is relatively large and obtrusive. I've proposed a solution at Template talk:Infobox country#Can we add a small button to play the anthem? - although I don't know whether it is feasible to do. Interested parties should take up the discussion on that template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Why include it at all? The fact that it is large is just an additional problem to the irrelevancy/redundancy of the music file in a country article. In an article on the song, that's fine. But not here. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

My response - and ongoing discussion - on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation is uh-strail-yuh

I think that is incorrect. This saysThis says it is ah-strail-yuh.TheThomas (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That is, the current pronunciation guide says "Australia ( /əˈstreɪljə/)". Which I believe is wrong.TheThomas (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this in the past. I suggest you check out the archives. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that my suggested pronunciation is incorrect? If so, you should say that. I am not likely to wander aimlessly through archives of 10,000 edits. I am seeing that the uh-strail-yuh pronunciation comes from Australian English, I suppose that is appropriate.TheThomas (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

archives to this page that is - as to whether something is wrong or right - you need more than a google search (or another wikipedia page...) - and my copy of Pearsall, Judy; Trumble, Bill (2002), The Oxford English reference dictionary (2nd ed., rev ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860652-9 agrees with the article - SatuSuro 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If something is correct/incorrect in your perception - it is better to place your comments here first with WP:RS to back it up and more than one - to confirm your suspicion - at large articles like this - the inordinate time spent dotting i's and crossing t's by editors means the effort is to be put in here before going onto the page - you can only expect grief if you edit the page and then state your claim swith a google search summary here - that simply is not the way to go about it SatuSuro 12:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many pronunciations of Australia. Firstly, there are those used by Australians, and by non-Australians. My view is that we should only consider the pronunciations used by the citizens of a place (does Wikipedia have rules on this?), and there are definitely more than one of those, depending on the formality of the speech and the location of the speaker. The way most Australians pronounce it when singing their national anthem is quite different from the more common spoken forms. Some routinely omit the "l" when saying the name. The sound of the second "a" varies a lot. Not a simple, clear cut thing at all. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The one in the article is the one used by Australians. In informal speech Australians may pronounce it as "straya" or similar, dropping letters, but clearly this is colloquial and should not be included, and when singing advance australia fair sometimes (including when julia gillard pronounces it, strangely), some say "aws-stralia" which is a mock british pronunciation, as choral style singing of nonpopular music in both australia and the us often uses by convention something similar to received pronunciation. Saruman-the-white (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I like HiLo48's response - which is a better answer to TheThomas than mine above, thanks for that - as HiLo48 and Sarumans replies infer - there are indeed multiple usages - and from that alone correct, right/wrong distinctions are problematic... are not the answer to the issue SatuSuro 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We needn't worry about colloquial pronunciations, but if the ah and uh pronunciations are both common in normal register, then we should consider using both. Then again, if it is a question of accent, we should consider the principles discussed at Wikipedia:Pronunciation#Distinction between British, American and Australian pronunciation (I don't have the patience right now to figure out if that guideline applies to intra-country differences). -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Two logical options. One two use all three common pronunciations (estralia, or there abouts, for Aust. English), (awstralia, or there abouts, for British English [RP]), (ahhstralia, or there abouts, for American English [Gen Am]). The other alternative is to just use the pronunciation that is used by about 99% of Australian English speakers (sans the exception of singing the national anthem for some), which the is pronunciation that is already there. This seems more concise, as i'm sure articles on England or the UK for example do not include American or Australian pronunciations, nor would the article on the USA or an american state or city include British or Australian pronunciations. Fair enough I say. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If the truth be known, you will probably find that all major cities have some variation in the way they pronounce vowels; vowels being represented by imprecise positions of the tongue in the mouth. So if one is arguing about whether or not a unaccented syllable has been reduced to a vocal schwa, no determinative national consensus may be obtainable. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

The Macquarie Dictionary is the best place to look as it’s accepted in academic arenas as the official Australian English spelling & pronunciation resource - maybe try http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/ --Amckern (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, documented estimations

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extended content

"Human habitation of the Australian continent is variously estimated to have begun between c. 6,000[37] and 48,000 years ago,[38]" IS ESTIMATED. This is a passive statement about estimations, not about the fact. It is well documented that some scholars believe that the entire world was populated after c. 6000 years ago. Morris and Whitcomb are just two scholars among those with earned doctorates who hold such a view. The citation was given. Various estimates, if given, should be inclusive. Intolerant dogmatism is a disgrace and unscholarly. Kindly refrain from edit-warring & intolerance.(EnochBethany (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Please take your fringe, young earth creationist views elsewhere. They don't belong here. And I asked you to discuss. That doesn't mean changing the article again and then starting a discussion! HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I am not a young earth creationist. So kindly stop posting lies about my position. I am not giving my position; I am recording a corrected statement about estimations which intelligent persons have made. Being arrogant & dogmatic is not intelligent. Nor do you win a debate by calling something "fringe." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Cuz the Bible told you so? --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) PS - you could put that here. Indeed, you wouldn't even need to mention the 48,000 years. You could just ignore that bit of bullshit. Only problem is, before you register to edit, you have to be screened to ensure that you hold correct political, scientific, and religious views. --Merbabu (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Conservapedia is like Wikipedia; one's views have to be politically correct for their politic. I am not politically correct for them any more than for the intolerant secular humanists who control this venue.(EnochBethany (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) EnochBethany, I rise to support my colleagues here, though perhaps not their attitude. I understand your position, but we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity, is that humanity arrived in Australia at least 40 000 years ago. This is an important number, because it illustrates that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians arrived at this extremity of the earth well before humans reached (say) the Americas or New Zealand. While I understand and appreciate your passion, you would be best served finding a more appropriate forum to present your views. Seeking easier targets than places where actual scientists may be found is not a valid strategy - you'll be reverted, and your contributions will be checked to see that other examples are also reverted, and you'll eventually face sanctions. We're not a bunch of barbarians, we work together in a civil fashion and we achieve results. If we can produces articles like Evolution without too much drama, we should be able to find you a place where you can present your case in a collegiate atmosphere. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, they are not presenting a neutral point of view, but trying to be dogmatic. To be neutral, if you are recording estimates, you must be inclusive. I have a number of degrees, both from secular and Biblical institutions. The only institutions that included a serious discussing of the opposing POV's were the Biblical institutions. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Just having a look at the source provided by Enoch, I'm inclined to think that there is more recent scholarship that suggests objectively that Aboriginal Australians arrived in Australia a little under 50, 000 years ago. Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer. Darwin's view that the Tertiary Period was 300 million years long is similarly not found on the article for the Tertiary Period as it is also no longer considered valid. Comics (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The point is not on what is more recent. Proponents of young earth continue to exist. I don't consider myself one of them. But the POV needs to be included if you speak about "various estimates." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate, and they might estimate anything from "um, twenty years old?", based on personal experience, to "millions and millions of years", based on a confusion of dinosaurs. In point of fact, we don't have any historical records going back beyond a few hundred years, because nobody here before then was able to write. 1769 might be such an estimate. My point is that we don't have to include every estimate in this article. We don't have room to discuss every estimate, so we go for the best, based on scientific evidence. There are other estimates pushing the arrival of humankind in Australia even earlier, but we don't include them either. We go for the best information available, which is a range that is widely supported by reliable sources. If we had an article called List of estimates of beginning of human settlement in Australia (and you are welcome to begin such an article, because it is a fascinating subject) then of course the 6 000 year estimate would have a place there, on NPOV grounds. But not in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS. As suggested by Merbabu, if you want to write stuff like this try www.conservapedia.com. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't know that nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. The long and apparently serious article here deals with pure fantasy, for example. There are entire collections of articles based around Pokemon or Harry Potter, built and maintained by unsmiling nerds. Technically speaking, the 6 000 to 48 000 YA estimated date range is accurate. EnochBethany is probably serious about this and feeling aggrieved about his treatment here. Editors should not be abused and ridiculed for well-intentioned edits. The answer, I think, is to say that this article relies on a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one, and both have their appropriate but largely separate places. "Render unto Caesar etc." If we tried to barge into (say) Cars (film) and edit out all the obvious nonsense, like point out that cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing, we'd be intruding into a different reality and we'd be told to go mind our own business. And I hope we'd be told to do so politely. I think if editors are at the stage where they use abusive and mocking language (even in edit summaries) to make other editors feel bad, then maybe they should take a break, for a bit. --Pete (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This isn't an article about a fantasy world, so that comparison isn't valid. You might want to check the article's recent history. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC) That's my point. Wikipedia includes articles on diverse worldviews and this is a science-based one, at least when we're talking about topics such as geology or archaeology. A faith-based editor will accept that. We can nudge him towards more appropriate areas where his work will be accepted and welcomed. We can always find a way to be polite about it. --Pete (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and anthropologists and cited a creationist that has himself been ridiculed by mainstream scientists, which validates HiLo48's claim that this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism. It's not the first time this user has inserted fringe creationist theories into popular articles. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Of course. Let's make sure that this view doesn't last here more than a few minutes. And I might take a look at what else he's been doing, crusading through Wikipedia one article at a time. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC) May I point out that this editor has blind reverted without an edit summary, has told Hi-Lo that he is edit warring, that he is editing by "dogma", is "unscholarly", "ignorant" and a "disgrace". Oh, and "intolerant". Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC) PS - and was blocked on 13 June for edit warring. --Merbabu (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Morris has a PH.D. in science. One should not be so dogmatic and intolerant. Ad hominem arguments are invalid. You may sort of win by having more power on Wikipedia than I. But might does not make right. Yes, I got blocked for a day once after a factual dispute in which I reverted 3 times (not more). Then the lie was made that I have reverted a 4th time. I documented extensively that the term "homophobia" was a slur word and that no such phobia exists. And of course the pro-sodomists who guarded their slur-word article had the power. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Really? Proof please. Look, I seriously suggest that you gain a bit of perspective and give up now. Trying to make that change to the article, especially without discussion, presents you as a religious nutter. I don't know if that's true, but your whole approach here does your cause no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Really what? I already posted the proof. Now you prove that no scholar believes in a young earth. That is not my POV; but I don't put my head in the sand and insist otherwise. The last I knew making a bold change in an article and then defending it was an approved approach. How does throwing out "religious nutter" prove anything? Are you an intolerant liberal with your head in the sand? It is simply a fact that the various estimates of the origin of the population include c. 6000 years ago. This is not a statement that such is the truth. Can you not stand having other POV's included in a list of various estimates? (EnochBethany (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) EnochBethany. You need to learn about what is a reliable source. I could find sites that state that the world is only 6000 years old, or was made by god in 7 days, or the world is flat, but they are all fringe ideas that don't stand up to scientific or historical analysis. Your point of view push is not only in error, it is annoying and disruptive. Please keep your fringe ideas to yourself or discuss them with other like-minded people at your local church. These ideas do not belong here and we are wasting time trying to convince you of that.--Dmol (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, I hold 4 graduate degrees, and I don't need you to tell me about reliable sources. What you need to learn, apparently, is not to stick your head in the sand and live in a delusional world where certain ideas you don't like, don't exit. I will not keep my ideas to myself. Who are you to tell me that? And if you read the discussion, you should know by now that I was not presenting MY idea, but documenting the existence of a POV which is not mine. I know it would be a waste of time to tell you that you don't have any proof for your theories. What do you believe except that someone told you so? It may be annoying to you to realize that your little comfort zone of dogma is not the only POV out there. But you need to have enough objectivity to accept that when one is tabulating a range of views, one should not stick head in sand. Your POV seems to be faith-based in the negative sense of credulity (not the only definition of faith of course). Learn to think out of the box and accept reality as it is. This insistance on excluding a significant POV from the objective statement "is estimated," is a clear violation of neutral POV, as is the label of a POV of many serious scholars as (scoffing) "fringe."(EnochBethany (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)) Enoch, sorry to but in here but we're arguing about using a source from 1961 in addition to a 2002 source; if anything I'd say that what it shows is a consensus towards thinking maybe the Aboriginal Australian's got here earlier. Perhaps your source was valid in 1961, but almost 50 years have gone by. The world changes. That doesn't mean that they haven't got doctorates, it simply means that the technology now available can date things with greater certainty. The abstract for the 2002 article states: The dating of selected archaeological and megafaunal sites from the Australian region is reviewed, with emphasis on recent work at some of the oldest sites. Improved chemical procedures with decreased analytical background for 14C analysis, combined with new luminescence dating methods, has confirmed many of the results processed decades ago and significantly increased the maximum age for some others. The oldest occupation horizons in four different regions reliably dated by defendable multi-method results are in the range 42–48,000 calendar years ago, overlapping with the age range for similarly well-dated undisturbed sites containing the youngest extinct megafauna. There is less secure evidence suggesting some archaeology may be earlier and some megafauna may have survived later than this period. Yes, perhaps it's all just technobabble to disguise the fact that they know nothing. The point is that they've used methods that still stand up ten years later to arrive at an approximation as to when the Aboriginal Australian's arrived. The article obviously explores those points in more detail than the abstract does. Besides, with the 2002 approach we get to say we had Diprotodon and everything's better with Diprotodon, yeah? Comics (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC) I note the arrival of a NPOVD tag on the article. I think we have consensus here already, but just to be sure, let's test it. The Australia article includes the statement, Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago... and is supported by the source, Dating the First Australians. This statement belongs in the article. Support as per my contributions in discussion above. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support. I removed the NPOV tag before I noticed this continued discussion. I explained my reasons in the edit summary so I'll leave it removed for now. But I think it's time to stop feeding the trolls and close this once and for all.--Dmol (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support. The npov flag is always an attempt at hostage taking. It's rarely used as described in its guideline, and this occassion seems no different. Glad to see it removed so quickly. This editor may be bucking process, and may be doing it with excessive assertiveness, even uncivilly. And he may be the only one supporting his edit, but troll is the wrong word. I don't think he's doing it to stir us up and get a reaction (which is all a troll is about). I'm sure he's doing it because he genuinely (but mistakenly) thinks this is what the article needs. His edit and arguably his style/process are not inline with Wikipedia policies, but he is not a troll in my opinion. Certainly I agree that enough time has been spent on the issue. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Fair point. I've removed the term from my comments above.--Dmol (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Support! I am gratified that so many support the NPOV label! For indeed the article does not have an NPOV. Now in response to some of the claims made by antagonists: 1) Someone says, "your fringe, young earth, creationist views." This requires an apology from the poster. I did not state my POV. So if I don't state it, how can you call it fringe, pray tell? And how can you call it "young earth"? Backquote me where I ever asserted such. How can you be objective if you judge like that? 2) Someone says, "They don't belong here." My what tolerance. Do you imagine that you prove your point by telling someone begone? 3) Some person, again being judgmental, sneered, "Cuz the Bible told you so?" Since we are reporting estimates of antiquity, and since the Bible doesn't give a bibliography on POV's regarding this estimate of antiquity, does this sneer make sense? How could be Bible record the POV's of persons living in the last 100 years? 4) Some persons tried to shovel me off to Conservapedia, though I never indicated that I agreed with Conservapedia. Did I indicate that I was a conservative Roman Catholic? a Schafley? 5) "before you register to edit [Conserapedia] you have to be screened." Well I would be screened out for them. But what does Conservapedia have to do with the need to record all POV's & be neutral here? This is an illogical red-herring. 5) "we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity." The POV I recorded (but did NOT endorse) is held by scientists. It was put forth by the head of a science department at a secular university (or college). This is just one example. I suppose that the majority of "doctors of divinity" would oppose young earth & endorse most humanistic POV's. Now inserting "doctor of divinity" is another red-herring, since I cited no such persons. 6) "I understand an appreciate your passion." I don't think so. I think like most of the responders, you just jumped to conclusions, instead of confining your comments to my edit. 7) "your contributions will be checked." Now how does attempting to intimidate me and personally attacking me support your POV? My edit was bibliographic. Your response indicates a lack of objectivity and failure to read, jumping to conclusions. Actually your attempt to intimidate me is barbarian. 8) "Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer." If you haven't read W & M then how can you say that? Now before I go to the bother of posting more citations, tell me what year you will accept? 1990 and later? Now tell me what year you will accept and that you are going to stop objecting to including a bibliographic reference to it before I do the work. Will you drop your objections to my edit if I post a more recent citation? 9) "I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate." What does that have to do with anything? Did I propose citing loafer instead of scholars? 10) "We don't have room to discuss every estimate." You are saying that the article doesn't have room for a change in the date range which involves about 2 words and is no longer than the original??? 11)"This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS." How do you know that it is a religious tract? Have you read it? How can something be obvious to you if you haven't read it? Is your POV in fact bigoted humanism? If a book is authored by the head of a university science dept, how can you dismiss it so lightly? "no place on Wikipedia"? So Wikipedia is an authority on something? Give me a break. 12)"a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one." IMHO this article is based on a credulity-based worldview held by persons who need to be politically correct among dogmatic humanists. Faith-based? For me proper faith is the resting of the soul in the sufficiency of the evidence & in the obviousness of the self-evident. It appears to me that in unobservable areas like ancient history (unrepeatable unique events of long ago), persons who hold to the party-line, hold those views mostly just because someone told them so, not because they themselves have handled ancient artifacts and done replicable experiments on them. What do you believe in this area except on the basis that someone told you so? 13) "cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing." What does talking cars have to do with this? 14) "The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and . . . this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism." Now what on earth does that statement have to do with my little edit? The issue is not whether or not I am ignored. I suppose that everyone who has posted on this talk page here has probably been ignored. How does using the term "mainstream" prove anything? I am the one being censored. I did not erase the ancient earth POV, nor assert it, nor deny it. I just record that another scientific POV exists, which it does. 15) "presents you as a religious nutter." Do you think that an insult commends the rationality of your position? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)) I'm not ignoring you. Just saying that we operate by consensus, and it looks like you are the only editor supporting the change. I do agree that some of the comments directed at you were impolite, and I trust that those editors find it in their hearts to apologise. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Well, let me add my support to EnochBethany, not to push a particular POV, but to simply avoide having a "long-age-only" POV presented. Supt. of Printing (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Let’s put the credibility of using religious or religious-based sources aside for just a moment and consider that what you are proposing would have huge wikipedia-wide implications. Are you suggesting that such consideration of the young-earth POV be implemented across all relevant articles? It would not make sense to have it only in this article. There must be thousands upon thousands of articles that could require such a change to be consistent – and up until now, almost all of them, including this one, had not been influenced by religious text, or sources based on religious texts. Is it legitimate concern about wikipedia-wide implications? Are you saying that you are supporting the present state of this article based on other Wikedpedia articles? Isn't it against the rules to use as authority for one article other Wikipedia articles? Now if you want to exclude even reference to young earth POV (as if it did not exist in your universe), what reliable sources can you site to support that? If you don't have such reliable secondary sources, how can you push the ostrich POV? (68.94.209.147 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) Given the clear opposition to your proposed text here, I suggest you now leave this debate here – for now – at least, and find a central location to establish a new wikipedia-precedent to incorporate. Then it will become clear, either way, whether you can roll out your POV across Wikipedia. Clarity is good. So, if there’s nothing further, why not take this away particular article, and move it to a central location proposing it for consistent wikipedia-wide implementation? Let us know your plans. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I could consider such a move after you find reliable secondary sources to support your suggestion that such be done. (68.94.209.147 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) I can't say if this user has read Wiki's article on NPOV or not, but I would just like to emphasise one point that, for this article at least, might suggest we don't include their suggested changes: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. Maybe, in the interest of fairness, we can say the source Enoch is suggesting falls under plausible, but currently unaccepted? Yes, we should reflect all viewpoints where possible. Comparing the plausible, but currently unaccepted theory proposed by Enoch's insistence we include this source in the interests of neutrality, to the accepted academic scholarship we give it undue legitimisation and importance. Yes, people going off at Enoch and calling them 'Young earth nutter' and the like does violate Wiki policy but we're talking to the same person who compared me to the Master on my Talk page. I think I in spirit agree with Merabu; let's end this discussion, take chill pills and see Enoch suggest changes in other areas of Wikipedia. It sorta pains me to see what should have been a simple discussion effectively transformed into a Religion V Science debate. Comics (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I say close and archive. If EnochBethany continues, we cut it off and move on to some sort of formal scenario like AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agree - what a time waster - close... SatuSuro 04:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agree. Close now. Let's implement any changes that come from a centralised request to incorporate the young earth pov across all wikipedia if that consensus comes (for which I won't hold my breath). This article is not the place for that discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Close now. It's only a waste of time as it would be unbelievable if the proposal was ever accepted to allow this would pass any centralised discussion. --Dmol (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC) "Accepted Academic scholarship" is difficult to define unless it is said accepted "by whom." Are you saying that IF I can post citations that demonstrate that professors in accredited universities and colleges hold the young earth POV and that books written by persons with Ph.D.'s hold young earth, you will drop your objection to including this POV in your universe of ideas? Will you continue to insist that this is not accepted academic scholarship if I can cite such sources -- or do you intend to find some reason to exclude this willy nilly? And BTW, to call me a religious nutter is an insult. Both that and dismissal of the young earth POV appear to be based on editors' primary sources and original research, if not mere common prejudice, not on reliable secondary sources. For a person on a personal talk page to joke with an in-common Dr.Who fan about him POSSIBLY being the Master is not an insult. One can assume that a fan of Dr. Who has a sense of humor, at least if he be a fan of the Bakers in that role. And he should note that I never suggested he was the Black Guardian. This discussion needs to be here so all can note the protest vs NPOV. Is it not enough for you to 1) object to young earth POV, then 2) object to including it in the history ideas, without then trying to pretend that noone claimed claimed that this POV should be included? You really need to sweep it all under the rug for Linus-blanket security?(EnochBethany (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)) We're likely at the point of chasing our own tails here. EnochBethany, I have read what you have to say carefully. I am sorry that you were treated impolitely by other editors. The "young earth" POV you mention is not a mainstream view, and in this article it would not be appropriate to include it, just as there are other minority views claiming that humanity arrived in Australia 60 000 BCE or earlier. We go with our best shot. The POV you support might be included in more detailed articles, as noted above. You do not appear to have consensus for the changes you support, and you are welcome to follow wiki procedures to get more people to look at the matter. I do, however, suggest you avoid any appearance of canvassing. Until you do that, any further discussion here is unlikely to give you any joy, and would be considered disruptive if you argue pointlessly. You have had a fair hearing here over several days. Please accept the situation. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Support and snowball close. If we're going to include mythical accounts of the origin of Indigenous Australians, surely we could at least start with their own creation myths rather than those written half a world away. And no, being able to produce a PhD who believes in YEC would not justify including it here. Producing a PhD at an accredited university in a relevant field would not justify it. They do exist - as an example, Marcus Ross is a paleontology PhD who somehow manages to compartmentalise things so he can believe in a 6000-year-old Earth and yet perform research where he dates fossils to millions of years old. But within their scientific fields, these have the status of fringe theories held only by a tiny minority. Those theories might merit coverage in an article on creation science, but NOT in an article about Australia. --GenericBob (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Do you mean Wikipedia:Snowball clause? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, BIGOTRY, MORE CITATIONS TO COME

(EnochBethany (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC))