Talk:Australia

Archives: Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6

Separation of church and state

I changed an opening sentence in the Demographics section from: "The Australian Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; there is no state religion" to "The Australian Constitution guarantees a limited form of the separation of church and state; there is no state religion." (Emphasis obviously not in original.)

This was challenged: "why do you say it is limited? the terms are absolute."

Separation of church and state is only partly about:

• Not having governments nominate a state church (as happens in much of Europe, for example); and
• Governments not running churches' day-to-day business.

The term can have a limited meaning, which is covered by the two items above. It can also have a broader meaning, such as is found in the US, where for example if legislatures have opening prayers they cannot be limited to a certain faith (as compared to Australia, where the Lord's Prayer is the only one used to open the sessions of the federal houses of parliament). It can also have the broadest meaning, perhaps shown by countries like France where the separation extends to the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools.

Australia has many examples of close church-state relations

Here are just a few examples of how governments in Australia engage with churches in ways that contravene the strictest notions of the separation of church and state:

• About 1/3 of school children are educated in independent, mostly Catholic systemic, schools. When the federal government made its controversial decision to fund private schools by the income of students' parents, it explicitly excluded Catholic systemics, which were instead funded through multi-billion dollar grants to the centralised Catholic education offices.
• Here in the ACT, there are two main hospitals: the Canberra Hospital (government-run), and Calvary Hospital, run by the Little Company of Mary. Calvary is publicly funded, but has a gigantic illuminated cross on its exterior and sells anti-abortion paraphernalia in its shop.
• After the federal government, church agencies are the biggest providers of welfare in the country - much of it provided through government grants.
• A large portion of government-funded aged care is done through the Anglican Church.
• Most public schools have Scripture Week when the Easter and/or Christmas stories are taught from explicitly Christian perspectives.
• Most schools engage in Aboriginal dreamtime mythology (which of course is as much a faith as the Christmas and Easter stories).

Etc etc. etc.

Furthermore, the vast majority of jurists agrees that the separation clause in the Constitution is not interpreted as being a "high wall". It is a restriction only on compelling membership of a church. It was largely a result of Catholics (then a small minority compared to Anglicans) being concerned that they would be compelled to belong to the C of E. It is not about forcing the government to bow out of religious and spiritual matters, as the strict form of separation entails. A good example of that recognition was the High Court's DoGS case in the 1980s, which found with only one dissenting opinion that the clause is about preventing the creation of a state church, not about any other restriction.

Australia's is hence only a limited form of separation, so my edit was wholly and totally correct - and indeed more correct than leaving the term unqualified. As such I'm reverting to my edit, since it is demonstrably beneficial to the accuracy of the article. El T 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

church / state relationships are irrelevant to freedom of religion. freedom of religion is freedom to exercise religious belief without interferance from the state.

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Xtra 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the DOGS case you would notice that the judges said that the Commonwealth could only fund religious schools if done on a non-discriminatory basis. Xtra 05:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And about the lord's prayer - it is not compulsory, and it would be more discriminatory for the parliament to not allow its recitation, as that would inhibit the freedom of religion of the vast majority of parliamentarians. (also the lord's prayer is not religion specific) Xtra 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing freedom of religion with separation of church and state. El T 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You were the one who raised issues about separation of church and state. Xtra 06:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A better fix

A more obvious question about this whole business is why on earth a discussion of rights in the Constitution is being discussed in the "Demographics" section. I'm moving that bit into "Politics" and adding some more material. El T 06:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That material should not confer the incorrect notion that freedom of religion in Australia is somehow limited. If something is a religious practice (as defined by the High Court) the government cannot prevent the free exercise of it. The only exception is where there are competing issues of public policy. E.g. a religion that allows murder. Xtra 06:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That right to trial by jury is an interesting one. I learnt about it in constitutional law. I am not sure if there is an article on it, but one would be interesting as there has continually been a majority and minority view. The majority of the high court have said that an indictable offence is only what the Cth says is indictable, whereas the minority has said that takes the teeth out of the right and it is deeper than that. Xtra 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a summary article. Please discuss these issues in daughter articles.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, Cyberjunkie. However, rather than reverting to the previous version, we need to fix problems like the silliness of discussing rights & freedoms and school attendance policy in the demographics section. Keep in mind that the definition of demography is: "The study of the characteristics of human populations, such as size, growth, density, distribution, and vital statistics." In other words, the metadata of a nation's population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El T (talk • contribs) 09:56, 30 October 2005 (ACST) (UTC)

(Please don't forget to sign) As this is a feature article, I felt it necessary to revert to the last stable version. Some of what you now find in demographics are remnants of a previous much larger section which included sub-headings for "Education" and so on. That section was whittled down to its present form in the process of becoming a feature. Compare with other country articles and I'm sure you'll find similarities. And I think it's fine to mention in passing the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state when delineating religious adherence. Remember this is only a summary or overview article. We'd welcome more coverage on the separation of church and state in Australia. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll never find a reference work of any quality referring to political rights & structures in a demographic summary. The only possible exception is if it explained something wholly abnormal, so for example in far-gone times you might have noted for England: "Church of England: 100% (NB - membership is compulsory)". El T 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Languages

do they speak english or what? that article i couldn't find out.

[edit]

Australia — Official Language: English

According to http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Australia

this should be in the article or make it more visible if it's not already in there!

focking firefox stupid search bar, I see it now, move along.

If I recall correctly, Australia actually has no official language. English is simply the de facto standard. El T 12:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my recollection too, but our Immigration Department says English is the official language: http://www.immi.gov.au/settle/info/questions.htm (answer to second question) --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd always assumed English was our official language, but I'm now wondering what makes it so. Like, what regulation or bit of legislation or whatever deems this to be the case? Immigration can't just assert this as a fact unless there is some official document somewhere. Does anybody know? JackofOz 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it was to. I imagine it's just some act of Parliament that says all laws will be written in English or something. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the federal government has ever considered reinstating one of the more common Aboriginal languages in parliament, as well as English. If no action is made to support the use of Australia's Aboriginal languages they are likely to all die out with the passing of the next generation. Daniel563 06:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no way in the world the present government would ever consider it. In any case, it's a nice idea, but thoroughly impractical. For a start, most Aboriginal languages only have a few thousand speakers, and fewer still are actually highly fluent in the language, certainly to a point where a legally satisfactory translation could take place. And how would you pick out an Aboriginal language for the purpose given there's hundreds of them (or, at least, there *were* hundreds of them). Furthermore, I doubt the language would resemble much the language actually spoken once the hundreds of loanwords and figures of speech necessary to discuss parliamentary democracy were added. Finally, the plain fact is that very few white Australians would ever bother to learn an Aboriginal language; while it might be nice in theory, when it comes down to a choice of an economically useful language (French, Japanese, Indonesian, Spanish, Mandarin, maybe German) or warm fuzzies, most parents are going to put their foot down and insist on the economically useful language. Not that many Australians can actually speak *any* second language, unless their parents are migrants and they learned that language at home. --Robert Merkel 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made some enquiries with DIMIA about this. So far, all they've told me is the official language is English because it is (which, actually, I already knew). I've asked them more questions about the legal/official basis of this, and specifically when/how it became "official", and await their response with great interest. JackofOz 22:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Update. DIMIA have now referred me to the Department of PM&C. I've asked them and am waiting for a response. JackofOz 23:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Bureaucratic buck-passing... --cj | talk 07:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Industrial relations

Nothing on IR? Why's that? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you could put it in. The US has frankly a bloody awful IR system, and nothing in the article; we don't have one (yet). When we do actually start developing a working poor (only a matter of time, obviously) we can then put that in. Slac speak up! 07:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that Unions have been such a major part of our nation, I find that an interesting comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the ecomony section about the current batch of workplace reforms. Other than that there isn't really much scope for a history of trade unionism and industrial realtions in this article. Does anyone know what the name the article about the most recent reforms (proposed) currently goes by? --nixie 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It is currently called Australian industrial relations legislation, 2005. Xtra 07:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a mention of the current legislation is necessary, but a sentence about the role of trade unions in our history wouldn't go astray. Ambi 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Culture

I recently was at a concert with australian contemporary music. One piece was utterly interesting and moving. It tells of the story of settlers and the hardships they had to endure. I forgot the name of the music. Anyone remember? I remember that crickets were played by violins. Anyone have a clue? They should put something like that in the culture part. It's simply a masterpiece, I am german, and I think that if there's anyone who can write more on australian contemporary music, it would be great. - 200.56.172.126

Score one for the Aussies! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

By your description, you probably mean a contemporary piece of Australian classical music. Unfortunately, AFAIK none of the Australian contributors to Wikipedia know much about the Australian classical repetoire; frankly, not much of it has reached the popular consciousness in a way that Germany's greatest composers have. Probably the most famous contemporary Australian classical composer is Richard Mills, and, historically, the most famous was Percy Grainger, though he lived and worked mostly outside it, and is probably almost as famous for his personal proclivities than for any of his music. But I'd bet that 90% of Australians couldn't name an Australian composer who worked in the classical tradition, though most could name at least two or three Germans. --Robert Merkel 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this here?

• Australia (1996 single) (single released by the Manic Street Preachers)

Why is this link here? I am dumbfounded why a link like this would stay but other links are deemed commercial and deleted?

What is the relevance of this? Wouldn't it be better to have actual Legendary Australian musicians in this article who have wrote about the Australia Way of Life?

When I think of Australia, I think of Cold Chisel, Khe Sahn.. Not Manic Street Preachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianTraveller (talk • contribs)

Ive noticed that as well, dont have a problem with it being here, but I think once I searched for Australia and somehow was redirected to the single rather than the country - ah here it is: "Australia" for some reason directs to the song ? Astrokey44 05:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Very strange! I've adjusted that redirect so it points to the country. To AustralianTraveller, the link was originally there because the song has the same name as the country, not because it is representative of Australian music. A few days ago, the link was added, and then removed again, as a standard disambiguator heading - like this. I can see how it would be strange to some people to see the first line of an article mentioning a meaning of a word that 99% of people would not be after. The only other way to do it would be for Australia to become a disambiguation page, the article about the country to be at Australia (country) and the song at Australia (single) - but that would obviously be pretty stupid. Perhaps the best option is the first line to point to Australia (disambiguation) and not go into any more specifics about the other meanings? I'll try that now and see how it goes. -- Chuq 05:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I just hope to God there's no Dragonball Z character named "Australia"... - Randwicked 10:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Phonetics

I removed this from the article;

The word "Australia" in Australian English is pronounced /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.ljə/, /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.liː.ə/ or /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.jə/.

If I knew how, i'd format the phonetics correctly - but i don't! - could someone smarter than I fix it? Thanks! Petesmiles 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What is your objection? It uses the {{IPA|...}} template as is standard for IPA transcriptions on this site to help people using certain webbrowsers to read it; and it is written using a fairly standard rendition of the IPA for General Australian English. It's true that in broad transcriptions (i.e. ones which only use different characters for sounds that are distinguished such as this one, having nothing to do with "Broad Australian English") it's common to use ‹r› instead of ‹ɹ›, but that's only a matter of convenience. So I really have no idea what you want fixed up; I would suggest putting it straight back in the same as it came!

(The fullstops are technically redundant, but might assist in getting the exact pronunciation of the /l/ right (it's clear [l] as in "light", not the dark/velarised [ɫ] as in "pool") as well as emphasising that no-one has the same end to "Australia" as is found in the word "lear" (which'd be /lɪə/.) (The stress marks are also clearly redundant on all but the second transcription, and debatably redundant even there.)

It's also possible to write it as /əstreɪljə/, /əstreɪliə/ /əstreɪjə/ which would be the transcriptions shown in the Macquarie Dictionary, but they aren't the standard ones used on Wikipedia for Australian English (which more accurately represents both the phonetics as well as the internal similarities and processes and the expense of dissimilarity with the British Received Pronunciation IPA transcription).

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops - a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, I thought that these phonetics were an attempt to display the phonetic font that I'm used to seeing, such as [1] [I corrected the URI —FtC 14.11.05] - as a lay reader, i erroneously thought that these phonetics were a kind of typo. - i do find them hard to understand, but they're obviously technically correct - sorry!, my fault. The only reason I haven't put them back in myself is because I do find them a little incomprehensible, and wonder if anyone else agrees? - Petesmiles 07:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well of course the IPA is used in a great many contexts, is standardised (to an extent) and is the "official" pronunciation spelling of Wikipedia. In this context, it also has the advantage here that it directly encodes the difference between the Australian and non-Australian pronunciations of the stressed vowel (broadly [æɪ] vs [eɪ, e]). There are also various other advantages to the IPA including, no less, that most dictionaries except American ones and ones meant for students use the IPA to encode pronunciation. In any case, if you click the "pronounced" link, you'd be given a brief guide to the meanings of the spellings!—Which I think most people would need for the link you gave anyway (what's "ô" mean? should I assume (based on phonetic similarity) that "about" is \ô-baut\ (or whatever they'd do)? etc). Also, IME every dictionary that doesn't use the IPA uses their own home-grown concoction, so that knowledge isn't even generalisable anyway.

Personally, I'm inclined to leave it out for an entirely different reason. I think that just giving three different pronunciations without an explanation to the social, regional etc. variation that the words are obviously subject to limits how encyclopædic it really is.

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the "ô" is either, but I'd guess it's actually an American pronounciation. As for including the three pronounciations, I don't see a problem with having soemthing at that level of detail in a summary article. If more detail needs to be given, it can be somewhere else. JPD (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

isn't it possible to record examples of the various pronunciations and have these available? - Felix, would you have any such resources? - maybe that would be a further improvement? Petesmiles 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have suitable low-quality recording equipment, and have now produced a recording for your listening pleasure! You can get it at . Do note that for me, the sequence [æɪlj] is decidedly unnatural, so this mightn't be exactly how it ought to sound. ([lj] as an onset is forbidden; if [lj] crops up, it's across two syllables. Yet [æɪl] in a single syllable is also forbidden; if it crops up, it's across two syllables. So there's no possible way to pronounce that without making a change, hence naturally the third, but most commonly the second (as the l-less pronunciation is stigmatised). Also note that this is list-reading mode, so the final /ə/ are very open. Phrase-internally, they have a quality much more like the initial [ə], but most Australians wouldn't use that sound phrase-finally or in list-reading mode.

Also, I can't test the file, so it might not work. I can only record direct to MP3s, but Wikimedia stuff only wants Ogg Vorbis files. My converter converts happily, but then my multi-codec jukebox refuses to see the converted file, and I have no drivers for the soundcard in my computer. If it doesn't work, I can give you the MP3 if you email me, and maybe someone else can convert it to an Ogg and re-upload.

Enjoy!

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 15:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Non-NPOV Big Time!

In the 1980s, the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, started the process of modernising the Australian economy by floating the Australian dollar in 1983, and deregulating the financial system.[9] Since 1996, the Howard government has continued the process of micro-economic reform, including the partial deregulation of the labour market and the privatisation of state-owned businesses, most notably in the telecommunications industry.[10] Substantial reform of the indirect tax system was achieved in July 2000 with the introduction of a 10% Goods and Services Tax, which has slightly reduced the heavy reliance on personal and company income tax that still characterises Australia's tax system.

This paragraph needs to be pulled apart. I've never voted liberal in my life and even I can see the npov in this! It highlights the achievements of the labor party, omits the 'recession that australia had to have' the unemployment levels and interest rates born by Paul Keating's labor government and fails to acknowledge the achievements of the liberal government.

I'm not the right person to do it but this certainly needs to be rewritten! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factoid Killer (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your objections. That paragraph seems to be talking about changes made to various regulations and systems, and simply states who did what when, mentioning both Labor and Liveral achievements. The next paragraph talks about recession and indicators such as unemployment, and avoids attributing these to anyone. What is POV about that? JPD 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is POV, but not for the reasons the anon states, which make no sense whatsoever. The problem with the paragraph is that is entirely supportive of "economic reform" as being a good thing - even effectively praising the controversial GST. While it gives equal praise to Hawke, Keating and Howard, as much as the anon seems to believe otherwise, it neglects to even hint at the other side of the coin. It could be worse, however, and it's a minor blemish in an otherwise beautiful article. Ambi 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if either "modernise" or "reform" are taken to be have a positive meaning, or "reliance" is implicity negative, then you are right. I don't tend to read things that way, so I don't see it as positive or negative, but I suppose the last part could be changed to something like "which has slightly lessened the importance of personal and company income taxes to Australia's tax system" to make it more obviously neutral. JPD 18:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

States and Territories

Re-insterted the reference to 2 major territories, which seemed important to me. A small question - apart from Jervis Bay territory, which other regions fall into this category? - pretty sure Lord Howe (for example) is just part of NSW, but wondering about other tiny islands etc. - will research myself and update here, unless someone beats me to it...... Petesmiles 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would include Coral Sea Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands, Australian Antarctic Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I think Norfolk Island depends on who you ask whether it's "part of" Australia, or "administered by" Australia. After doing this from memory, I discovered they're already listed in the States and Territories section. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NOT GENOCIDE IN LAW

Aboriginal welfare is not genocide. Attempts to portray it as such are politically motivated. In international law the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide" defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" - so the question of INTENT is critical. At part (e) the Convention says that "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" would be genocide where the INTENT to destroy a racial or ethnic group was operative. The transfer of children that took place in Australia was for purposes of benign child welfare - only about 10% of children where removed, many were voluntarily given up to care agencies, most were of mixed race, and in many cases, there were clear dangers to the health and welfare of the child. As mentioned above, one of the first "Stolen Generation" compensation cases to go to court found that the "stolen child" was in fact rescued after being stuffed down a hole and left to die. So genocide is rescuing children from death or neglect and giving them food, shelter, education, medicine and care? The intent was care, help and protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.127.160 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The above user also posted a comment at Talk:Australia/Archive 6 where this last raised, which I have reverted. I'm too tired to tackle this, so I'll leave it to others to respond.--cj | talk 05:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I should note that the user is also on his/her second revert, having been reverted once by me and JPD respectively.--cj | talk 05:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

cj - sorry, I posted in wrong spot - the talk archive - I deleted that misplaced post and put it here --- also, I am now signed in. I had lost my wik user name and password but now and back in business --- better than a bare IP number (even if it is static as in my case)!

To address the issue: cj, the point is "intent to destroy" just as it says plainly in international law. I do not believe you will find any evidence of "intent to destroy" with respect to Australian practices of child removal. Hardly any full blood Aboriginal children were removed. It was mixed race children and even then they were only removed in the context of a threat to their welfare or survival.

It is wrong to revise history in this way and smear the names of many compassionate people of good will who tried their best to help children they perceived to be in danger. How can we, 50 or 100 years later, judge the delicate situations they faced? If the same circumstances existed today, the same child welfare interventions would be carried out. --Marcusvox 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted this [2] also. Agnte 07:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Given Marcusvox (whom I'm glad has an account) has removed the referenced sentence from the article, retaining the actual reference is not necessary. However, once it is established that the sentence should in fact stay, it should be returned. But anyways...

Marcusvox, could you please provide valid sources for your claims. In particular:

• "The transfer of children that took place in Australia was for purposes of benign child welfare - only about 10% of children where removed, many were voluntarily given up to care agencies, most were of mixed race, and in many cases, there were clear dangers to the health and welfare of the child";
• and, "As mentioned above, one of the first "Stolen Generation" compensation cases to go to court found that the "stolen child" was in fact rescued after being stuffed down a hole and left to die.".

These are rather matter-of-fact claims you are making so you should back them up. How exactly does the "mixed-race" of a child justify their removal from their families? --cj | talk 07:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence, with a qualification. However, this now sounds a little weaselly, and it would be much better to find some names of people who have written on either side of this issue (or at least to reference someone from the other side too), but I don't have them to hand at the moment. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

cj - The facts I allude to (and others of this nature) may be found in Wik's own sources and others. But I don't think it is up to me to "prove" that the genocide reference is inappropriate. If you want this highly politicised assertion to stand, you must demonstrate that it meets the requirements specified in international law and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide", which is the authority cited. That authority specifically says that genocide involves the "intent to destroy" - you need to show that that Australia as a nation and state was inspired by an intent to destroy the Aboriginal race. I do not think you will find any evidence of such malice, except perhaps for isolated incidents and acts of individuals. The fact that Aboriginal society declined as a result of disease and the ascendancy of European culture does not amount to genocide ... not in law and not in fact. --Marcusvox 09:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems you're intent on deleting a sourced, qualified, statement that has consensus? (i notice you've just removed it again) Agnte 09:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"... the word genocide has fallen victim to 'a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist'. ... the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming 'dangerously commonplace' ... Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, agrees. 'Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood'" ... Exactly. --Marcusvox 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In your previous edit you called the statement ill-informed.... What exactly is ill informed? "some historians and Indigenous Australians have argued could be considered to constitute genocide by today's understanding."(ref). It's a qualified statement with a reference. You could also mention that this is currently a disputed and politicised issue in australia, but you just seem to want to remove anything with the word 'genocide' in it, right? Agnte 10:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The meaning used is the meaning in the Convention. It is broader than most people think it is. Wikipedia should not comment on whether this meaning is too broad or not. It has been widely claimed that the government(s) acted to ensure the ultimate demise of Aboriginal culture. You may not believe this is true, but it has been argued, so please do not remove the sentence saying so. JPD 10:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is accurate to use the term in this context or not, the fact remains that many people have used it, and it has become a significant issue in indigenous politics. NPOV demands that WP mention how widely spread these views are, and who holds them. Marcus, what was the source of those quotes above? You should add a sentence summarising those views and then reference it. --bainer (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

JPD - it has been "widely claimed" you say? I would dispute that. It has been "narrowly claimed", yes, by those with rather extreme credentials and political axes to grind. Here is a question: should Wik articles include every possible point of view, even extreme points of view? Should the article on the planet Earth, for example, include a section on Flat Earth theory, which is still espoused by various nuts? Should the article on the WTC terror attacks include the extreme theory (and widely claimed in many Arab nations) that it was a Jewish planned and financed plot? I think Wik articles need to distinguish between established facts and mere assertions. But let the sentence stand as it is. I have added a little extra to the para. --Marcusvox 01:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a policy which prohibits presenting minority views as equal to those mainstream. In this case, however, I'll think you'll find your position is in the minority nowadays.--cj | talk 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

That is my point precisely cj: the suggestion that genocide was practised upon the Aboriginal population of Australia is an absurd and extreme point of view endorsed by only a minority of reasonable people. In fact, even by the so-called "modern understanding" of genocide, it does not apply since it requires in its legal definition that intent to destroy must inspire the act. This has not been shown and cannot be shown, because it never existed. And do not repeatedly and mindlessly revert me, cj, or I will ask an admin to block you. --165.228.127.160 10:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not been "mindlessly" reverting you. You inserted PoV, and I removed it accordingly. Please do not make further changes without first achieving consensus on the talk page. --cj | talk 10:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are simple: it must be verifiable, it must not be original research, and we must include other views on the same topic so that a neutral point of view is reached. And no Marcus, we don't have to represent every crackpot viewpoint, but if one can name "prominent adherents", then the viewpoint can be included. [3] There are prominent adherents on both sides of this issue, and so both sides ought to be presented in the article. Whether it is truthful to say that genocide happened is irrelavent. Whether we as editors believe what people say is also irrelavent. --bainer (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wik editors should strive in the first instance for the truth. The assertion that Aboriginal welfare practices were equal to genocide is not only a ridiculous lie, it is also demonstrably wrong in the law cited. You guys don't seem to get that. You all seem to be very eager to be preciously PC and like most PC fruitcakes you can't or won't face the simple truth. Study the cited "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide" and you will see what I am talking about. You will see that the INTENT to destroy a race must be established. The fact that the Aboriginal population went into decline was due to a lot of factors, but had nothing to do with any State-sanctioned policy of malice. But if you want to say that some people perceive it as genocide, that is fine, but in the interests of fairness and honesty, that statement must be balanced by an extra sentence indicating that such a viewpoint is disputed and controversial within Australia. For example, the current Government of Australia (love 'em or hate 'em) represents the majority of 20 million Australians and they reject the genocide theory. It would be my guess that fewer than 10% of Australians would consider this theory correct. That makes it pretty extreme and crackpotish! --165.228.127.160 02:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy if you haven't already. At the start, you'll see that it says "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly." Now you assert that only about 10% of Australians would support the theory. Some would say that it is more than that amount. But regardless, 10% is still a significant minority opinion, and we are obliged to say that the opinion exists, and say who holds it. We are not obliged to agree with it, or say that it is true, merely report it. My personal views on the matter, or those of other editors, are quite irrelavent. --bainer (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think that the article is worded appropriately even though I am doubtful of the veracity of a charge of genocide. The article is NPOV in that it correctly states that some historians and indigenous Australians have claimed that it was and these claims are disputed. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you bainer, thank you Capitalistroadster - your comments are helpful. --165.228.127.160 08:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Capitalistroadster on both points--I'm not personally convinced it was genocide and I think both view points are represented appropriately. The line "Such interpretations of Australian history, which some construe as politically motivated, are disputed and controversial" should remain in there. Sarah Ewart 10:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to say that it'd be genocide by "today's legal understanding" rather than "today's understanding", as the legal definition is broader than the common language definition? Andjam 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Andjam, it does not even qualify as genocide by "today's legal understanding" --- please see UN Convention on Genocide at this link http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm --- note that Article 2 says "genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" --- acts must be committed with "intent to destroy" --- I do not believe that this intent can be shown to have existed in Australia. The main cause for the decline in Aboriginal populations was disease, causing a 90% death rate - this was an unintended consequence of white settlement, and a phenomenon not understand by Western science until more than a century later. --marcusvox 23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Intent to destroy", in terms of a legal interpretation, doesn't necessarily imply any element of malice. Intent to achieve consequences equivalent to destruction would arguably fit within that definition.

But regardless, I was thinking before that it might just be easier to leave the complicated argument about child-removal policies to the child articles, and here in the parent article just mention those events which are much more widely regarded as acts of genocide, such as the Myall Creek massacre or the Forrest River massacre (I'm researching this at the moment), or any of the other massacres on the frontier. Calling those acts of genocide has a much higher level of academic support. --bainer (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

bainer - "Intent to destroy" does not imply any element of malice? Sorry bainer, but what kind of doubletalk is this? The words are very plain in the UN Convention. It takes a lot of creativity to twist them out of shape. Re alleged massacres on the alleged "frontier", see this link : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982065.html There are many other sources like this. The genocide story is a contrived nonsense, created and perpetuated for political reasons. "Keith Windschuttle found the basis for the genocide argument to be speculation, guesswork, outright distortion and blatant ideology, an ideology which reached its crescendo in the Bringing Them Home report in 1997. Once this report's claim of genocide was subjected to the forensic rigours of the courts, it fell apart, a fact many still cannot accept." How very true. --marcusvox 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the "forensic rigours of the courts", the perpetrators of the Myall Creek massacre were tried and convicted of the murder of an Aboriginal boy in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case was heard by the then Chief Justice of New South Wales, James Dowling, and the sentences (death by hanging) were ratified by the Executive Council of New South Wales. That seems fairly conclusive to me. And though the charge there was murder, it would seem relatively simple, given the factual scenario, to describe those murders as acts of genocide. --bainer (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Acts of genocide!!!??? bainer, the Myall Creek massacre does not even come close to what might be fairly considered an act of genocide. In 1838, twenty-eight Aboriginal people were murdered by a dozen white vigilantes in revenge for allegedly killing several hut keepers and two shepherds. Seven of the white vigilantes were convicted of murder, sentenced to death and hung. The murder of the Aborigines was no doubt a vile crime and the vigilantes got what they deserved. Quite possibly the vigilantes, as individuals, were also racists and motivated by racism. But whatever, this does not amount to genocide. Question bainer: do the acts of Martin Bryant the world's worst mass murderer, constitute genocide? Of course not! The mere act of mass murder - in Bryant's case there were more victims than at Myall Creek - does not in itself equal genocide. Nor does Myall Creek, an appalling but isolated incident, with no organized backing and no official sanction (in fact, just the contrary) equal genocide. --marcusvox 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Acts of genocide don't have to be state sanctioned. In the case of Myall Creek, the vigilantes, as you put it, were supposedly acting in retaliation for cattle rustling, as were the conclusions of the court. According to the evidence of the white shepherd at the station, most of the victims were old men, women and children. Could they have honestly suspected them of being cattle rustlers? Even if they did, why did they not take them into custody, or at least question them? Why did they rape the women? These questions were not answered in the court. But on the balance of probabilities the only conclusion that can be drawn from the court's findings of fact is that the twelve men set out to kill those Aboriginal people, and they were specifically targeted because they were Aboriginal. If they were simply mass-murderers, like Bryant, then they would surely have killed the shepherd and the other white employees at the station.

And if you would like a more systematic campaign, consider the massacres of the Kurnai nation in Gippsland in the 1840s. --bainer (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick with Myall Creek for the moment. I have no doubt that some (or all) of the Myall Creek vigilantes were racists. Quite possibly they acted merely to kill blacks, and used the rustling story to conceal their real purpose or for an ex post facto justification. Even so, does this amount to genocide? If it does, then we would be forced to conclude that any racially-motivated murder is an act of genocide. Therefore it follows that the hundreds of whites killed by Aborigines since settlement are also acts of genocide. Thus, you see, we come to utter nonsense and the meaning of the word "genocide" becomes anything the user contrives it to mean. By the way, did you see this article by Paul Sheehan? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/24/1037697982065.html

The article as it currently stands seems to suggest that the removal of children contributed to "the decline of the indigineous population". Does that sound right? Andjam 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)