Talk:Australia

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)

More attention needed on the 'l'

The dropping of the 'l' should not be dismissed as informal. I have heard several excerpts recently of reasonably formal speeches by Australian politicians, and in every case the 'l' was not pronounced. It should probably be acknowledged as at least as a major variety of standard Australian pronunciation of the name. Whenever I have paid attention to Aussie pronunciation, the 'l' is not there. Whether this is just a New South Wales feature or more widely spread, I don't know.

On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with HiLo48's contention that only local pronunciations should be considered, though they should be given due weight. I don't use the French pronunciation of 'France' when I'm speaking English; by the same token I don't use an Australian pronunciation of 'Australia' when I'm speaking my usual New Zealand English. No doubt all Irish pronounce the 'r' in 'Ireland', but the form that drops the 'r', and pronounces 'Ire-' as a triphthong is standard southern British, and in very frequent use.

It's also worth considering how an Australian would prefer to see the name represented in the context of a Wikipedia article. However they normally pronounce the name, they may prefer a formal version in print.

Koro Neil (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How the French say France is not a valid comparison. They speak a different language. Among English speakers, I strongly believe we should always respect pronunciation by citizens of a country as the primary form. If some variations are common, maybe they could crack a mention, but common cannot come to mean that the US pronunciation of everything dominates simply because there's a lot of Americans. HiLo48 (talk)

Politicians are not elected for their skills with the language, so the fact that they sometimes omit the 'l' is of no more import than journalists or dentists or taxidermists sometimes omitting the 'l'. But you're right - Pauline Hanson and Anthony Albanese would be two classic examples. On the other hand, John Howard and Phillip Ruddock would rather have cut their own heads off than say it without the 'l'.

The thing is: Does any parent or teacher ever advocate the dropping of the 'l' as a good thing to do? I'd be very surprised. How they actually say it when they're not thinking about it may be different. But is it the job of an encyclopedia to record every possible variation of the pronunciation of a word, as actually encountered in practice? Where would it ever end? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

I noticed a recent minor dispute between User:Phung Wilson and others over the pronunciation of Australia. Looking into the article history, I found this edit where User:Saruman-the-white removed two additional pronunciations. Saruman's justification, elaborated here shows the belief that the three pronunciations indicated Australian, British and American norms, respectively and that the single transcription at Canada serves as a guide to how to deal with variable pronunciations across regions.

Given the discussion above and in the archives, here are my two cents. Our guide at WP:IPA for English is an attempt to provide one transcription for any given English word that accounts for dialectal variation. When pronunciations vary based on regular, accentual differences (such as the different pronunciations of the vowel in pay, which are phonetically different but phonemically identical, or the phonemic distinction between the vowels of cot and caught, which we encode for even though not all accents make such a distinction), our transcription system is such that we need only one transcription. Excessive parsing of regional variation goes against the point of having one transcription system for multiple dialects (as explained at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English), but there are instances where there is a difference in "incidence." That is to say, the different pronunciation is not due to a regular sound change that we encode for in our transcription system. It could be a tomayto/tomahto thing (that is, the difference is not regular) or it could be like the vowel of bath (that is, the change is regular, but we don't encode for it); either way, when the system can't account for the variation, it's appropriate to show multiple pronunciations.

It does seem to be the case that there is variation in how Australia is pronounced (namely, with the first vowel); this variation goes beyond that found in other words, like Canada and can't be accounted for in the system laid out at WP:IPA for English. I didn't see this conversation before I reintroduced one of the deleted pronunciations, as well as the citation attached to it (though, per this edit, I'm not so sure that the source backs up both pronunciations), so I hope I'm not unnecessarily fanning flames of contention. I've also labeled one of the terms as "local" in a fashion paralleling that of New Orleans.

I'm not particularly wedded to how I've placed the two pronunciations; if there is more variation than this or if people feel like more explanation is necessary, an explanatory footnote may be in order, rather than cluttering up the lede. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You have put back in a British RP pronunciation ("ostralia/awstralia") and left in the General Australian pronunciation ("estralia/ustralia") but not included the General American pronunciation ("ahhstralia"). This is very inconsistent. You could either follow the Canadian precedent and use only the Maquarie Dictionary Australian pronunciation, or include the pronunciations from ALL major native dialects of English - not merely Australian and British RP, but also General American (which has vastly more speakers than British RP, by the way). As it is, it is now highly arbitrary, with understandably the pronunciation of the native country (Australia) and also one of the other two major English varieties but not the other. Where is the logic in this? Include all three or just include the Australian pronunciation. As such I've removed the British RP pronunciation and just left the General Australian one for now, cited from the Macquarie Dictionary. If you want to include foreign pronunciations in future it would be only logical to include both General American and British RP.Saruman-the-white (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound condescending, but it would be helpful if you respond to my actual points so that I feel sure that you have read and understood them and so we can have dialogue, rather than talk over each other. You should probably also take a close look at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English, which it seems you don't understand. I didn't put a "British" pronunciation but rather a diaphonemic one that encodes for multiple dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You do not sound condescending. Even if the pronunciation you gave first does work when pronounced in both British and American English (but as previously acknowledged, not Australian), the fact remains that you put this pronunciation first, before the Australian one, which you labelled as "locally" (which does indeed sound somewhat condescending) as this pronunciation is used not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. As such, if two pronunciations are needed to all dialects with one IPA pronunciation, the Australian one should go first, just as "Australian English is used throughout this article" (see note on article), because Australia is the topic of the article. There is probably no need for the "locally", which when used to refer to a whole country, or a whole continent in the case of Australia, does not sound entirely natural. The fact that this pronunciation also exists in New Zealand, SIngapore and Malaysia (so, over the continents of Australia, Oceanis and Asia) "locally" certainly doesn't seem applicable. If these are the only two pronunciations needed for IPA in accordance with what you said before then they should maybe just both be listed normally with the one used in Aust. first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see no pronunciation guide. Really, how useful is it? (although at least here we don't have the issue of 2 or three lines of multiple names, and translations before we even define the topic - why, for example, are people sticking in Chinese character translations in so many leads now???? but i digress...) And the question of which pronunciations get included and which don't, for me is even more ridiculous. Like most other articles, there are more important issues at hand. But that's just my opinion and I accept that it sits outside the apparent Wikipedia way. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY pronunciation that should be listed is the local one. It's really the only correct one. There will always be many others, but as soon as we include one or more of those, others will whinge about their incorrect pronunciation being excluded. Sadly, it often again leads to "There's a lot of us Americans. The way we get it wrong MUST be mentioned." Safest approach? Include none of them. Won't offend anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Having a clear and consistent policy helps prevent edit warring. The issue of local vs. general has, in the past, gotten especially tendentious. It would be false to say that the "local" pronunciation is the only correct one in this case. There are regional standards so that the non-"local" pronunciation is, for example indicated in a number of dictionaries. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see the logic that convinces me that, for a place with a unique name, the pronunciation used by people who've never even been there can be considered correct. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not just places. I'm still looking for one of those mythical "eemoos" that the Americans talk about. Maybe they live in Brisbayne. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Or Mel-borrrn. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a Melbourne in the USA, in Florida. The article suggests that the vowel part of the second syllable rhymes with the er in finger. That's not how Americans tend to pronounce Australia's Melbourne. And the interesting part is that Florida's Melbourne "was named Melbourne in honor of its first postmaster, Cornthwaite John Hector, an Englishman who had spent much of his life in Melbourne, Australia." Is this the only American place named after an Australian place? HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there'd be a few. According to its article, Brisbane, California is most likely named for Brisbane, Australia. I agree that only the local pron. should be included because there are just so many accents of English, however, to say that the British or American pronunciations are incorrect because those people "have never been here" is ridiculous. It discredits the argument. We in English pronounce "Paris" with the "s" on the end rather than "Paree" as the French do, but I don't see anyone arguing that this pronunciation is incorrect. It is correct for the English language, but would be incorrect in the French language. Likewise, saying "awwstralia/ostralia" in Britain or "aahstraliya" in the US is, maybe not incorrect, but non-standard, for us, but entirely correct for them. This doesn't take away from the argument that there are many pronunciations of English that are acceptable (New Zealand, Canada, Southern USA, Northern England, Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, to name a few) so to save the complexity and bother merely listing the native pronunciation for an article about the country is the most simple. However, according to Aeusoes1, the additional non-Australian pronunciation he included covers both US and UK English, which form a very, very large proportion of English speakers outside of Australia, so I can't see that the inclusion of one more pronunciation to cover both of these dialects poses a problem or unnecessary complication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris doesn't count. It's a different language. On the broader matter, I'll admit now to being torn. I'm normally of the view that common usage makes correct usage, which would mean that the way American pronounce a word is correct for Americans. But I just can't escape the fact that nobody from the place the word comes from, speaking the same language, says it that way, or, it would seem, has ever said it that way. Someone in the US must have got it wrong at some stage, and everyone else copied the mistake. I can't convince myself that copying a mistake makes it right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A better example is New Orleans, where the local pronunciation is different from the non-local pronunciation(s) in ways that go beyond the normal regular differences in accent (that is, differences in incidence). The simplest justification of not completely ignoring non-local pronunciations is that place names are still talked about by non-locals. This is why we try to accommodate multiple dialects in English dialects in out transcriptions, even in place names like New York or Southwark.

Considering the spelling of Australia, it's more likely that the non-local pronunciation reflects a more recent reduction of the first vowel than that the word was pronounced as it is in the region and others have come to pronounce it incorrectly through spelling pronunciation. Characterizing either of these as "copying a mistake" is arbitrarily drawing the line in the sand of language change. Couldn't we say that of all changes between Proto-Indo-European and now? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding Young-Earth dates to article

Consensus against CMD (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposed change in the article entails expanding the range in the list of estimates to include a date as early as c. 6000 years ago, even though that date is connected to the politically incorrect view of a young earth (not MY view). I have about 100 more citations (70 percent by authors with earned doctorates) to support my little edit to make the bibliographical reference to the latitude of variation in date more accurate. Now before I post them, tell me: Is anyone so bigoted that he has already decided to find some way to object, no matter what citations I post, regardless of when they were published (despite the pretense that Morris is to be ignored because published in 1961), regardless of the academic credentials of the authors? Are you already pre-judged? (EnochBethany (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)) If they're are not your views then why are you so tenacious and persistent in attempting to advance these views in this article and many others, it's not directly pertinent to the issue here but if they are then accept it, we're not as intolerant as you attempt to portray us as... Feel free to list your citations here to allow your peers to assess them before citing it in the actual article, if these sources are rejected on the basis of "bigotry" then you may appeal it at the reliable source noticeboard where third party editors from many cultural and religious background will assess your sources. Directly citing those sources of yours will simply result in a nasty edit war which we are all trying to avoid. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) EnochBethany, I have followed the discussion below, but I am still not clear on how/why you feel your edit will improve the article? As an aside, I notice there is a WP article on the work you wished to cite here. This notes the polarising impact/controversial aspects of the book, which might have alerted you to the likely response to its inclusion as a source elsewhere on wikipedia - like this page. My view is you need to gain very clear consensus here before proceeding. Nickm57 (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Lay off THE SHOUTING and the accusations of bigotry, please. And no, changing "at least 40,000 years" to "at least 6000 years" would not be a "little edit", it's a stonking huge one. If you intend to post citations, be aware that readers are likely to apply the following filters: Are those "earned doctorates" in a relevant field? In my experience, YECs really love the aura of respectability that accompanies any sort of vaguely science-y tertiary qualification, and aren't at all fussy about whether their pet doctors are working in anything resembling their area of expertise. Was the cited material published in a mainstream peer-reviewed publication (edit: in a relevant field)? How many distinct authors are represented by those citations after applying the previous two filters? --GenericBob (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) For something that isn't your POV, you're going to great extremes to include it in the article. Okay, you have 100 sources. Where are these 100 sources? Could you include them, allow them to be assessed by the community, and then allow everyone to come to a consensus? I also sorta agree with GenericBob that changing the ~40 000 years ago estimate to include ~6000 years ago is a very big change that not only affects this article but a whole series of others (including, say, Canada, United States, New Zealand, Prehistory in Australia...). Comics (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC) this is influenced solely by the editors clear religious beliefs - look at the rest of his contribs. He says on Talk:Angel that God (his use of upper case) and the Bible are all powerful and never wrong or contradictory. Below it was suggested that he take his case away from this page and seek to establish a consensus for a Wikipedia-wide consensus to include young earth pov as a standard across Wikipedia in the 1000s of articles like this one. Why is picking in this page alone? What about all those 1000s of other articles that mention anything that happened more than 6000 years old? Every dinosaur species article just for starters. The editor has ignored the consensus below to close the discussion, he has ignored the suggestion to seek a broader consensus. Simply reopening it here is purely disruptive and I would be happy at this point to see an administrator step in. At the very least, the editor needs to read and consider WP:DEADHORSE. --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) The editor shows particularly poor form in his leading question that should anyone now disagree they are bigots. As someone else has already pointed out. For what it's worth, I'm more than happy for Enoch to think I'm a bigot, as I really don't hold much respect for the positions he is espousing. Bigotry and all the other labels below included. --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE is probably very appropriate here. I just went on JSTOR to try and find articles that support the earlier date (48ka) (which was hard to do; still not 100% used to finding stuff on JSTOR). Google searches pop up wikipedia, kid sites... y'know. Proper content exists, though. I'm prefectly willing to let Enoch continue their argument or for someone to bring in an admin. *shrug* I'd personally like to think I've been reasonable in handling this. Comics (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'm also a little puzzled as to why an editor from the USA (unless there are two "Enoch Bethany"s out there?) has chosen to flog this particular horse on Talk:Australia rather than at any of the equivalent US articles. --GenericBob (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC) So are American editors supposed to limit themselves to US-centric articles? That person visited this article and saw something they wanted changed (I won't wade into the motive and brainpower involved). What possible difference could it make that the person is from the US? Incidentally, the "equivalent US article[]" (there is only one, called United States) has said there were Indians there "many thousands of years" for a long time, and said merely "thousands of years" before that. So EB presumably feels no need to quibble over what "many" means. As for this article, there might be a better way of handling this situation than prolonging it by finding new and more fun ways to offend the single editor who thinks we should include the Young Earth flummery. -Rrius (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe it's just puzzlement that, of all the countries available to edit, they stumbled upon the Australia article and chose to focus so much of their time advocating a change here. The US article also seems to state a specific, but wider, estimate in the section "History", which I believe corresponds with the section under debate at this article. I'm not advocating abuse of the editor and think they should share their opinion, but there was already a heated discussion about whether or not to change the standing statement and a consensus that it didn't add to the article at best and promoted fringe views at its extreme. Comics (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I neither understand why it is so puzzling that an American would take an interest in this article nor why you thought it was a good idea to express that puzzlement when it could so easily be taken to mean that Americans don't belong here. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Rius, the point is that it seems most unusual that this editor is determined to insert the young earth pov into this article in particular. THere must be many thousands of articles in wikipedia that refer to timeframes beyond 6,000 years ago (or thereabouts) and are thus problematic for the young earth pov. So why this one? It has been suggested to the editor that he seek to establish a broader consensus - i.e., not on this page - to establish a wikipedia-wide standard to incorporate young earth pov in all articles where timeframes of greater than 6,000 years ago. As for anyone saying Americans shouldn't edit here, you've just made that up (i suggest a deliberate misinterpretation to obfuscate the issue). I suggest you go no further down that path - it's a furphy, a deliberate red herring to obfuscate the actual issue. A lot of time has been devoted to these two sections already, why spend more time a new irrelevant rabbit warren? And why are you so quick to defend the young earth pov inserter against apparent WP:CIVIL - why not call him up on his numerous and so far ongoing issues with understanding WP:CIVIL? --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) There is a good reason for the young earth creationists to target this particular article. Of all the aboriginal histories around the world, this goes back the longest, and is therefore the greatest challenge to their dogma. And that's what we must perpetually challenge. Dogma. Excellent, very independent sources would be required to agree to this proposal. I sincerely doubt if any exist. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC) By "very independent" I presume you mean not supported by any religious influence what so ever. --Merbabu (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Probably, although I liked the suggestion by someone earlier that Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime stories would have a greater claim to being a valid source here than American Creationist material. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Rrius, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. At no point did I suggest that US editors should be banned for editing Australian articles - if Americans are interested in Australian subjects, that's a good thing and I welcome their input. But the issue EnochBethany has raised is not a particularly Australian issue; either the whole Earth was magicked into existence 6000 years ago or none of it was. As for the statement that the only equivalent US article is United States, I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by "equivalent": i.e. one that discusses dates of first settlement. On a quick search, I can find at least six that discuss dates of first settlement for North America: United States: contrary to your claim that it merely says "many thousands of years", it is actually quite explicit in dating migrations to "between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago". History of the United States and Pre-Columbian era make similar claims. Native Americans in the United States: "According to the most generally accepted theory of the settlement of the Americas, migrations of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia... The latest this migration could have taken place is 12,000 years ago". Settlement of the Americas: "The archeological evidence suggests that the Paleo-Indians' first "widespread" habitation of America occurred during the end of the last glacial period or, more specifically, what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,500–13,000 years ago." Paleo-Indians: "Evidence suggests big-game hunters crossed the Bering Strait from Asia (Eurasia) into North America over a land and ice bridge (Beringia), that existed between 45,000 BCE–12,000 BCE (47,000 – 14,000 years ago)... From 16,500 BCE – 13,500 BCE (18,500 – 15,500 years ago), ice-free corridors developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America." So I repeat: it strikes me as curious that a US-based editor - one whose edit history doesn't suggest any other interest in Australian topics that I can see - should have chosen this page as a place to raise an issue that could just as easily have been raised on any of those equivalent US articles, or on the RS noticeboard. If EB wants to make a general argument about the inclusion of YEC claims in prehistorical material, Talk:Australia is an odd place to do it. --GenericBob (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) But it's not just articles covering human settlement. Off the top of my head, we'd also need to do a POV cheque on: Asiaceratops, Dinilysia, and Tyrannosaurus. Again, why just this article? --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I reverted Merbabu's change to reversion of the section heading per WP:TPO, as it is no more descriptive of what is being discussed that it was previously. Using "bigotry" in the header could be construed as a personal attack, particularly with your edit summary claiming it "shows the nature of the editor". I♦A 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) My "change" to the heading was merely a reinstatement of Enoch's own original heading. I reinstated it incorrectly thinking another editor had changed it to tone down its inflammatory nature. However, it's since been pointed out to me that ENoch himself changed his own heading. The point remains - it is Enoch "SHOUTING" and labelling those "bigots" who disagree with his proposal. If there was a personal attack, then it was Enoch, albeit one that he did come back and clean up. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) No, you were right the first time: EB created the section with the "NPOV BIGOTRY" title. I was the one who changed that title because I thought EB's title was inflammatory and unlikely to help resolve this to anybody's satisfaction. While I agree that the title does exemplify EB's approach to this issue, IMHO we already have enough other examples that we don't need to keep this one.--GenericBob (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Ha ha, I was only right by assuming. The diffs don't lie and I didn't check them. lol --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Apologies for not further investigating who made the edit first. I pretty much agree with GenericBob's last point. I♦A 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) EnochBethany, based on the previous discussion there's obviously no support to add material claiming that the human habitation of Australia began 6000 years ago on the grounds that this is a fringe view. As such, if you add any such material to this article, it's going to get removed very quickly and you're likely to end up being blocked from editing for POV pushing against consensus. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC) This talkpage is probably not the best place to discuss proposed changes in regards to dating certain articles. As other editors above have already noted, changes in what is considered a reputable source for dating prehistory, would affect a very large number of articles. I would suggest EnochBethany takes this to a broader forum such as WikiProject Time or something in the MOS, if they think that such an argument is worth pursuing and would result in a different outcome to this discussion. I♦A 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed. However, it is Enoch that has re-opened the discussion here without an acknowledgement of that suggestion, even if to disagree with it. Time to close this one too? --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'd say yes, time to close this as well. I doubt this would be the end, though. Comics (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Absolutely close, with strong emphasis given to EB on taking it elsewhere, if at all. I♦A 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'm curious as to whether the purported "100 more citations" are citations to sources that actually make directly relevant assertions about the date of human colonization of Australia. If these sources merely make assertions about the age of the earth, without addressing the actual point at hand, then the proposal to include them as relevant could be rejected on grounds of novel synthesis alone. Hesperian 03:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I had assumed that EB meant he had 100 sources specifically on human settlement of Australia being only 6000 years old (and indeed, I didn’t believe it). If however he is saying his sources are only general – ie, they don’t mention Australian settlement – and he is thus synthesising that human settlement in Australia is only 6,000 years old, he definitely has no case. But aren’t we closing this again already? --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Why are we still discussing this. I thought the matter was already closed in the archive listed above. Can we close it once and for all. Is there any moderator decree that can prevent any new additions to this arguement and prevent us having to respond to any more nonsense.--Dmol (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I note that EB has not commented in 24 hours, but has been on other pages. Maybe even he has moved on. --Merbabu (talk)| To address both who responded to me, I said that the words could be interpreted as saying Americans shouldn't edit here, not that it was intended that way. The point is that referring to the person's national origin was needlessly provocative. As for the body of United States being more detailed, so what? I seriously doubt this particular editor would have read that far. Americans of a certain political and religious bent figure they know everything about their country without actually reading anything. In any event, I concur with the suggestion that we close this discussion (and archive it in a few days). -Rrius (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Word

Under the "Government" section there is a missing word as can be seen here:

"There are two major political groups that usually form government, federally and in the states:"

It should read:

"There are two major political groups that usually form the government, federally and in the states:"

I would fix it myself, but the article is protected from non-membership edits.

66.227.150.150 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The phrase "to form government" is well-established and is in fact the customary usage. There is an element of ambiguity about the phrase "the government" which makes your suggestion awkward. Do we mean the machinery of government, down to clerks and policemen? Do we mean the departments of government? Do we mean the government party, such as all members of the Federal ALP, or do we mean government in the strict constitutional sense, composed of those ministers of state appointed by the Governor-General? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Living in a presidential system, I was rather unaware that was a customary usage. It just sounds strange to me fluency-wise. Would, "to form a government" work? If not, I'll just take note for the future. Thanks for clearing that up, though.

66.227.150.150 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Skyring/Pete is right. By far the most common usage in Australia is the form of words that is already there. Both your proposals really have a slightly different meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"two groups forming a/the government" implies a Coalition government - which is a different thing. Perhaps the article might be more accurate if it said "two groups ... form parliament..." - where "parliament" comprises the government (eg currently Labor) and the opposition (Lib/Nat coalition). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol - I agree with HiLo that the existing text is grammatically correct, however, Mitch Ames is right in saying it's factually incorrect. Ie, it does imply (incorrectly) that the two parties form a Coalition government. But Mitch's proposal that they form Parliament is not the answer as there are other parties and independents, and more importantly it misses the actual point. Ie, that one of the two largest parties have always formed government: either Labor or the Liberal-National Party Coalition. How to express that better? --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups"? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This question - over the wording - has always bugged me. We so often have a Prime Minister leading a minority party. As we do now, or as we generally do when the Liberals are second behind Labor but have the Nationals to prop them up. And there's at least one time where government was supplied by the third most numerous party. Chris Watson's Labour Party in 1904 had fewer seats (23) than Deakin's Protectionists (26) or Reid's Free Traders (24). Three minors held a kind of balance of power, but there were no formal coalitions. Gillard thinks she's got it tough now, but those three guys were taking turns being PM and unable to get anything contentious through! How do we find wording that is clear, but also accurate for every situation? Legend's wording above is accurate, but I don't know if Americans will follow it. Government there doesn't rest on numbers in Congress. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While I know the term "government" is a common term to describe the executive branch in parliamentary systems, maybe a solution could be, "There are two major political groups, the Labor Party and the Nationals, that usually form the cabinet, sometimes with support from smaller parties, both in the states and federally." You could even say something like, "the ministers usually come from and are supported by..." or, taking on Legend's idea, "A government is usually formed by one of two major political groups." Just a thought. 66.227.150.150 (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Truss. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Aussielegend's suggestion "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups" to which I would add ", the Labor party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition.". --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article already contains something like that, making the wording "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups, federally and in the states: the Australian Labor Party, and the Coalition which is a formal grouping of the Liberal Party and its minor partner, the National Party." --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"...a formal grouping of several conservative (centre-right?) parties" (from AussieLegend) might be better, to account for all the partners in the coalition. I♦A 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to this point. But it still needs qualification when talking about state-level politics; Victoria and NSW are the only two states where a formal Liberal Party-National Party coalition competes for state government. In Qld, Liberals and Nationals have merged into a single party; in NT, they always were. In WA and SA the Nats are habitually but not formally allied with the Liberals (not that the SA Nats are a major force), and in Tas and ACT the Nats don't run.

Taking AL and IA's wording as a starting point, what about something like this? "Federal government is usually formed by one of two major political groups: the Australian Labor Party, or the Coalition, a formal grouping of the Liberal, National, and related parties. State-level politics are dominated by similar groups, although the exact relationship between Liberal and National parties varies by state." ("Liberal and National parties" here including CLP and LNP.) --GenericBob (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Should I mention that right now the federal government is made up of what in most of the rest of the world would be described as a coalition between the Labor Party and the Greens, if that word wasn't anathema to the ALP? Or would that complicate things too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I'm thinking that overthrowing the government and becoming dictator might ease the confusion at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a little bewildered in the aftermath of last election when certain members of the Coalition started suggesting that it would be somehow unnatural for the ALP to do deals with another party to make up the numbers. I approve of AL's suggestion, and would like to add that as long as we're reforming politics, we ought to make the ALP fix the spelling of their name, and get the Liberals to change to something less likely to confuse the rest of the world :-) --GenericBob (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, it isn't a coalition in any real sense. There are no Greens ministers, there are no joint party meetings. etc. What unites them is common contempt for the Lib/Nats. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the question, shall we go with Aussie Legend's suggestion? --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Largest ethnic minority"

Re. this statement:

"Asian Australians make up by far the largest ethnic minority, at 12% of the population.SMH source ABS source"

SMH source states: "From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent." ABS source is the 2005 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural & Ethnic Groups.

I removed the words "make up by far the largest ethnic minority" because nothing in the SMH article seemed to support the "largest" claim. The words were re-added along with the second source, but I still don't see where either source states that this is the largest ethnic minority - or even that it's meaningful to describe "Asian-Australian" (covering everything from Japanese to Kazakh to Tamil) as a single "ethnic minority". ASCCEG don't have a single "Asian" category; even at the top level of "broad group", it lists "South-East Asian", "North-East Asian", and "Southern and Central Asian" as separate groups.

(BTW, the version of ASCCEG linked is outdated - see here for 2011 version. I don't think the changes have much bearing on this issue, but if we're going to cite it we should cite the one applicable to the 2011 Census. Unfortunately the ABS search engine has a bad habit of turning up outdated versions of stuff.) --GenericBob (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to take out the 'largest ethnic minority' and leave it at just the 12% then go ahead. I included it because most other articles on Anglosphere Western nations have some info on broad ethnic categories and I included Asian Australians as clearly they are the only significant ethnic minority in Australia in terms of numbers (the great bulk being East Asian of course). However if you think that the figures based on ancestry (ie 35% English, 10% Irish, 5% Chinese, etc (from memory)) that are given already in that section then by all means remove the largest ethnic minority sentence. I feel that mentioning that Asian Australians, which have their own wiki article and correspond to Asian Canadians, Asian Americans, etc, which receive a mention in their respective articles - as with "African Americans" (who could come from anywhere in Africa, from Morocco to Zimbabwe) is warranted however, along with the fact that they make up 12% of the population, given that "Indigenous Australians" get a significant mention despite being a far, far smaller group. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave in the mention that 12% of Australians have Asian ancestry, but anything like "only significant ethnic minority" would need to be based in a solid definition of "ethnic minority". Arguably, Irish-Australians are an ethnic minority; since around 2% of Australians note Indian ancestry (classified under "Southern and Central Asian"), it's not clear that those of East Asian ancestry would outnumber the Irish.

Note that while African Americans might have very disparate genetic origins, the last two hundred years of history (and US cultural norms) have created a strong group identity in a way that doesn't apply to Asian Australians. --GenericBob (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some would say the group identity is ridiculously strong; a white American born in Africa can't be an African-American but a black american who has never been outside the US can be. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, "African American" is one of a great many compounds which don't mean the same thing as the literal sum of their parts. See also "West Indian", "Pennsylvania Dutch", and let's not forget my Black Irish relatives who'd have been legally classified as "white people" but are actually varying shades of pink. That's the English language for you. --GenericBob (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Update athletics

Australian cyclist Cadel Evans should be added as the winner of the 2011 Le Tour de FranceAudioantique (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

edit request

the first link in the external links doesnt have a star by it but the rest do

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)

More attention needed on the 'l'

The dropping of the 'l' should not be dismissed as informal. I have heard several excerpts recently of reasonably formal speeches by Australian politicians, and in every case the 'l' was not pronounced. It should probably be acknowledged as at least as a major variety of standard Australian pronunciation of the name. Whenever I have paid attention to Aussie pronunciation, the 'l' is not there. Whether this is just a New South Wales feature or more widely spread, I don't know.

On the other hand, I must respectfully disagree with HiLo48's contention that only local pronunciations should be considered, though they should be given due weight. I don't use the French pronunciation of 'France' when I'm speaking English; by the same token I don't use an Australian pronunciation of 'Australia' when I'm speaking my usual New Zealand English. No doubt all Irish pronounce the 'r' in 'Ireland', but the form that drops the 'r', and pronounces 'Ire-' as a triphthong is standard southern British, and in very frequent use.

It's also worth considering how an Australian would prefer to see the name represented in the context of a Wikipedia article. However they normally pronounce the name, they may prefer a formal version in print.

Koro Neil (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How the French say France is not a valid comparison. They speak a different language. Among English speakers, I strongly believe we should always respect pronunciation by citizens of a country as the primary form. If some variations are common, maybe they could crack a mention, but common cannot come to mean that the US pronunciation of everything dominates simply because there's a lot of Americans. HiLo48 (talk)

Politicians are not elected for their skills with the language, so the fact that they sometimes omit the 'l' is of no more import than journalists or dentists or taxidermists sometimes omitting the 'l'. But you're right - Pauline Hanson and Anthony Albanese would be two classic examples. On the other hand, John Howard and Phillip Ruddock would rather have cut their own heads off than say it without the 'l'.

The thing is: Does any parent or teacher ever advocate the dropping of the 'l' as a good thing to do? I'd be very surprised. How they actually say it when they're not thinking about it may be different. But is it the job of an encyclopedia to record every possible variation of the pronunciation of a word, as actually encountered in practice? Where would it ever end? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

I noticed a recent minor dispute between User:Phung Wilson and others over the pronunciation of Australia. Looking into the article history, I found this edit where User:Saruman-the-white removed two additional pronunciations. Saruman's justification, elaborated here shows the belief that the three pronunciations indicated Australian, British and American norms, respectively and that the single transcription at Canada serves as a guide to how to deal with variable pronunciations across regions.

Given the discussion above and in the archives, here are my two cents. Our guide at WP:IPA for English is an attempt to provide one transcription for any given English word that accounts for dialectal variation. When pronunciations vary based on regular, accentual differences (such as the different pronunciations of the vowel in pay, which are phonetically different but phonemically identical, or the phonemic distinction between the vowels of cot and caught, which we encode for even though not all accents make such a distinction), our transcription system is such that we need only one transcription. Excessive parsing of regional variation goes against the point of having one transcription system for multiple dialects (as explained at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English), but there are instances where there is a difference in "incidence." That is to say, the different pronunciation is not due to a regular sound change that we encode for in our transcription system. It could be a tomayto/tomahto thing (that is, the difference is not regular) or it could be like the vowel of bath (that is, the change is regular, but we don't encode for it); either way, when the system can't account for the variation, it's appropriate to show multiple pronunciations.

It does seem to be the case that there is variation in how Australia is pronounced (namely, with the first vowel); this variation goes beyond that found in other words, like Canada and can't be accounted for in the system laid out at WP:IPA for English. I didn't see this conversation before I reintroduced one of the deleted pronunciations, as well as the citation attached to it (though, per this edit, I'm not so sure that the source backs up both pronunciations), so I hope I'm not unnecessarily fanning flames of contention. I've also labeled one of the terms as "local" in a fashion paralleling that of New Orleans.

I'm not particularly wedded to how I've placed the two pronunciations; if there is more variation than this or if people feel like more explanation is necessary, an explanatory footnote may be in order, rather than cluttering up the lede. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You have put back in a British RP pronunciation ("ostralia/awstralia") and left in the General Australian pronunciation ("estralia/ustralia") but not included the General American pronunciation ("ahhstralia"). This is very inconsistent. You could either follow the Canadian precedent and use only the Maquarie Dictionary Australian pronunciation, or include the pronunciations from ALL major native dialects of English - not merely Australian and British RP, but also General American (which has vastly more speakers than British RP, by the way). As it is, it is now highly arbitrary, with understandably the pronunciation of the native country (Australia) and also one of the other two major English varieties but not the other. Where is the logic in this? Include all three or just include the Australian pronunciation. As such I've removed the British RP pronunciation and just left the General Australian one for now, cited from the Macquarie Dictionary. If you want to include foreign pronunciations in future it would be only logical to include both General American and British RP.Saruman-the-white (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to sound condescending, but it would be helpful if you respond to my actual points so that I feel sure that you have read and understood them and so we can have dialogue, rather than talk over each other. You should probably also take a close look at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English, which it seems you don't understand. I didn't put a "British" pronunciation but rather a diaphonemic one that encodes for multiple dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You do not sound condescending. Even if the pronunciation you gave first does work when pronounced in both British and American English (but as previously acknowledged, not Australian), the fact remains that you put this pronunciation first, before the Australian one, which you labelled as "locally" (which does indeed sound somewhat condescending) as this pronunciation is used not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. As such, if two pronunciations are needed to all dialects with one IPA pronunciation, the Australian one should go first, just as "Australian English is used throughout this article" (see note on article), because Australia is the topic of the article. There is probably no need for the "locally", which when used to refer to a whole country, or a whole continent in the case of Australia, does not sound entirely natural. The fact that this pronunciation also exists in New Zealand, SIngapore and Malaysia (so, over the continents of Australia, Oceanis and Asia) "locally" certainly doesn't seem applicable. If these are the only two pronunciations needed for IPA in accordance with what you said before then they should maybe just both be listed normally with the one used in Aust. first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems fair. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see no pronunciation guide. Really, how useful is it? (although at least here we don't have the issue of 2 or three lines of multiple names, and translations before we even define the topic - why, for example, are people sticking in Chinese character translations in so many leads now???? but i digress...) And the question of which pronunciations get included and which don't, for me is even more ridiculous. Like most other articles, there are more important issues at hand. But that's just my opinion and I accept that it sits outside the apparent Wikipedia way. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY pronunciation that should be listed is the local one. It's really the only correct one. There will always be many others, but as soon as we include one or more of those, others will whinge about their incorrect pronunciation being excluded. Sadly, it often again leads to "There's a lot of us Americans. The way we get it wrong MUST be mentioned." Safest approach? Include none of them. Won't offend anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Having a clear and consistent policy helps prevent edit warring. The issue of local vs. general has, in the past, gotten especially tendentious. It would be false to say that the "local" pronunciation is the only correct one in this case. There are regional standards so that the non-"local" pronunciation is, for example indicated in a number of dictionaries. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to see the logic that convinces me that, for a place with a unique name, the pronunciation used by people who've never even been there can be considered correct. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not just places. I'm still looking for one of those mythical "eemoos" that the Americans talk about. Maybe they live in Brisbayne. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Or Mel-borrrn. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a Melbourne in the USA, in Florida. The article suggests that the vowel part of the second syllable rhymes with the er in finger. That's not how Americans tend to pronounce Australia's Melbourne. And the interesting part is that Florida's Melbourne "was named Melbourne in honor of its first postmaster, Cornthwaite John Hector, an Englishman who had spent much of his life in Melbourne, Australia." Is this the only American place named after an Australian place? HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there'd be a few. According to its article, Brisbane, California is most likely named for Brisbane, Australia. I agree that only the local pron. should be included because there are just so many accents of English, however, to say that the British or American pronunciations are incorrect because those people "have never been here" is ridiculous. It discredits the argument. We in English pronounce "Paris" with the "s" on the end rather than "Paree" as the French do, but I don't see anyone arguing that this pronunciation is incorrect. It is correct for the English language, but would be incorrect in the French language. Likewise, saying "awwstralia/ostralia" in Britain or "aahstraliya" in the US is, maybe not incorrect, but non-standard, for us, but entirely correct for them. This doesn't take away from the argument that there are many pronunciations of English that are acceptable (New Zealand, Canada, Southern USA, Northern England, Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, to name a few) so to save the complexity and bother merely listing the native pronunciation for an article about the country is the most simple. However, according to Aeusoes1, the additional non-Australian pronunciation he included covers both US and UK English, which form a very, very large proportion of English speakers outside of Australia, so I can't see that the inclusion of one more pronunciation to cover both of these dialects poses a problem or unnecessary complication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris doesn't count. It's a different language. On the broader matter, I'll admit now to being torn. I'm normally of the view that common usage makes correct usage, which would mean that the way American pronounce a word is correct for Americans. But I just can't escape the fact that nobody from the place the word comes from, speaking the same language, says it that way, or, it would seem, has ever said it that way. Someone in the US must have got it wrong at some stage, and everyone else copied the mistake. I can't convince myself that copying a mistake makes it right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A better example is New Orleans, where the local pronunciation is different from the non-local pronunciation(s) in ways that go beyond the normal regular differences in accent (that is, differences in incidence). The simplest justification of not completely ignoring non-local pronunciations is that place names are still talked about by non-locals. This is why we try to accommodate multiple dialects in English dialects in out transcriptions, even in place names like New York or Southwark.

Considering the spelling of Australia, it's more likely that the non-local pronunciation reflects a more recent reduction of the first vowel than that the word was pronounced as it is in the region and others have come to pronounce it incorrectly through spelling pronunciation. Characterizing either of these as "copying a mistake" is arbitrarily drawing the line in the sand of language change. Couldn't we say that of all changes between Proto-Indo-European and now? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding Young-Earth dates to article

Consensus against CMD (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposed change in the article entails expanding the range in the list of estimates to include a date as early as c. 6000 years ago, even though that date is connected to the politically incorrect view of a young earth (not MY view). I have about 100 more citations (70 percent by authors with earned doctorates) to support my little edit to make the bibliographical reference to the latitude of variation in date more accurate. Now before I post them, tell me: Is anyone so bigoted that he has already decided to find some way to object, no matter what citations I post, regardless of when they were published (despite the pretense that Morris is to be ignored because published in 1961), regardless of the academic credentials of the authors? Are you already pre-judged? (EnochBethany (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)) If they're are not your views then why are you so tenacious and persistent in attempting to advance these views in this article and many others, it's not directly pertinent to the issue here but if they are then accept it, we're not as intolerant as you attempt to portray us as... Feel free to list your citations here to allow your peers to assess them before citing it in the actual article, if these sources are rejected on the basis of "bigotry" then you may appeal it at the reliable source noticeboard where third party editors from many cultural and religious background will assess your sources. Directly citing those sources of yours will simply result in a nasty edit war which we are all trying to avoid. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) EnochBethany, I have followed the discussion below, but I am still not clear on how/why you feel your edit will improve the article? As an aside, I notice there is a WP article on the work you wished to cite here. This notes the polarising impact/controversial aspects of the book, which might have alerted you to the likely response to its inclusion as a source elsewhere on wikipedia - like this page. My view is you need to gain very clear consensus here before proceeding. Nickm57 (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Lay off THE SHOUTING and the accusations of bigotry, please. And no, changing "at least 40,000 years" to "at least 6000 years" would not be a "little edit", it's a stonking huge one. If you intend to post citations, be aware that readers are likely to apply the following filters: Are those "earned doctorates" in a relevant field? In my experience, YECs really love the aura of respectability that accompanies any sort of vaguely science-y tertiary qualification, and aren't at all fussy about whether their pet doctors are working in anything resembling their area of expertise. Was the cited material published in a mainstream peer-reviewed publication (edit: in a relevant field)? How many distinct authors are represented by those citations after applying the previous two filters? --GenericBob (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC) For something that isn't your POV, you're going to great extremes to include it in the article. Okay, you have 100 sources. Where are these 100 sources? Could you include them, allow them to be assessed by the community, and then allow everyone to come to a consensus? I also sorta agree with GenericBob that changing the ~40 000 years ago estimate to include ~6000 years ago is a very big change that not only affects this article but a whole series of others (including, say, Canada, United States, New Zealand, Prehistory in Australia...). Comics (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC) this is influenced solely by the editors clear religious beliefs - look at the rest of his contribs. He says on Talk:Angel that God (his use of upper case) and the Bible are all powerful and never wrong or contradictory. Below it was suggested that he take his case away from this page and seek to establish a consensus for a Wikipedia-wide consensus to include young earth pov as a standard across Wikipedia in the 1000s of articles like this one. Why is picking in this page alone? What about all those 1000s of other articles that mention anything that happened more than 6000 years old? Every dinosaur species article just for starters. The editor has ignored the consensus below to close the discussion, he has ignored the suggestion to seek a broader consensus. Simply reopening it here is purely disruptive and I would be happy at this point to see an administrator step in. At the very least, the editor needs to read and consider WP:DEADHORSE. --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) The editor shows particularly poor form in his leading question that should anyone now disagree they are bigots. As someone else has already pointed out. For what it's worth, I'm more than happy for Enoch to think I'm a bigot, as I really don't hold much respect for the positions he is espousing. Bigotry and all the other labels below included. --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE is probably very appropriate here. I just went on JSTOR to try and find articles that support the earlier date (48ka) (which was hard to do; still not 100% used to finding stuff on JSTOR). Google searches pop up wikipedia, kid sites... y'know. Proper content exists, though. I'm prefectly willing to let Enoch continue their argument or for someone to bring in an admin. *shrug* I'd personally like to think I've been reasonable in handling this. Comics (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'm also a little puzzled as to why an editor from the USA (unless there are two "Enoch Bethany"s out there?) has chosen to flog this particular horse on Talk:Australia rather than at any of the equivalent US articles. --GenericBob (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC) So are American editors supposed to limit themselves to US-centric articles? That person visited this article and saw something they wanted changed (I won't wade into the motive and brainpower involved). What possible difference could it make that the person is from the US? Incidentally, the "equivalent US article[]" (there is only one, called United States) has said there were Indians there "many thousands of years" for a long time, and said merely "thousands of years" before that. So EB presumably feels no need to quibble over what "many" means. As for this article, there might be a better way of handling this situation than prolonging it by finding new and more fun ways to offend the single editor who thinks we should include the Young Earth flummery. -Rrius (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Maybe it's just puzzlement that, of all the countries available to edit, they stumbled upon the Australia article and chose to focus so much of their time advocating a change here. The US article also seems to state a specific, but wider, estimate in the section "History", which I believe corresponds with the section under debate at this article. I'm not advocating abuse of the editor and think they should share their opinion, but there was already a heated discussion about whether or not to change the standing statement and a consensus that it didn't add to the article at best and promoted fringe views at its extreme. Comics (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I neither understand why it is so puzzling that an American would take an interest in this article nor why you thought it was a good idea to express that puzzlement when it could so easily be taken to mean that Americans don't belong here. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Rius, the point is that it seems most unusual that this editor is determined to insert the young earth pov into this article in particular. THere must be many thousands of articles in wikipedia that refer to timeframes beyond 6,000 years ago (or thereabouts) and are thus problematic for the young earth pov. So why this one? It has been suggested to the editor that he seek to establish a broader consensus - i.e., not on this page - to establish a wikipedia-wide standard to incorporate young earth pov in all articles where timeframes of greater than 6,000 years ago. As for anyone saying Americans shouldn't edit here, you've just made that up (i suggest a deliberate misinterpretation to obfuscate the issue). I suggest you go no further down that path - it's a furphy, a deliberate red herring to obfuscate the actual issue. A lot of time has been devoted to these two sections already, why spend more time a new irrelevant rabbit warren? And why are you so quick to defend the young earth pov inserter against apparent WP:CIVIL - why not call him up on his numerous and so far ongoing issues with understanding WP:CIVIL? --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) There is a good reason for the young earth creationists to target this particular article. Of all the aboriginal histories around the world, this goes back the longest, and is therefore the greatest challenge to their dogma. And that's what we must perpetually challenge. Dogma. Excellent, very independent sources would be required to agree to this proposal. I sincerely doubt if any exist. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC) By "very independent" I presume you mean not supported by any religious influence what so ever. --Merbabu (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Probably, although I liked the suggestion by someone earlier that Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime stories would have a greater claim to being a valid source here than American Creationist material. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Rrius, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. At no point did I suggest that US editors should be banned for editing Australian articles - if Americans are interested in Australian subjects, that's a good thing and I welcome their input. But the issue EnochBethany has raised is not a particularly Australian issue; either the whole Earth was magicked into existence 6000 years ago or none of it was. As for the statement that the only equivalent US article is United States, I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by "equivalent": i.e. one that discusses dates of first settlement. On a quick search, I can find at least six that discuss dates of first settlement for North America: United States: contrary to your claim that it merely says "many thousands of years", it is actually quite explicit in dating migrations to "between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago". History of the United States and Pre-Columbian era make similar claims. Native Americans in the United States: "According to the most generally accepted theory of the settlement of the Americas, migrations of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia... The latest this migration could have taken place is 12,000 years ago". Settlement of the Americas: "The archeological evidence suggests that the Paleo-Indians' first "widespread" habitation of America occurred during the end of the last glacial period or, more specifically, what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,500–13,000 years ago." Paleo-Indians: "Evidence suggests big-game hunters crossed the Bering Strait from Asia (Eurasia) into North America over a land and ice bridge (Beringia), that existed between 45,000 BCE–12,000 BCE (47,000 – 14,000 years ago)... From 16,500 BCE – 13,500 BCE (18,500 – 15,500 years ago), ice-free corridors developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America." So I repeat: it strikes me as curious that a US-based editor - one whose edit history doesn't suggest any other interest in Australian topics that I can see - should have chosen this page as a place to raise an issue that could just as easily have been raised on any of those equivalent US articles, or on the RS noticeboard. If EB wants to make a general argument about the inclusion of YEC claims in prehistorical material, Talk:Australia is an odd place to do it. --GenericBob (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC) But it's not just articles covering human settlement. Off the top of my head, we'd also need to do a POV cheque on: Asiaceratops, Dinilysia, and Tyrannosaurus. Again, why just this article? --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I reverted Merbabu's change to reversion of the section heading per WP:TPO, as it is no more descriptive of what is being discussed that it was previously. Using "bigotry" in the header could be construed as a personal attack, particularly with your edit summary claiming it "shows the nature of the editor". I♦A 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) My "change" to the heading was merely a reinstatement of Enoch's own original heading. I reinstated it incorrectly thinking another editor had changed it to tone down its inflammatory nature. However, it's since been pointed out to me that ENoch himself changed his own heading. The point remains - it is Enoch "SHOUTING" and labelling those "bigots" who disagree with his proposal. If there was a personal attack, then it was Enoch, albeit one that he did come back and clean up. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) No, you were right the first time: EB created the section with the "NPOV BIGOTRY" title. I was the one who changed that title because I thought EB's title was inflammatory and unlikely to help resolve this to anybody's satisfaction. While I agree that the title does exemplify EB's approach to this issue, IMHO we already have enough other examples that we don't need to keep this one.--GenericBob (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Ha ha, I was only right by assuming. The diffs don't lie and I didn't check them. lol --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Apologies for not further investigating who made the edit first. I pretty much agree with GenericBob's last point. I♦A 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) EnochBethany, based on the previous discussion there's obviously no support to add material claiming that the human habitation of Australia began 6000 years ago on the grounds that this is a fringe view. As such, if you add any such material to this article, it's going to get removed very quickly and you're likely to end up being blocked from editing for POV pushing against consensus. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC) This talkpage is probably not the best place to discuss proposed changes in regards to dating certain articles. As other editors above have already noted, changes in what is considered a reputable source for dating prehistory, would affect a very large number of articles. I would suggest EnochBethany takes this to a broader forum such as WikiProject Time or something in the MOS, if they think that such an argument is worth pursuing and would result in a different outcome to this discussion. I♦A 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed. However, it is Enoch that has re-opened the discussion here without an acknowledgement of that suggestion, even if to disagree with it. Time to close this one too? --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'd say yes, time to close this as well. I doubt this would be the end, though. Comics (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Absolutely close, with strong emphasis given to EB on taking it elsewhere, if at all. I♦A 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I'm curious as to whether the purported "100 more citations" are citations to sources that actually make directly relevant assertions about the date of human colonization of Australia. If these sources merely make assertions about the age of the earth, without addressing the actual point at hand, then the proposal to include them as relevant could be rejected on grounds of novel synthesis alone. Hesperian 03:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I had assumed that EB meant he had 100 sources specifically on human settlement of Australia being only 6000 years old (and indeed, I didn’t believe it). If however he is saying his sources are only general – ie, they don’t mention Australian settlement – and he is thus synthesising that human settlement in Australia is only 6,000 years old, he definitely has no case. But aren’t we closing this again already? --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Why are we still discussing this. I thought the matter was already closed in the archive listed above. Can we close it once and for all. Is there any moderator decree that can prevent any new additions to this arguement and prevent us having to respond to any more nonsense.--Dmol (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I note that EB has not commented in 24 hours, but has been on other pages. Maybe even he has moved on. --Merbabu (talk)| To address both who responded to me, I said that the words could be interpreted as saying Americans shouldn't edit here, not that it was intended that way. The point is that referring to the person's national origin was needlessly provocative. As for the body of United States being more detailed, so what? I seriously doubt this particular editor would have read that far. Americans of a certain political and religious bent figure they know everything about their country without actually reading anything. In any event, I concur with the suggestion that we close this discussion (and archive it in a few days). -Rrius (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Word

Under the "Government" section there is a missing word as can be seen here:

"There are two major political groups that usually form government, federally and in the states:"

It should read:

"There are two major political groups that usually form the government, federally and in the states:"

I would fix it myself, but the article is protected from non-membership edits.

66.227.150.150 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The phrase "to form government" is well-established and is in fact the customary usage. There is an element of ambiguity about the phrase "the government" which makes your suggestion awkward. Do we mean the machinery of government, down to clerks and policemen? Do we mean the departments of government? Do we mean the government party, such as all members of the Federal ALP, or do we mean government in the strict constitutional sense, composed of those ministers of state appointed by the Governor-General? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Living in a presidential system, I was rather unaware that was a customary usage. It just sounds strange to me fluency-wise. Would, "to form a government" work? If not, I'll just take note for the future. Thanks for clearing that up, though.

66.227.150.150 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Skyring/Pete is right. By far the most common usage in Australia is the form of words that is already there. Both your proposals really have a slightly different meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"two groups forming a/the government" implies a Coalition government - which is a different thing. Perhaps the article might be more accurate if it said "two groups ... form parliament..." - where "parliament" comprises the government (eg currently Labor) and the opposition (Lib/Nat coalition). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol - I agree with HiLo that the existing text is grammatically correct, however, Mitch Ames is right in saying it's factually incorrect. Ie, it does imply (incorrectly) that the two parties form a Coalition government. But Mitch's proposal that they form Parliament is not the answer as there are other parties and independents, and more importantly it misses the actual point. Ie, that one of the two largest parties have always formed government: either Labor or the Liberal-National Party Coalition. How to express that better? --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups"? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) This question - over the wording - has always bugged me. We so often have a Prime Minister leading a minority party. As we do now, or as we generally do when the Liberals are second behind Labor but have the Nationals to prop them up. And there's at least one time where government was supplied by the third most numerous party. Chris Watson's Labour Party in 1904 had fewer seats (23) than Deakin's Protectionists (26) or Reid's Free Traders (24). Three minors held a kind of balance of power, but there were no formal coalitions. Gillard thinks she's got it tough now, but those three guys were taking turns being PM and unable to get anything contentious through! How do we find wording that is clear, but also accurate for every situation? Legend's wording above is accurate, but I don't know if Americans will follow it. Government there doesn't rest on numbers in Congress. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While I know the term "government" is a common term to describe the executive branch in parliamentary systems, maybe a solution could be, "There are two major political groups, the Labor Party and the Nationals, that usually form the cabinet, sometimes with support from smaller parties, both in the states and federally." You could even say something like, "the ministers usually come from and are supported by..." or, taking on Legend's idea, "A government is usually formed by one of two major political groups." Just a thought. 66.227.150.150 (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Truss. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like Aussielegend's suggestion "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups" to which I would add ", the Labor party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition.". --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article already contains something like that, making the wording "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups, federally and in the states: the Australian Labor Party, and the Coalition which is a formal grouping of the Liberal Party and its minor partner, the National Party." --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"...a formal grouping of several conservative (centre-right?) parties" (from AussieLegend) might be better, to account for all the partners in the coalition. I♦A 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to this point. But it still needs qualification when talking about state-level politics; Victoria and NSW are the only two states where a formal Liberal Party-National Party coalition competes for state government. In Qld, Liberals and Nationals have merged into a single party; in NT, they always were. In WA and SA the Nats are habitually but not formally allied with the Liberals (not that the SA Nats are a major force), and in Tas and ACT the Nats don't run.

Taking AL and IA's wording as a starting point, what about something like this? "Federal government is usually formed by one of two major political groups: the Australian Labor Party, or the Coalition, a formal grouping of the Liberal, National, and related parties. State-level politics are dominated by similar groups, although the exact relationship between Liberal and National parties varies by state." ("Liberal and National parties" here including CLP and LNP.) --GenericBob (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Should I mention that right now the federal government is made up of what in most of the rest of the world would be described as a coalition between the Labor Party and the Greens, if that word wasn't anathema to the ALP? Or would that complicate things too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

I'm thinking that overthrowing the government and becoming dictator might ease the confusion at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a little bewildered in the aftermath of last election when certain members of the Coalition started suggesting that it would be somehow unnatural for the ALP to do deals with another party to make up the numbers. I approve of AL's suggestion, and would like to add that as long as we're reforming politics, we ought to make the ALP fix the spelling of their name, and get the Liberals to change to something less likely to confuse the rest of the world :-) --GenericBob (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, it isn't a coalition in any real sense. There are no Greens ministers, there are no joint party meetings. etc. What unites them is common contempt for the Lib/Nats. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Back to the question, shall we go with Aussie Legend's suggestion? --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Largest ethnic minority"

Re. this statement:

"Asian Australians make up by far the largest ethnic minority, at 12% of the population.SMH source ABS source"

SMH source states: "From just 982,519 in 2001, the number of Asian-Australians has swollen to 2.4 million in 2011 - or from 5.5 per cent of us to 12 per cent." ABS source is the 2005 Australian Standard Classification of Cultural & Ethnic Groups.

I removed the words "make up by far the largest ethnic minority" because nothing in the SMH article seemed to support the "largest" claim. The words were re-added along with the second source, but I still don't see where either source states that this is the largest ethnic minority - or even that it's meaningful to describe "Asian-Australian" (covering everything from Japanese to Kazakh to Tamil) as a single "ethnic minority". ASCCEG don't have a single "Asian" category; even at the top level of "broad group", it lists "South-East Asian", "North-East Asian", and "Southern and Central Asian" as separate groups.

(BTW, the version of ASCCEG linked is outdated - see here for 2011 version. I don't think the changes have much bearing on this issue, but if we're going to cite it we should cite the one applicable to the 2011 Census. Unfortunately the ABS search engine has a bad habit of turning up outdated versions of stuff.) --GenericBob (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to take out the 'largest ethnic minority' and leave it at just the 12% then go ahead. I included it because most other articles on Anglosphere Western nations have some info on broad ethnic categories and I included Asian Australians as clearly they are the only significant ethnic minority in Australia in terms of numbers (the great bulk being East Asian of course). However if you think that the figures based on ancestry (ie 35% English, 10% Irish, 5% Chinese, etc (from memory)) that are given already in that section then by all means remove the largest ethnic minority sentence. I feel that mentioning that Asian Australians, which have their own wiki article and correspond to Asian Canadians, Asian Americans, etc, which receive a mention in their respective articles - as with "African Americans" (who could come from anywhere in Africa, from Morocco to Zimbabwe) is warranted however, along with the fact that they make up 12% of the population, given that "Indigenous Australians" get a significant mention despite being a far, far smaller group. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave in the mention that 12% of Australians have Asian ancestry, but anything like "only significant ethnic minority" would need to be based in a solid definition of "ethnic minority". Arguably, Irish-Australians are an ethnic minority; since around 2% of Australians note Indian ancestry (classified under "Southern and Central Asian"), it's not clear that those of East Asian ancestry would outnumber the Irish.

Note that while African Americans might have very disparate genetic origins, the last two hundred years of history (and US cultural norms) have created a strong group identity in a way that doesn't apply to Asian Australians. --GenericBob (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some would say the group identity is ridiculously strong; a white American born in Africa can't be an African-American but a black american who has never been outside the US can be. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, "African American" is one of a great many compounds which don't mean the same thing as the literal sum of their parts. See also "West Indian", "Pennsylvania Dutch", and let's not forget my Black Irish relatives who'd have been legally classified as "white people" but are actually varying shades of pink. That's the English language for you. --GenericBob (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Update athletics

Australian cyclist Cadel Evans should be added as the winner of the 2011 Le Tour de FranceAudioantique (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

edit request

the first link in the external links doesnt have a star by it but the rest do