From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 28, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
June 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
June 29, 2010 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other editorial assistance.
WikiProject Countries (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Oceania (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Commonwealth
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Australian Wikipedians
This box: view  edit

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014[edit]

Please capitalise the word 'indigenous' in the link to the article regarding Indigenous Australians in the second paragraph of this article. It is conventional and a sign of respect to capitalise the words Indigenous and Aboriginal when referring to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.


- "The 'I' in 'Indigenous' is capitalised when referring specifically to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The lower case 'i' for 'indigenous' is only used when referring to people originating in more than one region or country such as the Pacific region, Asiatic region, Canada or New Zealand."[1]

- "Always capitalise ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’ when you’re referring to Australian Aboriginals, but not when you are referring generally to the original inhabitants of other continents."[2]

I'd also like to note that the first sentence of the second paragraph, which suggests that Indigenous Australians have inhabited Australia for at least 40 000 years prior to British settlement (which IS referenced, but when reading the reference the date suggested is 50 000 years) is based on outdated data. Due to ongoing dating of artifacts and DNA research over the last twenty years, this number has been revised up by 20 000 years (meaning it is now generally accepted knowledge that Aboriginals have inhabited Australia for at least 60 000 years, not 40 000). I grant that this is a contentious issue, but it is pretty much now widely accepted that 60 000 years is a conservative estimate. At the very least you could correct this statement to "40-60 000 years".


- "Archaeological investigations in the northwest of Australia suggest that Indigenous people may have occupied Australia for at least 60,000 years."[3]

- "Australia's Aboriginal people, the original inhabitants of the Australian continent, arrived at least 60,000 years ago."[4]

- Doyouthink (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • X mark.svg Not done - Wikipedia has its own style guide regarding capitalisation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and capitalisation of "indigenous" is not compliant with that guide. Regarding the 40,000-60,000 year figures, note that only says "may have". This is not an absolute. is not an archeological site and provides no source, so the 60,000 year claim there is not authoritative. The "40,000+" figure is widely accepted but there is no definitive evidence for either 50,000 or 60,000 years. Until such time as we have stronger sources for either, "at least 40 000 years" is the most neutral way of indicating the time period. Note that the source that you claim says 50,000 talks about a genetic date from a sample recovered 100 years ago. It further states "Genetic dates are based on a mixture of statistics and best guesses" followed by "but the split times calculated by the Danish team are compatible with the more reliable archaeological dates, which record the earliest known human presence in Australia at 44,000 years ago." --AussieLegend () 11:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that indigenous should not be capitalised, but point out that Indigenous Australians capitalises the word throughout. Should we uncapitalise all of those instances also? (And probably many other instances, eg in Australia#History and History of Australia.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be capitalised unless it's the first word in a sentence. --AussieLegend () 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that both "Aboriginal" and "Indigenous" when referring to the early human inhabitants of Australia are part of a proper noun, so "Indigenous Australians" and "Australian Aboriginals" should both be capitalized as such under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Myk (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View[edit]

In this version of the article I added this text:

Some economists assert that high immigration and the propensity of new arrivals to cluster in the capital cities is exacerbating the nation's housing affordability problem.[1][2]

Some academics argued in a 2013 report that immigration was hurting the job prospects of young Australians.[3] Also, according to the Graduate Careers Survey,[4] full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011.[5] The professional associations of some of these occupations have expressed their criticism of the immigration policy.[6][7]

The user Nick-D removed it saying: "remove cherry picked material - some people argue in favour of these views (with evidence good and bad), others argue the opposite (with evidence good and bad)"

The idea is to write a text that presents a Neutral Point of View, so what do you suggest to be added to it to have a Neutral Point of View?


--Abcdudtc (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The whole concept here is untenable - while there's certainly scope for some brief material on the results of immigration into Australia, it should be carefully written and draw on the many high quality sources available (which include any number of expert papers and reports), and place the issue in historical context. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I thought about the text and your comments and it seems that the text is not well redacted. But what I would say is that it seems that there is nothing against immigration can be said in this article (you see my other suggestion [1] was also not accepted for this article). I have always understood that Wikipedia was about telling "things" that are happening and anti-immigration sentiment is a "thing" that is happening, is seen in many sources that show that (not just this[2] but also many professional associations are saying that there is an oversupply of professionals [3]), and nothing can be said about it, maybe you do not like it, that's fine, but the whole idea of wikipedia was saying things that are happening whether one likes them or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talkcontribs) 14:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

despite it increases[edit]

This recent addition to Australia#Economy doesn't parse correctly:

According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 despite it increases for graduates three years after graduation.

Should it be "despite increases for graduates" or "despite it's increases for graduates"? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


How about saying it like this :

According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 but instead it increases for graduates three years after graduation.

? Does that sound better? Abcdudtc (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The word "instead" implies that the two might be mutually exclusive, but they are probably not. This would be better:

According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 but it increases for graduates three years after graduation.

Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I question the value of this material in such a high-level article. It would be better to note that unemployment, including youth unemployment, has increased over recent years rather than getting into the weeds by discussing employment for university graduates (a group who generally do pretty well compared to other people their age as a result of their skills) Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I did that change in the article. I changed "despite" for "but". Abcdudtc (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I currently have no opinion about whether the material should be included in the article, only that (if it is included) it should be grammatically and factually correct. It needs to be corrected or removed, but I don't care which. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"I question the value of this material in such a high-level article.", "rather than getting into the weeds by discussing employment for university graduates", yes that sounds reasonable. But even taking that into consideration, I still think there is value in this material, because the professional occupations to which this happens are many and because of the reactions to it, for example the Australian Dental Associations requesting an end to the work rights of international students. [1] I guess it could be reduced to a few words. I will think more about it.Abcdudtc (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That might be relevant in an article on current issues, but this is a very high level article about the nation of Australia. I wouldn't read too much into the reactions of professional associations: their role is to protect the interests of their members, and not to take a broader view, and they have a natural inclination towards keeping the supply of workers in the professions they represent low (in order to protect members' jobs and boost their wages). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You say "I wouldn't read too much into the reactions of professional associations: their role is to protect the interests of their members", does that mean that the right thing to do is not listen to what they say? such is what it would make the government perfectly happy, the government only wants people to hear what it says and be wary of the opinions of others. There's none so blind as he who will not see. I do not agree with that, I think we should read what they say and see what FACTS they say, for example, they say that the Graduate Careers Survey shows that graduates have difficulty finding employment and that is true, it can be seen for example in this picture : (You see the sudden fall in employment in 2011 and has remained in decline) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talkcontribs) 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Ok, [1] says the Greens are the "most successful" minor party and [2] says they are a "main party". "Main" does not contradict "minor" so I don't see what the contradiction or problem is. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your first link needs to be fixed. main and minor do indeed contradict each other. Main is "of chief or principal importance" while minor is "of little significance or importance". You can't be both. @Andreas11213, Mark Marathon:, both of whom may wish to comment. --AussieLegend () 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies about the link, I left out the "l". The opposite of "minor party" is "major party". The latter usually refers to the two largest parties that contest elections with the realistic aim of winning majority government, while the former refers to all other parties. "Main party" by contrast simply refers to the parties that play the most significant role in the political system. At least that's how the terms are usually used: the Greens and the Nationals are never described as major parties but frequently as main parties. Incidentally, even if the sources do contradict each other what do you propose be done about it? Colonial Overlord (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say at a bare minimum a link to List of political parties in Australia could be included (i.e., "…and several minor parties, have…"). Per List of Australian federal elections#Senate, the DLP, the Democrats, and the Greens have all had five or more senators at one stage, which seems like a nice cut-off. So, perhaps "…and several minor parties (currently the Australian Greens, and historically the Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Democrats), have achieved representation…"). For mine, we're getting close to WP:BLUESKY here with the referencing. Any Australian with the tiniest bit of political knowledge could tell you what the biggest of the small parties are. It's pretty stupid to quibble over the wording of it – we don't need to go into the subtleties of political science, we just need to say "Australia has two parties, but not just two, here are some of the smaller ones, here's a link to a list of them if you want more info". IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue I had was with the claim that the Greens were the only notable minor party to achieve representation. That seemed doubtful to me, and the figures cited above show that it is untrue. Certainly a succession of minors parties has held >5 seats over the past 60 years before self-destructing and being replaced by a new protest party. I don't think it's a bad thing to reference any claim made on this subject. While it might be obvious to "any Australian with the tiniest bit of political knowledge", Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so the number of Australians with the tiniest bit of political knowledge in our readership is about one in a million. I also don't think this information is as widespread as you think. Ask someone under forty what the DLP is, even someone who is politically informed, and you are almost certainly going to get a blank look. Remember, that all happened before today's first-time grandparents were allowed to ride to school on their own. I also think that to maintain encyclopaedic style, we need to be clearer than "have achieved representation". The PUP and the Motoring Enthusiasts have "achieved representation". If we mean that several minor parties have managed to hold more than 5 seats in the senate, then that is what we should be saying.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it seems pretty obvious which is why I was shocked that the article has apparently stood for years without mentioning the Greens as though they are utterly insignificant. I certainly don't think we should be mentioning historically significant minor parties unless we're also going to mention historically significant major parties, like UAP, Nationalists etc. In any case I think its pretty clear that the Greens are more successful/notable than those previous minor parties, being the only minor party to have participated in a minority government agreement, the only one to have held ministries at the state and territory level, the only one to have won and held a federal lower house seat or to have won more than one lower house seat anywhere in the country (with the exception of One Nation which imploded after six months). Additionally we have a source that the Greens are the most successful minor party so I don't see the issue in saying that. Colonial Overlord (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There are several issues with what you just wrote. The article hasn't "stood for years without mentioning the Greens as though they are utterly insignificant". The article has always noted that "several minor parties, have achieved representation in Australian parliaments". The Greens are one of those minor parties, and there is no evidence that they are more notable than any of the others. They are more successful by the measures that you list, but less successful by other measures. Moreover many of the measures of success that you list, especially participating in a minority government, isn't something that has been true for years, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the article has stood for years without noting this. The problem with titles like "significant" and "notable" is that they are entirely subjective. If we start singling out certain parties then we need to state exactly why we think they are significant. If we start doing that, then we can't say that the Greens are more significant the DLP or Democrats without cherry picking the criteria to reach that conclusion. For example, the Democrats held multiple seats for 25 years, the Greens haven't yet managed 15. The DLP was indisputably instrumental in changing the course of several elections, the Greens not so much and so forth. So arguing that the Greens are especially notable will need to be referenced to avoid POV issues. Your belief that we shouldn't list past parties doesn't make much sense to me because the section is discussing parties that have achieved representation, past tense. You position might have some merit if were talking about events pre-war. But the Greens themselves have only held multiple senate seats for ~15 years, most of that time overlapped with the Democrats, and the Democrats only fell 10 years ago. IOW you are trying to argue that 15 years with multiple senators is recent enough and long enough to be significant, while simultaneously arguing that 10 years ago is so long that it shouldn't be discussed. That seems like special pleading. The point of the status quo wording is to highlight that, at least post-war, Australia has two parties, but not just two (as IgnorantArmies so succinctly put it). If the Greens were the first party to break the two-party monopoly they might deserve special mention, bu they aren't. They are just the latest in a line. Singling them out for special mention defeats the whole point of this section, which is to highlight that Australia has a long history of being a quasi-two-party system unlike many other democracies. The Greens aren't some special case in that regard, just the protest party du juor. If you think the special features of the Greens is notable then by all means ad t to the Australian Greens article, or alternatively start another article on minor parties in Australia. But that information doesn't need mentioning in the politics section on the article about nation of Australia. It's too focused to warrant inclusion in such a broad article.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well by "stood for years" I didn't mean that long, I only meant since around 2011 when the Greens really started to become significant; I agree that they were pretty much irrelevant before that. I didn't realise the government section was taking a historical perspective; if that's the case then I agree the Greens don't warrant being mentioned, as they are too recent. I read the section as a description of the current political situation, which IMO can't really be understood without the Greens: virtually every news article about a proposed government policy gives the reactions of both Labor and the Greens equal time, the last election was largely fought over a Greens policy (the carbon tax) etc. I also think that in political science the ability to win lower house seats and to hold executive power are what tends to distinguish major and minor parties, which the democrats, dlp etc could never do, plus there's a reference for the Greens being the most successful. But as I said if the section has a historical focus its not so important to include them, though a referenced statement that they're the most successful could still be appropriate. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Social liberalism[edit]

The user Andreas11213 keeps restoring "social liberalism" to the section about Victoria and other states in place of "progressive". I am utterly lost. What has social liberalism got to do with this? The section says certain states are "comparatively conservative"; surely then the remaining states are "comparatively progressive" not "socially liberal". Social liberalism can be both conservative (when contrasted with social democracy) and progressive (when contrasted with classical liberalism). Moreover, as far as I can see none of the references cited even mention social liberalism. So what is going on here? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not Andreas11213 that "keeps restoring" it. That is what it originally said. it is you who "keep changing" it when there is obviously no consensus. "Progressivism" is a loaded term which depends on what the speaker finds to be progressive - which could be many things. Here is the intro sentence from the wiki "Progressivism": "Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition." I don't know about you, but I don't think there are many political parties (certainly in Australia) on the left or right who don't think they are trying to advance economic development, science and technology, social organisation and the human condition. It is subjective claptrap. It is also not an academic term. The terms used by political scientists for the ideology espoused by mainstream left of centre parties in Australia today are "social liberalism" and "social democracy" (the latter is further to the left than the former). "Progressivism" is not a rigorous term and is not used by political scientists in Australia to describe any major ideology present in this country.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. If you look at the sources cited for that claim, most say "progressive", none say "socially liberal" so that's the word we should use. I don't agree with what you say at all: the word progressive is consistently used as the opposite of conservative, meaning left of centre. That is its widely accepted political meaning. Social liberalism, on the other hand, does not equate to left wing. Even the most conservative mainstream politician is a social liberal if they support any kind of social safety net whatsoever. Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistently used to mean that by a very clear subset of people. Your average blue collar worker in a working class suburb for example, who generally votes Labor, would never describe themselves as "progressive". In fact, they'd likely call a person so describing themselves a "wanker". Aside from that such people would have some very un "progressive" views on certain topics. Greens-voting 19 year olds studying arts/journalism and living in Surrey Hills/Fitzroy/West End would be your best bet for people who would self describe as progressive with a straight face. If you read the article for social liberalism, you will find that it is not so that anybody supporting the barest safety net is immediately a social liberal. In fact, even most classical liberals, minarchist libertarians, etc support basic safety nets. Further, if you read the article on "progressivism" you will find that it was a particular American political movement in the early 20th century which did not occur in Australia. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if all your points are true you haven't addressed the most important thing I said: the sources cited use the word progressive ("Victoria not likely to lose its mantle as the state most progressive", "the progressive southern states of Victoria, South Australia and "Tasmania) or "left-leaning" with no mention of "social liberalism" in any of them. Unless these articles are written by 19 year old arts students, it seems the term is more widespread than you make out. If you asked people on the street what the opposite of conservative is, the answers you'd get would be "progressive", "left-wing", "socialist", "social democratic" but probably not "social liberalism". The latter term doesn't even refer to the entire left, only a very moderate part of it: the Greens are not liberals of any kind and neither are the more left wing elements of Labor. So its clear that social liberalism is inappropriate ( not to mention that "socially liberal" usually means liberal on social issues like euthanasia, not the ideology of social liberalism). If you object to "progressive" could we say "left-wing" or "left of centre"? Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Left wing or left of centre sure. That is a more unambiguous term.