Talk:Australia/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 15

Royal Anthem

Do we have a source that Aust. has God Save the Queen as its "Royal Anthem"? also even if it is I don't think the Royal Anthem is significant enough to the subject matter (Australia) to be placed in the info box. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 01:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What gives, eh? Nobody around here (in Australia) even knows of any official "royal anthem". —Owned Souls 06:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, I know about it. It became the official Royal Anthem under the same proclamation by G-G Sir Ninian Stephen in April 1984 that made Advance Australia Fair the official National Anthem. Check it out. We can hardly use this authority to include AAF, but simultaneously ignore it to exclude GSTQ. The fact that virtually nobody sings GSTQ in Australia anymore - which was beautifully highlighted in the kerfuffle at last year's Commonwealth Games - has nothing to do with whether or not it is the official Royal Anthem. JackofOz 06:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
PS. See also God Save the Queen#Use in the Commonwealth.  :) JackofOz 06:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Simply because it is the Royal Anthem, does that make it significant to this article? It's almost never sung. Is it's significance more to do with Australia (the subject of this article) or the Queen when she is in Australia? Ie, is it not undue weight in this article, particularly in the prominent and oft-read infobox? I'm not convinced that it is relevant - but I'm open to other suggestions. Merbabu 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia policy is to name all national and other official anthems in the infoboxes in articles about countries, then stay it must. If it rates a mention in the link I just provided, then this would seem to suggest it also rates a mention here. JackofOz 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This fact certainly has relevance and is notable for the God Save the Queen article, but that does not make it anything more than an obscurity when it comes to the subject matter of this article. If you were to apply technicalities like this across the subject matter than the info box would be larger than the article itself. WikiTownsvillian 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's your source: [1]. The Royal Anthem is only used in the presence of the monarch or a member of the Royal Family. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, I no longer dispute its status, I do questions its relevance to the subject matter and particularly the predominant place it has been given in the article. What is the purpose of an info box other than to give the user an 'at a glance' overview of the subject matter? something like the royal anthem is so trivial to Australia as a country I doubt it should be in the article as a whole, let along the info box. Maybe as a compromise we could put a notation mark next to Advance Australia Fair which links to a bit of an explanation in a "Notes" section down the bottom? Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 04:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a point. Maybe an article on the national anthem and its history is desirable. But the "Royal Anthem" really does not have much relevance day to day in Australia. --Michael Johnson 04:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You can argue that the Queen doesn't either :). But she's still our monarch. Slac speak up! 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not suggesting that she isn't, nor am I suggesting the fact that she is be de-emphasised. However some times on Wikipedia a simple fact is taken and given a prominence it does not deserve. In this case yes there is a "Royal Anthem". However it is played maybe half a dozen times every 5 or 6 years when the Queen actually visits. By comparison the National Anthem is played daily perhaps hundreds if not thousands of times in different contexts. By including it so prominently in the user box a casual reader who does not know anything about Australia will question which anthem Australians use. It would be more appropriate to include a section on the Royal Anthem in an article about Australia's symbols or the national anthem, or about our head of state, rather than giving it undue prominence in this article. --Michael Johnson 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not we like it the fact remains Australia is a constitutional monarchy and does have a royal anthem as is the situation in Canada. While it is not often used it does remain one of the two anthems of Australia and thus is suitable for inclusion in the infobox as is the case with other Commonwealth Realms. Mastronarde 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not disputing the fact that Australia has a royal anthem (although I was a bit unclear on this point at the start) what we are saying is that the Royal Anthem is not notable in the context of the Commonwealth of Australia... it would be relevant in an article which talks about the National Anthem of Australia, it would be relevant in an article regarding the relationship between Australia and it's monarch, it would be relevant on the God Save the Queen article, but non of these subjects warrant a sub-section of this article, so it's hardly right to have a minor fact on this subject mentioned in the article about the whole of Australia, there are many things that are fact about Australia, but if they were all mentioned the article would be a hundred pages long, at least. For example the city of Townsville which I focus mostly on in my contributions does not even get mentioned in this article and the city of Townsville obviously has more significants in defining what Australia is than the Royal Anthem... no one is disputing that Australia is a constitutional monarchy, just the notability of the Royal Anthem to the subject of "Australia". Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to leave the reference in. There are sections of the community (monarchists) that would argue that the mentioning of the royal anthem is important. It is one of our official anthems and as such should be left in.
The royal anthem is a formal art of our country, and just because "Alec" doesnt know it, doesnt mean it shouldnt be included. Based on the argument that it is uncommon, you could remove the reference to the GG and the Queen, given their power is not vast, yet they form an important and formal part of our country and political system, as is our Royal Anthem. The status of our Royal Anthem is determined by the Governor General, not some ignorant user of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
This part of the discussion ended sometime ago. If you have something to contribute that hasn't been said before please do so below. But please read it carefully so as not to go over old ground. Also, please watch your style - personalise discussions. thanks. --Merbabu 09:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Employment question

Wow. The article states that 4.6% of Australia's roughly 20,000,000 people are unemployed, and lists the number as over 10,000,000. Ummm, let's do math right, OK Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually it states that over 10,000,000 are employed. not unemployed. The 4.6% unemployed is of those who would want a job, which obviously excludes children, students, prison inmates, the sick and disabled, homemakers, the independently wealthy, and the retired. --Michael Johnson 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

that still doesn't make any sense. 4.6% unemployment does not translate to 10 million. maybe it is worded awkwardly, but it needs to be fixed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:35, 13 June 2007.

Where exactly is the problem? Are you sure you are not confusing unemployment and employment? --Merbabu 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the article again. It says 10,000,000 are employed, not unemployed. --Michael Johnson 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking we're going need to create a FAQ page, with the number of times this comes up.--cj | talk 01:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the confusion arises from your absolute definition of unemployed. Unemployed does not mean not employed. It means receiving unemployment benefits. Hence there are over 10 million employed people, 4.6% of 21 million are unemployed, and the rest are people who don't work, but aren't getting (or aren't eligible to receive) unemployment benefits. These people include children, and probably the elderly, but I'm not so sure about that. Glooper 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: it is not 4.6% of the total population - the unemployment rate is 4.6% of the workforce. The workforce is in turn defined as those who have a job PLUS those who don't have a job and want a job. Ie, the workforce = the employed and the unemployed. The unemployed don't include that large group of people that are not looking for a job, ie, children, retirees, etc. HOWEVER, those who want a job but have given up looking are not included in as unemployed - ie, one must be actively looking for a job. And, I'm not sure whether one needs to be on unemployment benefits to count as unemployed, although there would certainly be a correlation. Merbabu 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

infobox queries

Independence. Um ... did federation have anything at all to do with independence? I rather doubt it. And the use of the term "Constitution" is puzzling. All of the colonial parliaments already had self-enacted constitutions, which calls into question whether the creation of the federal constitution by the mother parliament isn't the wrong angle here. Isn't it preferable to to note first "Federation" (ignore "Constitution" as an obvious instrument of that change), then Independence (in the two stages). The Statute of W. was not ratified by the federal parliament until 1942; it's misleading to cite its date of enactment in 1931 by the Westminster parliament.

The PPP values for GDP should surely be higher than the nominal values. Have these values been inadvertently switched? Are they in US or A dollars? Whichever, it needs to be stated, perhaps only on the first appearance of a dollar value. Tony 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The PPP and nominal GDP figures seem to be the same as their source articles - I can't say if the source articles are right or wrong though. If you have access to figures maybe you could follow up. US$ are used. Probably should be made clear that US$ are used, although US$ usually are used for such figures. --Michael Johnson 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
On the first matter, federation did have a lot to do with independence. Before it, there was no Australia: no High Court, no RAN or Australian Army; no Ministry for External Affairs; no White Australia Act (which was drastically different to the British Empire's standard colonialist immigration philosophy); no uniform national tariffs; no Commonwealth industrial arbitration system; no uniform national policy on any number of domestic issues; no Australian flag. So it was quite important to full Australian independence, since, like the republic, it was not inevitable, and certainly dididn't have to come about in the form that it did. The Australia Act was passed by the federal parliament, not just six colonial legislatures. So federation was a step along the road. Slac speak up! 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Independence for Australia is very much a gradual thing, and trying to pin down critical dates is very difficult. Federation is very important, but remember prior to federation each colony had responsible government, their own postage stamps, customs departments, diplomats, flags, and armed forces. The Statute of Windsor was important but when was the last time Westminster actually passed an Act that overoad either an Australian, or before that Colonial, law? Many years previously, I would guess. And while the Federal government adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1942, State governments didn't till the 1980's. WWII saw Australia place diplomatic representatives in foreign capitals for the first time, surely an act of an independent nation. The fall of Singapore probably did more to break ties and force independence on Australia than any other event. So picking a date is very difficult. --Michael Johnson 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The critical thing, though, is that the Statute of Westminster gave the dominions independent foreign policies. Before that stage, in international relations terms, they were all satellite states of the UK. Of course, Australia didn't actually bring Westminster into force until half-way through WWII. Slac speak up! 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But I think the info box does the best it can with the limited space available. All three dates are important. The interested reader will just have to read on. --Michael Johnson 01:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the gradualist angle here. But no one has addressed my queries regarding the 1932 vs 1941 Statute of Westminster, which surely should be fixed, and the PPP issue. Tony 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and whether US or A dollars are cited. On the SoW, I see in Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 that it had retrospective effect from 9 September 1939 under the Act. I propose that this should replace the existing 1931 date, which had no effect on Australian independence until the start of WWII. Thus, "Effective 9 September 1939". Tony 02:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the point of the gradualist perspective is that all of these events (Federation, the passage of Westminster, with which Australian delegates were involved, the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, the Australia Act, are relevant, and should be included. But explication has to live in the article. The existence of Westminster did have an effect on the Empire overall - the very fact that Australia was so entangled in the Empire and not distinct meant that its passage had an effect before it was specifically adopted locally. Slac speak up! 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes yes, I agree now with the gradualist approach. But tell me why the 1939 or 1942 dates are not more important WRT to the path to Australian independence than 1931. It certainly had no legal impact until 1939. What exactly was the effect you mention that pertained between 1931 and 1939? (I'm not being perverse: (1) I'm genuinely interested; and (2) I think that weighing this effect with those which pertained from the later dates is the answer to which date should appear in the infobox.) At the moment, there's tension between the infobox and the main text, and especially between the infobox and the direct link to the article on the SoW. The GNP thing remains to be resolved. Tony 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
So, no one objects if I change the date to "ratified 1942"? Tony 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
All of these dates have significance. I've added "(adopted 9 September 1939)" after the date of the Statute of Westminster which includes a link to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. --bainer (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


What is the difference in SA that makes "enrolled" necessary? At the moment, the general application of this word is a problem WRT to the other states, isn't it? Does SA have to be explicitly mentioned to correct this? Tony 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, enrolment is not legally compulsory in South Australia, so the statement that "Voting is compulsory for all citizens 18 years and over in each state and territory and at the federal level" is inaccurate. There may be a better way to clause the statement, but I don't think there is any specific problem with the "enrolled" caveat WRT to the other jurisdictions, as citizens must be enrolled to vote.--cj | talk 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. It's not right for the other five states as currently worded: it means that it's only compulsory to vote if you're enrolled, and clearly implies that it's not compulsory to be enrolled. Tony 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So, this statement is wrong: "Voting is compulsory for all enrolled citizens 18 years and over in each state and territory and at the federal level." Needs to be reconciled with the SA thing. Tony 01:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what is wrong with it. It doesn't say anything at all about whether enrolment is compulsory, and any implication that it isn't is very weak. However, I am quite curious about this SA issue. The Commonwealth Electoral Act is quite clear that enrolment for Commonwealth elections is compulsory throughout Australia. Is it possible to be listed on the federal roll, but not the state one in South Australia? JPD (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a definite problem with the phrasing as, as Tony says, it clearly implies that enrolment is not compulsory. The implication is far from weak: there is no other way of interpreting it. This problem can be easily fixed by inserting "enrolment" after "voting" and removing "enrolled" before "citizens": "Voting enrolment is compulsory for all citizens 18 years and over in each state and territory and at the federal level." {{subst: 04:50, 21 June 2007|}}
I maintain that the implication is very weak, as the sentence is not focussing on that at all. I see from your "easy solution" that you have not understood either the sentence in the article or the problem discussed here. The point of the sentence is that voting is compulsory, not just enrolment, unlike many other places where enrolment is compulsory but voting isn't. Your solution does not communicate that at all. The problem is the question of whether enrolment is actually compulsory. It is claimed that it is not in South Australia. I don't quite understand this, and would be very interested in an explanation, but simply stating that enrolment is compulsory clearly does not solve this problem. JPD (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This page from the SA State Electoral Office says: Initial 'State' enrolment is not compulsory, however, once enrolled electors are required to maintain their enrolment and vote. Enrolling and voting for Commonwealth elections is compulsory. This makes a bit of a mockery of this page from the same website, which says: Voting was made compulsory in 1942 for House of Assembly elections and 1985 for Legislative Council elections. I would suggest that voting in SA is not really compulsory at all. It all depends on whether a person has enrolled or not, and enrolment is not compulsory to begin with. Voting only seems to be compulsory once a person has chosen to enrol. Which is true of federal elections as well; one cannot vote in a federal election if one has not first enrolled. The difference seems to be that it’s compulsory to enrol for federal elections, but not compulsory to enrol for SA state elections. How very odd. Why bother making voting "compulsory", and as late as 1985 for the upper house, if people can perfectly legally avoid this duty by just not enrolling? -- JackofOz 04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, the current wording describes the SA situation perfectly, and the only dispute is over whether it misleads the reader concerning the rest of the currently. But yes, the SA situation is a bit strange, and must make enrolment slightly more complicated. Do you actually enrol twice, or is there something on a form to say you are/aren't enrol for state elections as well as federal? JPD (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You MUST enrol for federal elections, but it isn't compulsory for you to enrol for state elections in SA. HOWEVER when you enrol for federal elections with the Electoral Commission, you also, automatically, are enrolled for state elections. So de facto, state enrolment is compulsory, because it is impossible to enrol for federal elections, or change your adress from an interstate location to one is SA without ending up on the state roll as well as the federal one. 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


To comply with current FA criteria, more references are required. The sections on GeographyYes check.svg Done, Flora and faunaYes check.svg Done, and Politics are particular problems in this respect. For example, the first has none, the second has only one (concerning biodiversity), and in the last, there are only two references: one for the GG's reserve powers and one for compulsory voting (the Consitution is not formally referenced, but should be, since there are several copies on the Internet). Demography could do with a few more: "Australia has maintained one of the most active immigration programs in the world to boost population growth. Most immigrants are skilled, but the immigration quota includes categories for family members and refugees."Yes check.svg Done Says who? Some readers might contest the scope of the first claim.

I think this article will need to go to WP:FAR on the basis of failure to satisfy Criterion 1c if the matter is unresolved within a week or two. Tony 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of uncited hard data; relative to recent Country FAs and current standards, this article is seriously undercited. It should be possible to upgrade the citations to avoid a featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Four inline citations for hard data in Geography since added. Will work on the other areas as I can - all help appreciated.--VS talk 10:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding this otherwise POV statement as noted above ("Australia has maintained one of the most active immigration programs in the world to boost population growth. Most immigrants are skilled, but the immigration quota includes categories for family members and refugees.") - I have now moved the general content higher in this section (where immigration was already commenced), copy edited and provided external inline citation.--VS talk 10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Four more inline citations for hard data now added to Flora and fauna.--VS talk 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, Steve; thanks! Tony 00:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • My pleasure entirely Tony - I'll get to Politics later this evening unless someone beats me to it.--VS talk 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Republic vote

I'm not real happy with this: "Australian voters rejected a move to become a republic in 1999 by a 55% majority". this is POV in that it gives the impression that most Australians don't want a republic. The only reason that the vote failed was that voting for it also mandated a President chosen by the Prime Minister. The majority of Australians wanted a directly elected President and many voted "no" solely to prevent that. This was a major debate at the time with accusations of the referendum being rigged to guarantee a no vote by including this requirement. Can it be reworded to make it more NPOV? Wayne 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put a caveat on the statement. I seem to remember it having had one, but I don't know when it might have been removed. Or maybe that was another seems to come up a lot. --cj | talk 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there was a caveat. It should be clear that a specific proposal was rejected, not the notion of a republic, but suggestions of rigging by including a specific requirement are more POV than the current statement - any binding referendum has to be about a specific proposal. JPD (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I've reverted the change to the infobox. I think Tony was trying to 'de-pluralise' "Official languages", but the effect of the change was to remove the parameter entirely (for it requires official_languages=). The actual wording which appears can only be changed in the template proper.--cj | talk 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that's damned inflexible of the template. Tony 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tonight's linking of trivial years

I cannot abide by the spattering of blue to link simple years all over the article. This has been done without warning or consultation. The piped years (e.g., [[1824 in Australia|1824]] are OK, except that these articles tend to be very threadbare stubs; I'd have been more comfortable about this if these Australian year articles were at a reasonable stage of development; instead, their links are plastered everywhere, to many pages have just a few stubby little points). The linking of full dates for the purpose of autoformatting I suppose we'll have to put up with until the techs finally separate the two functions. However, the line must be drawn between these and the indiscriminate, slavish linking to pages that, frankly, have little or nothing to do with the topic of Australia.

Now this is going to lead to a huge war unless they're reverted, I can assure you. The first one, 1770, leads to a page that tells us that the year started on a Monday; then it talks of the Boston Massacre, Marie Antoinette's arrival at the French court; more on her, fireworks at some French wedding; something in Spain; the California Republic; and it goes on and on. Buried somewhere down there is that the eastern coast of Australia was claimed for Britain, but that information is in the very sentence that contains this trivial link. Now this might be all very interesting to a reader who likes being led all over the place like a sheep, but here, we want to keep the focus on a summary of Australia.

The article was already very heavily linked. This further, quite unnecessary blueing out with links to unfocused destinations that dilute the high-value links damages the readability, not to mention the appearance, of the article. This issue came up in 2005 in relation to this article, and was resolved satisfactorily. Many WPians object to overlinking, including reviewers in the FAC room, as subprofessional formatting.

I intend to delink these useless links tomorrow (there are, in fact, only a few unpiped ones), unless someone can come up with a very good reason to retain them. I will also review the linking of dictionary terms, such as "mammal" and "desert", which are not piped to an Australian-focused topic. Tony 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I over-wikified, when I recently went through a GA process I was asked to wikify all dates, thus I thought this was general policy, there has been some recent questions as to whether this article complies with current FA requirements, I therefore was just doing my bit (in good faith) to improve this articles compliance with current wikipeadia standards, I would be happy to remedy any over-wikifying I have done should that be necessary (by consensuses here). Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see CJ has already reverted it, no harm done. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Canberra Coordinates

The coordinates given for Canberra (35°15'S 149°28'E) are inaccurate. That location is near Bungendore, a town in N.S.W. 30km east of Canberra.

The location 35°18'S 149°08'E is close to the centre of Canberra to the nearest minute. Niftydog 05:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Good pick up Niftydog - thank you - I have since adjusted.--VS talk 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indiginous population

hi all - i see from the article that we date the aboriginal population as having been in oz for at least 42,000 years - is there a source for that? - my understanding is that there is some discussion as to the dating (up to 60,000+ years?) - and perhaps we should be less certain on such a sensitive topic? - thoughts? thanks! - Petesmiles 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

and just to clarify, having read the discussion above, and previously - perhaps we should directly reference this statement, or provide a date range, or refer to the discussion that is still occurring - i don't really believe that there is a general consensus out there (but i could be wrong of course....) - thanks, Petesmiles 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that there is no general consensus, except for that the indigenous peoples have inhabited Australia for at least 40,000 years, though it is widely believed that this time could have been anywhere up to 120,000 years. However, proof of this is hard to come by. Perhaps some reliable references need to be found, but I wouldn't know where to start looking. Glooper 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Who keeps reinstating the trivial element of the Royal Anthem? It is inappropriate. Please desist. Thanks to Alec for removing it several times. Tony 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it as problematic to define it as trivia. Nobody disputes that it's accurate. In this particular instance, I think accuracy alone is enough to ensure inclusion. To be honest, ISD calling code isn't necessarily relevant, but nobody's clamouring to remove that. If I were cynical, I'd think the real reason (so that I don't sound smug here, I should point out that I'm a republican) it keeps getting removed is that the fact it's true rankles some. Slac speak up! 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Slac, please assume good faith, this issue really has nothing to do with the monarchy, for me at least. ISD calling code is relevant because it is used by millions of people every day and would be information that an internet browser might expect to find on a encyclopaedic article about Australia, something as trivial as the royal anthem would be of less relevance to the subject matter than including the national flower. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as another republican, I note that I have no problemn with including the royal anthem. I note that those who clamour for removing it all seem to have a certain political bent. One editor likes to remove the Australian flag from Australian articles! May I suggest that we should regard Wikipedia as a reflection of the real world, rather than as a tool to change it? We Australians will doubtless remove the Queen (and the royal anthem) when we feel like it to the extent of a double majority, and when that happens, then we should accordingly adjust the article. --Pete 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
'All' editors on one 'side' are motivated by a political bent? What, for example, is my political bent? The obvious counter argument to that silly suggestion is that the other 'side' have their own political bent. I think we need to start showing a bit more good faith and show how inclusion is relevant, rather than arguing over unfounded guesses at political bias’. Merbabu 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your strawman. May I note my use of the word "seem" as in "those who clamour for removing it all seem to have a certain political bent". You may add "on this subject", if you wish clarification - your views on unrelated political topics are, of course, irrelevant to the discussion. You want to remove one of Australia's anthems from the infobox, when a glance at other Commonwealth nations shows that this is standard Wikipractice. Why do you want the Australian article to be different to those of similar nations? --Pete 01:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Further, this is a completely inappropriate way to work - it's about collaboration, not combat. Surely you don't need to be reminded of AGF? Just because people don't want a trivial irrelevancy of undue weight at the top of a country article, does not mean they hate the queen. Personally, for what it's worth (although irelevant), I think she is a mighty fine leader. Merbabu 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
One could say the same of Adolf Hitler. I looked at the user's contribution history before commenting, and there's a definite POV being pushed. IMHO. --Pete 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler? What on earth are you talking about? My mention for my admiration of QE2 was merely as a response to you bad faith and collabortation-thwarting assertions. Ie, that anyone wanting to remove the Royal Anthem from it's overly prominent position was pushing an agenda of 'queen hatred'. As if that wasn't enough, your inclusion of Hitler in the debate says to me that you are incapable of rationale discussion - and this page shows I am not alone in this view. Merbabu 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this diff and this and this one, I note that Australia has a national anthem and a royal anthem. This is fact, and we should include it in our informational article. I note that New Zealand has two anthems. As does Antigua and Barbuda. And Bahamas, Belize, Canada... --Pete 00:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the preceding discussion from the last few weeks, you will see that no one is disputing the fact, rather it is the relevancy that is disputed. IN what way is it relevant? For the main info box? It should go into an article on national anthems (or similar) in Australia – not in a summary article. There are so many more important facts about Australia that are not mentioned here due to space, why is this bit of trivia different? - and let's face it, trivia is all it is.
Further, the fact that some editors have made a decision for a similar inclusion in New Zealand and the Belize, and others have not removed it, does not mean that it must be followed here. Precedence is the worst of all justifications. --Merbabu 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This will come as news to the world's legal systems. Please explain why Australia is different to the many other nations whose Wikipedia articles show two anthems. --Pete 01:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please drop the sarcasm. We all know we we are creating an encyclopedia, not a legal system. If things cannot be changed, then we should all pack up and go home now. Do we follow any previous way, no matter how relevant to this page, or even if it was a good decision for that page?Merbabu 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you answer my question, please? I appreciate your point, but in this case our article is following a template which contains certain information and I cannot see how Australia is different to similar nations in this specific regard. --01:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My question is how is this is not a trivial irrelevancy getting undue weight? My new question is how the superior 'compromise' solution offered by Alec is not appropriate? (which by the way, you reverted, without discussion - very ironic). TO answer your question - it is not part of the template - just look at the source code. And, to answer your question (again), following other editor's decisions on other articles does not mean they are automatically relevant here, rather they need to be justified here. (or indeed if they are good decisions for those pages - but that is irrelevant here). Simply saying "it's done elsewhere" is not justification, particularly when the relevance here is questioned by several others. How is it relevant here --Merbabu 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"rv. Discuss rather than edit war, please." would have to be one of the more ironic edit summaries I've seen around here. Now fully protected. Yes, I know its m:The Wrong Version. Hesperian 01:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be ironic if I was edit warring WITHOUT discussing my edits up front. Inviting other editors to discuss an issue is just good practice. The last thing we need is mindless reverting and counter-reverting. --Pete 01:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That might be the second-last thing we need. The last thing we need is people reverting and attributing other people's edits to their "hatred for the queen". That kind of crap stifles debate no matter how many invitations to discussion you issue. Hesperian 01:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I call 'em as I see 'em. --Pete 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Way to glibly avoid taking responsibility for an egregiously uncivil recourse to ad hominem fallacy. Hesperian 02:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ad hom? How, precisely? --Pete 02:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible." Your "hatred for the queen" comment is a textbook case. Hesperian 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. If you look closely, you'll see that my arguments are based on logical steps, not on the argument ad hominem. My suggesting a bias merely explains why user:WikiTownsvillian mcc is acting the way he does. Nor would I say that "hatred of the Queen" is an attack on his character. In some republican circles, it is taken for granted. Of course I mean hatred of the office rather than the person. --Pete 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Pete, I'm getting a bit annoyed at you attacking me instead of addressing the points that many people have raised. I do not have an anti-Australian or anti-monarchy agenda to push, I removed one image from the 2007 Australian election article because that particular polling table was getting out of hand in size (which other users editing the article agreed with), it was a choice between removing the flag image which was already in the info box of the article (repeated image) or remove substantive info from the table, no one has raised an issue with that edit with me and it still remains as I edited it. It is tactics like the ones you are employing at the moment that make people not want to contribute to our collaboration, and that's very sad. WikiTownsvillian 22:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
eidt conflict: Actually no, according to my reading of the history shows you removed it twice before discussing. Merbabu 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it once, marking it as minor, viewing the removal of information as vandalism. I then removed it a second time, with the edit summary "See talk" and immediately went to the talk page. Check the logs. --Pete 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
compromise footnote

I think this ‘compromise’ footnote is not really a compromise, rather it’s a most appropriate way to represent a (side) fact that is almost off-topic, which is indeed what footnotes are for. Merbabu 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pete, I'm not trying to edit war, I was creating new (referenced) content in order to try to provide a compromise between the reversions. The way I put it as a note, it still included the royal anthem in the article, but did not put it in such a over-predominant position. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see it as a way to get one of Australia's two anthems out of the template. I'm not sure that we need any additional information in this overview article, but certainly it could be included in (say) Monarchy in Australia. --Pete 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Other the text of any original legislation or proclamations, I should say the most appropriate reference for information on Australia's national anthem is the website entitled "The Australian National Anthem" published by the federal government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade here. That page makes it abundantly clear that "God Save The Queen" is not the, or a, national anthem of Australia:

"In April 1984 the Governor-General issued a proclamation declaring that 'God Save the Queen' was designated the Royal Anthem, to be played at public engagements in Australia attended by the Queen or members of the Royal family. 'Advance Australia Fair' was finally declared to be the national anthem, and non-sexist words adopted."

What you guys have to figure out is what is the most appropriate usage of that section of the infobox. The template parameter is entitled national_anthem; the heading is merely "Anthem", but the link is to National anthem. The heading was previously "National anthem" until changed to "Anthem" by David Kernow on 5 May.[2] My conclusion is that the section is unambiguously intended to contain the National Anthem of Australia, which 'God Save The Queen' is not. Hesperian 01:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just a parameter in a template. I note that Canada (and many other Commonwealth nations) use the same template to incorporate GSTQ as a royal anthem. Perhaps the template should be changed? --Pete 01:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly having 'God Save The Queen' listed under a heading that links to National anthem is incorrect. So yes, either the template or this page's usage of it needs to be changed. Hesperian 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a quick look at the source code shows that 'Royal anthem' it is not a parameter. Parameter or not, though is not the issue - it's relevance to the Australia article is. Merbabu 02:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
GSTQ is a gazetted Australian anthem. Its inclusion in the template information is entirely appropriate, as it is for similar nations such as New Zealand and Canada. We can discuss the wording of the template parameters, but looking at templates, I see instances where additional information is included beyond what the parameter indicates. --Pete 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You had best drop New Zealand as an example; according to New Zealand's Ministry for Culture and Heritage, "New Zealand holds a rare position in the world in that it has two national anthems of equal standing - 'God Defend New Zealand' and 'God Save The Queen'."[3] This is completely different to the situation here in Australia, so the fact that they include GSTQ in their infobox is entirely appropriate yet lends absolutely no weight to your argument. Hesperian 02:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to play games, then how can it be appropriate, given that the parameter is labelled national_anthem and not national_anthems? But even if we accept your argument (and I thank you for the research), we still have:
and, although it only has one anthem, I can commend that of Vanuatu to all my readers.
All of the above list two anthems for the parameter "national_anthem". The statement, "My conclusion is that the section is unambiguously intended to contain the National Anthem of Australia, which 'God Save The Queen' is not." might be accurate on a personal basis, but I think that the argument is precious, and need not trouble us much. If it bothers anyone, then they may commence proceedings to change the template. --Pete 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There you go again with recourse to the ad hominem fallacy. My argument for not using New Zealand as an example was irrefutable, so instead you accuse me of "playing games". This is not appropriate, Pete. Pull your head in. Hesperian 02:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Arguing a point by giving undue weight to the naming of template parameters is playing a game. If I am to take you seriously, then yes, New Zealand is not an example I can use in my original argument, but I note that you have not yet responded to my point that the parameter name is inappropriate in the case of New Zealand. Furthermore, in the cases above, the parameter name is used to cover the inclusion of a royal anthem, and such "stretching" of parameters is not uncommon in templates. --Pete 03:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the naming of template parameters is no big deal. I went looking for comments of mine to strike, and I found seven words. I hardly think that ranks as "undue weight", but I have struck them out all the same. Hesperian 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
So your "My conclusion is that the section is unambiguously intended to contain the National Anthem of Australia, which 'God Save The Queen' is not." is what, precisely? Your conclusion rests entirely on the naming of template parameters. Either you are serious about template parameters as a basis for argument, or you are playing a game. --Pete 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not it doesn't, and no I'm not, and please don't bother offering me any more false dilemmas. Hesperian 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but looking at your argument presented here and here, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that you see the name of the template parameter as being of crucial importance. Your argument is valid, but trivial; we could easily change the name of the parameter, or we could accept that often template parameters are "overloaded" with more information than the parameter name suggests. For example, many "national_anthem" template entries contain links to the music or audio clips of the national anthem, and I have already pointed out several cases where the royal anthem is included. --Pete 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict again) Well using that logic New Zealand is in our Constitution as a possible future State of Australia, do you think that deserves mentioning as well? No, maybe it's only relevant to the Constitution of Australia article because although an undisputable fact, it would be considered trivial to include it in the article on Australia. WikiTownsvillian 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If the template had "possible-future-states" as a parameter, then maybe you would have an argument. --Pete 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If the template had "Royal anthem" as a parameter, then maybe I might not have hurt myself laughing at your response. WikiTownsvillian 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As it included as the royal anthem on the pages of other commonwealth realms it would seem appropriate for consistency to keep it on the Australia page - it is of no greater of less relevance to Australia than it is to Canada or Jamaica or anywhere else. As for the point about New Zealand, while GSTQ is still called a national anthem its appropriate use in NZ is identical to that in Australia - God Defend New Zealand for national occasions, GSTQ for royal occasions. While the designation may be different the usage is identical, and thus it seems silly that it should be given greater priority on the NZ page and not on the Australian page. 01:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Sure, it's a fact, but no one has established it as a relevant, non-trivial fact. It's only been established that some other countries use this, and their relevance to this Australian case is far from established. It's an obscure technicality that can be appropriately covered as a footnote (technicalities is what footnotes are for). It is currently presented as being on equal footing with the national anthem. The fact that it may get trotted out only on Queen visits, yet AAF is sung daily and is known by all, suggests a great inbalance in weight. To the footnotes which is ample attention, given that most obscurites (no matter how factual) don't make it in at all. Merbabu 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Protecting the page was supposed to move us towards constructive discussion, but it has failed. Skyring is up to his old tricks again, and nothing constructive can come out of a discussion when he behaves in this way. I have tried to help move the discussion forward, as an uninvolved party who really doesn't give a fuck whether we list the royal anthem or not, but Pete would prefer to troll us all than find a resolution. Under the circumstances, I can't see any reason why I would continue to protect his version of the page. I'm going to unprotect, and go find something else to do. Those of you who care enough about this issue to continue to oppose Skyring have my admiration and sympathy. Hesperian 04:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Groan* I come back some 8 hours later, and what's happened?
Look, it's pretty obvious that Pete continues to behave inappropriately and it should be appropriately addressed by the community. He certainly doesn't behave like a "reformed user" who has previously suffered community sanction. But let me put that aside and attempt to put the case for retaining the royal anthem bit.
Frankly, I don't believe the information is irrelevant. The anthem's official status automatically confers upon it a high degree of relevancy. Most of us don't go around our daily business waving springs of wattle, but we wouldn't want to deprecate the importance of our national floral emblem. The floral emblem and the royal anthemn are rarely used in the grand scheme of things: but arguably that's because they serve a limited, specific purpose, in the same way that the +61 serves a limited, specific purpose. I believe, despite everything Pete has said here, that it is quite relevant to keep the royal anthem in the box. Slac speak up! 06:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The wattle isn't currently included in this article (even though it's a much more significant and relevant emblem of Australia than the royal anthem), but that discussion aside are you happy with the compromise that I have created which keeps the royal anthem there but does not over-inflate its value to the subject matter? WikiTownsvillian 06:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
On consideration, this seems appropriate. There is a distinction between national and royal anthems, after all. The key point is accuracy, and I'm satisfied that the footnote provides that. Slac speak up! 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to this debate - other than monitoring and reading the above. I approve of Alec's compromise creation and suggest it fits well in both camps. Can I suggest then that It's Time now to move on to another tune or two - (translated as ... there are other pressing issues on wikipedia to edit).--VS talk 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Australia is a Featured Article, which means that it has been extensively polished and reviewed by a team of experienced editors. The royal anthem first appeared with the first appearance of the template, inserted by PDH on 22 August 2006. To my mind, removing long-established information from a Featured Article is not something that should be done because a user or two doesn't like it. A case should be made as to why removing factual information improves the quality of the article, and frankly, I don't think that the case has been made in this instance.
However, I can see that I'm getting up the noses of some users, and realistically, I've got better things to do. Trying to defend good articles against those POV warriors who want to nibble away at them is what has driven many good editors away from the project. --Pete 18:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
And making unprovoked personal accusations against indefinite groups of users is what got you banned for a year. Please stop it, it's driving us all crazy. Slac speak up! 03:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't see this as the place to accuse other editors (or even just yourself) of onrushing insanity. Or if that was a threat, then put your money where your mouth is, whistle up AdamCarr and jtd-irl, and put your concerns through the appropriate wikiprocess. For my part, I think we should remain focussed here, and comments such as above belong on a user talk page, where they many be attended to in an appropriate fashion. --Pete 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon, Other than it taking up even more room I don't see any difference between what you have changed it to and what was there before, it still hugely over inflates the significants of the royal anthem to the Commonwealth. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Commonwealth, the Queen is seen as "the symbol of the free association of the organisation's members". I think that her significance is obvious, at least in the same sort of symbolic fashion that sees us include flag images in national articles. Using the same format for all relevant members of the Commonwealth sounds like good professional wikipractice to me. --Pete 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

From a neutral point of view I believe if people care so much about the issue then you can see that it is relavent and that people who come to the Australian page are interested in facts such as the royal anthem. Weather it is put where the athems are or in trivia it should still be mentioned just as much as everything else. It is apart of Australias History and if you think that the anthem is not important then prehaps other things that have to do with Australias past are also not worthy of being placed in the article. If their is this much debate for it to be on the page then it is quiet simple it should be on the page, it is quite clear that this debate is more about some few people who obviously have a large amount of control on this page standing their ground on which they started the debate and not allowing themselves to be corrected, then them actually being correct.

Second paragraph

The second paragraph includes the statement: "As the population grew and new areas were explored, another five largely self-governing Crown Colonies were established during the 19th century." New South Wales when it was first established included much of the continent and the islands of New Zealand. (The islands of New Zealand was part of New South Wales until 1840 - see both the History of Australia and the History of New Zealand) I would suggest that there was an additional self governing colony from New South Wales - but in the 1890s unlike the mainland colonies and unlike Tasmania, the self governing colony of New Zealand decided not to be part of the Australian federation. I suppose the sentence is meant to mean - in relation to the country now known as Australia there were another five ... Also there was another colony, the short lived colony of North Australia in 1846 - however it did not reach the status of becoming self governing. Alan Davidson 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, the context makes it quite clear that the sentence is saying five colonies were established in the area that is the subject of the article, not that five additional colonies came from New South Wales. There is no reference at all to the relationship between the colonies and the original extent of New South Wales (after all, there were only five from New South Wales even counting NZ - Western Australia was never included). New Zealand being part of NSW is not really relevant enough to be mentioned in the intro - do you think the current wording actually implies that it wasn't included? JPD (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What struck me was the sentence "As the population grew and new areas were explored, another five largely self-governing Crown Colonies were established during the 19th century." In the region six were established. What distingusihes the five which became part of Australia in addition to NSW? Well you are right that all were part of NSW except WA. Well, so was NZ. All are not mainland colonies, because Tasmania was not. NZ is mentioned in the Australian Constitution as it was considered to be part of the discussion for federation. In the end six of seven established colonies decided to join. I agree that the NZ issue should not be mentioned, but I do not like the inaccuracy of the sentence. Alan Davidson 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see any inaccuracy. The article does not say there were five colonies established in the region, it just says that there were five established. It is true that if you read that sentence by itself, it is completely unclear (not quite inaccurate, but unclear) where these five colonies were, but the context is the history of the area now known as Australia. There is some room for confusion in the paragraph starts by talking specifically about the mainland, but I think there is more inaccuracy in the previous sentence, where the description of the NSW claim does not include Tasmania, let alone NZ. If that were changed, the issues you raise might be dealt with anyway. JPD (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

getting rid of the elephant

On the Royal-anthem-in-infobox-problem, I've got a better idea: let's get rid of this ugly chancer altogether. The information it contains is either already in the main text or should be integrated into the appropriate sections, not dissociated from them (GDP etc is a good example of this—who's going to flash back to the elephant, unprompted, when reading the Economy section?). See the current debate at MoS. The flag and coat of arms would be more attractive if they appeared unencumbered. Tony 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Furthermore, Point 2 of the Infobox design guidelines says: "Consider putting in the top right only in the most compelling of cases." The Manual of style says: "... in the absence of a compelling reason not to: Start the article with a right-aligned image." To meet these requirements, the infobox here should be either removed or relocated, and an image inserted in its place at the top, unless a "compelling" case can be made not to. Thus, in the absence of such a case, I intend to move the elephant to the bottom of the article in a week's time, on 9 June. Tony 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest taking your vision to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries? --Pete 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah. Tony 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Good call. But feel free to put forward other bright ideas. Put 'em on the table and see who takes a bite. --Pete 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on anthems?

Can we go round the table and see if there is overwhelming support for the removal of this information from the template? I'd particularly like the input on those who worked to make this a Featured Article.

Regarding the inclusion of both Australian anthems - national anthem and royal anthem - on the Country infobox.

  • Keep both. For the sake of conformity with other members of the Commonwealth such as Canada, who also have a royal anthem in addition to a national anthem. This article was accepted as a Featured Article with the information included and until recently nobody has even suggested it be removed. --Pete 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - if everything was governed by precedent and conformity no matter how appropriate, then we should all pack up and go home now. Same for FA articles, who says we can't change them? Why are the editors who got them to FA anymore qualified to comment? It's not about 'conformity' or maintaining this version on ice, but what is relevant and notable. Through all this, Skyring can only repeat that it is relevant cos others do it. Other articles are badly written, should we repeat that here too? Merbabu 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the Royal anthem was not present when the article was featured. It made its first appearance on the now-deleted Infobox Australia about May last year. In any event, Pete, your argument is flawed.--cj | talk 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It was introduced by PDH, one of the leaders of the team bringing the article to FA status. PHD is an excellent and tireless editor, recently featured as such in The Canberra Times --Pete 06:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That she is. But your argument is still made of straw. Peta simply substituted the aforementioned deleted template which contained the royal anthem as introduced by Matthew Samuel Spurrell. Even if what you've stated were correct, as Merabu pointed out, it would extend no validity to your position.--cj | talk 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that she chose to keep it, that other eminent editors did not see it as trivial, and that the same situation obtains in other articles for other Commonwealth members, is significant. Not to assign undue importance to any one bit of information, but I'd rather we didn't nibble away at good articles that are presented in accordance with WP-wide standards. --Pete 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's it, I'm sick of this, Pete is just arguing for the sake of arguing, there is no substance to this discussion and I'm now taking this article off my watchlist, you guys have fun wasting your time. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh come now, Pete. I really don't care either way, but I can't stand to see such disputatiousness – I mean, you've gone beyond the specious into blatant falsity. I suggest you cease making assumptions about Peta's edits – which are not only incorrect, but offensive considering past happenings – and either actually present a valid argument or move on.--cj | talk 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't see what you are on about. Peta is well able to speak for herself, if she wants to do so. I have the highest regard for her work (if not her spelling). Again I'm not reading too much into this, but neither she nor any other editor for a year saw this material as unimportant enough to warrant removal. And no, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm honestly and deeply concerned about the way good articles reach FA status and then are nibbled away and modified into mediocrity. --Pete 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't edits stand on their own? Or do we judge them on the editor? Irrespective of that, it's relevance/notability has not been proven despite repeated requests, we are simply told Canada and a few island states do it. So what? It's about what is relevant to this article. Where is WP:CONFORM NO MATTER WHAT? I don't know 1 person can hold up this simply by being argumentative. Merbabu 08:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Royal anthem", "God Save The Queen" is played as a matter of protocol on certain occasions but must not be confused with the "National anthem". See
. In summary, the infobox should read "National anthem"|"Advance Australia Fair", while the footnote explaining the relevance of the "Royal Anthem" should remain.Geoffrey Wickham 05:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep neither. Minimise the amount of information in the infobox and relocate it to where it's easiest for the reader: in the sections of the main text. A maximal policy towards infobox design, as in evidence, bloats it and disjoints the reading experience. Tony
  • Remove - a technical obscurity. Being a fact is not enough to make it notable. My phone number is a fact - shall we include that too? As for the other anthem, that is a different issue and there may be a case - it also seems irrelevant, but in this case perhaps we may have to bow down to the great god of conformity no matter how ill-advised his gospel. Merbabu 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Coudn't agree more about those who got it to FA status: it was appalling then by today's standards. Tony 03:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Further comment - I'm now more inclined to remove the National Anthem now too, but that's no doubt an even bigger asked given some conformity-no-matter-what attitude. Merbabu 04:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Footnote while it is completely trivial and is only played officially (along with the National Anthem) on the rare occasion that the Royal Family members are actually present for it, there is obviously a group of wikipedians who seem to really think this fact is important enough to be included in the article. But surely everyone can agree that it is not up there as the fourth most significant national emblem after the title (Commonwealth of Australia), the flag and the Coat of arms. The footnoting suggestion keeps the reference to the royal anthem in the article but does not place it in an inappropriately significant position within the article. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So, what's going to happen when the unblock is lifted? It's not as if relevance has been asserted, apart from 'other countries do it'. Merbabu 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what: I don't care; it's just too trivial. What matters more to me is the bloated size of the whole infobox, disjointing information that should be in the sections of the main text. I think it should be reduced in size. Tony 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not in the infobox. It is true, and I don't strongly object to it being there, although it does overstate its importance. However, while I'm am not against the infobox in the way Tony is, I do think it is too long, and the royal anthem is the least important information there, so should be the first to be removed. I'm not completely against conformity either, but if it were important, I'd say remove the royal anthem from the other countries boxes. At any rate, this arguing is ridiculous. JPD (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why Monarchists would choose to have this tiny, token, irrelevant, insignificant little thing become a battle. What a waste of everyone's time! And, what a way to make yourselves (and the rest of us) look like absolute fools.
The Royal Anthem is, simply, subordinate to the National Anthem and barely used. So why does it deserve a mention? Michael talk 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's probably wise not to label those who have a different viewpoint as "Monarchists". This issue has nothing to do with whether proponents of either side are monarchists, republicans, or indifferentarians. -- JackofOz 06:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove Whether it is mentioned or not in the artical the Royal Anthem should not be in the info box. It should be remembered that Australians do not view the National anthem as of major significance [citation needed]compared to what is traditional for many other countries which should be enough to overlook conforming with other Commonwealth countries info boxes if that is the only reason anyone wants it in. It may be a trivial dispute but it's still a legitimate edit. Wayne 14:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Disagree strongly with Wayne's assertion & inserted {fact} , above. Having said that I agree the info box should read "National anthem" "Advance Australia Fair" and that reference to the "Royal anthem" be retained as a footnote (per current version of article). The article is about Australia, not the disparate views of monarchists or republicans, so let's get it fixed NOW Geoffrey Wickham 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would point out to Geoffrey Wickham the opposition of the public to forcing the raising of the flag and singing the anthem in schools. Howard has backed down on forcing the singing of the anthem but he has passed legislation to force schools to fly the flag. Would there be such opposition in other countries? Wayne 15:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


The reference 1 cited in the info box after National Anthem - Advance Australia Fair should be replaced by which evidences the official status of "Advance Australia Fair" as the national anthem by an Act of Parliament Geoffrey Wickham 06:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This would require removal of the footnote that mentions God Save The Queen, wouldn't it? If so, then this would not be an appropriate edit to make under the current protection. Hesperian 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why?Geoffrey Wickham 06:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the 1 in the infobox after the National Anthem directs to a footnote not a reference. Hesperian 06:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not have both?? I don't see why there is a clash, ie. [1][2] Merbabu 06:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok. But I suspect it will come out [1][1]. Hesperian 06:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Hesperian 06:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
we could change the notes to: i, ii, iii, iv and so forth or a, b, c...? to avoid confusion. Style wise it doesn't look good as is. WikiTownsvillian 06:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems all but one person suggests at least keeping the Royal anthem into footnotes, if not the suggestions is to remove all anthems, but IMO that is a seperate issue not to be confused with the current. So far the only reason provided to keep the Royal anthem at the top is that other country articles do it. Thus, is this consensus? Merbabu 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a start. I'm loathe to fully protect this article for extended period, so I'll be unprotecting it. If the dispute manifests itself again in edit warring, I'll be blocking the editors involved rather than locking the article.--cj | talk 10:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As I suspected, there is no consensus to remove the royal anthem. Some might think it trivial, but the mere fact that we have two official anthems says something about Australia. The appropriate time to remove it from the article is when Australia no longer has a royal anthem.--Pete 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
'No consensus for removal?' - hhmm, there is more consensus to having it in a footnote than there is for having it feature at the top of the infobox. Complete removal from the article was not what was being discussed anyway. Merbabu 07:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
No, we're not talking about complete removal from the article. Start at the top of this particular discussion and re-read what I asked editors to comment on. Quite plainly there is no consensus for removal from the template. I note only one (perhaps mistaken) voice in several days, so I'm restoring the royal anthem to the template, and I request that nobody remove it without gaining consensus to do so first, which is normal procedure for any contentious edit.
I have no objection to anybody adding a footnote, though I suggest that the proper place for further information is in the GSTQ article, which may be reached via a wikilink anyway. --Pete 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow - what a cynical and misleading play on words. You are correct; there is no unanimous consensus for its "removal" from its prominent position, but the majority clearly don't support it being there like this. What a sham, Skyring. Edit warring is the only thing stopping from me reverting your unfair system-gaming edit. Merbabu 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the way Wikipedia works. We are a community of editors. Look at the history of this particular edit - several different people have removed it from the template and several different people have restored it. Clearly it is a matter of contention, and therefore consensus is required to make the edit. No consensus, no edit.
There's no gaming, no play on words, no cynicism, no vote-stacking. It's the way we work as a community, and we do things transparently and honestly. --Pete 06:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing 'honest' about you pretending the majority here want to see the royal anthem where you want it. No consensus to 'remove' as you say, does not translate to consensus to have it - in fact, there is less support for your way than having it mentioned in the footnote. That is what is 'transparent'. Talk about the tyranny of the minority. Hence my accusation of you gaming and playing on words stays. Wow, imagine if elections worked that way - we'd have the same government forever, because there always be someone somewhere who wanted it things to remain as they are, no matter how minor or nonsensical their argument.Merbabu 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. The simple fact is that removal of the royal anthem from the template is a contentious edit and there is no consensus for this edit. Add footnotes if you like, but don't remove the royal anthem from the template without gaining a clear consensus to do so first. I suggest that you read the policy on consensus. --Pete 07:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trying to imply I don't understand how wikipedia works (a quick comparison of our block logs suggests at least a small case of WP:KETTLE. Which particular part of WP:CON do you think I should look at. For starters, i found this towards the top which I thought was most apt:
Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus Merbabu 08:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I support removing from the infobox and agree with the comments made by Tony, Merbabu and particularly, CJ's comments. The argument that the information was added by an "an excellent and tireless editor" and that other "eminent editors" chose not to remove it absurd. My preference would be to footnote it, as suggested by Alec above. Sarah 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You may think it absurd, but nevertheless it is official Wikipedia policy, as found in WP:CON:
Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process.
The royal anthem happily lived in the infobox for several months until WikiTownsvillian removed it. Ever since then it has been the subject of an edit war, in which you are the latest participant. Clearly, as a contentious removal, it should not be removed without a consensus to do so. --Pete 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Peter, please stop deliberately misunderstanding people. I did not say that I found CON absurd. In fact, I find CON most agreeable, particularly, Consensus can change. I do, however, find your replies above to CJ and Hesp rather absurd and disingenuous. We don't classify people as "eminent" and then afford their edits a "protected from editing without unanimous agreement" status and we aren't bound and crippled by the past. There is clearly no consensus for adding that information back into the infobox. And yes, you too are edit warring. Sarah 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are way off beam here, particularly in your incorrect assumption of my thought processes. I certainly reject wholeheartedly your "deliberate misunderstanding" comment. My point in quoting WP:CON is to demonstrate that the version that existed before edit-warring broke out had the "Silence equals consent" consensus. I trust that you agree on this point? --Pete 22:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Insertion isn't the question here. The royal anthem was already in the template, so we're looking at removal. If we look at the history of the royal anthem in the template for Australia, here's what we see:

  • 10:56, 22 August 2006 PDH Insert
  • ooo Stable for several months ooo
  • 17:00, 9 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 10:44, 14 May 2007 Mastronarde Restore
  • 10:33, 20 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 12:04, 20 May 2007 Mastronarde Restore
  • 20:22, 28 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 22:28, 29 May 2007 Mastronarde Restore
  • 22:31, 29 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 12:47, 30 May 2007 Vox latina Restore
  • 00:39, 31 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 07:15, 31 May 2007 Lacrimosus Restore
  • 10:25, 31 May 2007 Merbabu Remove
  • 10:31, 31 May 2007 Skyring Restore
  • 10:33, 31 May 2007 Tony1 Remove
  • 11:06, 31 May 2007 Skyring Restore
  • 11:34, 31 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 12:12, 31 May 2007 Skyring Restore
  • 16:12, 31 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 17:53, 31 May 2007 Lacrimosus Restore
  • 18:03, 31 May 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • 01:20, 2 June 2007 Lexicon Restore
  • 01:56, 3 June 2007 Merbabu Remove
  • 08:02, 3 June 2007 Skyring Restore
  • 13:44, 3 June 2007 Merbabu Remove
  • 15:08, 3 June 2007 Vox latina Restore
  • 15:10, 3 June 2007 WikiTownsvillian Remove
  • ooo Call for consensus to remove, none found. ooo
  • 05:21, 11 June 2007 Skyring Restore

I think that it is clear that between 9 May and 3 June, there was an edit war being conducted and clearly WikiTownsvillian's edit was regarded as contentious. If we look at those who actually felt moved to edit this information, we see three editors (WikiTownsvillian, Tony1, and Merbabu) wanting it removed and five (Mastronarde, Vox latina, Lacrimosus, Skyring, and Lexicon) wishing to keep it. Obviously if somebody wants to perform the contentious act of removing the royal anthem from the template, they need a consensus to do so, and I can't see one. --Pete 10:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the important consensus is not what's in the edit history - rather, what is in the discussion. Merbabu 13:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That goes without saying. Perhaps you could point out the consensus to remove this information? --Pete 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion (which you requested) shows that preference for no royal anthem in the top user box easily outways that for keeping it. Your idea of consensus appears to be that if we don't have unanimous consensus then we can't change anything, even if the majority want it changed. That's ludicrous. If that was the case, almost nothing would change. Clearly the majority want it moved (but now that you've started canvassing agreeable editors, that might change).Merbabu 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep on assigning opinions to me which I have never expressed. I certainly don't regard consensus as a unanimous opinion. A variety of opinions have been expressed, but there is no consensus for removal of this information from the template. In fact, I can't see consensus emerging for any one position. It's obviously a contentious edit, as shown by the continued edit-warring, and therefore prior consensus should be obtained. Perhaps it would help you if those who have so far participated were to make their positions extra clear? --Pete 17:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Of the five accounts you keep citing as opposing removal, two are clearly the most blatant of sockpuppets that I've ever seen in my entire life. I don't know whose socks they are and it doesn't really matter because there is clearly no consensus for keeping it in the infobox, but talk about smelly socks. Sarah 21:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well I'm back to see how you guys are going, and despite the fact that you might feel you've gotten nowhere, I think you're nearly there. In the table below is my tentative assessment of various editors approval of the various options. Please feel free to update or clarify your own positions.

If you change any rows other than your own, please leave a note here explaining why.

Hesperian 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who Exclude, no footnote Exclude, footnote Include, no footnote Include, footnote Red XN Red XN Green tickY? Green tickY?
WikiTownsvillian Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN
Beneaththelandslide Green tickY? Green tickY? Red XN Red XN
Geoffrey Wickham Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN
JPD Green tickY? Green tickY? Red XN Red XN
Lacromosus Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY?
McGrath50 Red XN Red XN Green tickY? Green tickY?
Merbabu Green tickY Green tickY (preferred) Red XN Red XN
Sarah Green tickY? Green tickY? Red XN Red XN
Skyring Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY
Tony1 Green tickY Green tickY? Red XN Red XN
VirtualSteve Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN
WLRoss Green tickY? Green tickY? Red XN Red XN
Thanks, Hesperian, for setting this up as an excellent visual aid to discussion and consensus formation. I sought feelings about removal of the information, rather than inclusion, but perhaps that's a subtlety that others won't appreciate. --Pete 03:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Pete, even if pointing out that that subtlety is a valid point, it's exactly the sort of wikilawyering that won't help us get anywhere. As for consensus, I'd be perfectly happy to consider the above a consensus for deletion in an AfD. JPD (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous neat footnote version :-) Merbabu 04:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I've fully protected this article as it seems editors in this dispute are still prone to edit-warring. Drop me a line when you've come to agreement through discussion.--cj | talk 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And so we're back where we started. I'm thoroughly pissed that a dispute as exceedingly trivial as this has disrupted an article which has been maintained in a stable condition for years. I said above that I would be blocking anyone who edited the article in relation to the anthem before the conclusion of this discussion. I fully meant that. However, I am not active enough to monitor the article frequently, and I'm uncomfortable blocking too long after-the-fact. So the article is again protected.--cj | talk 04:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've downgraded the article's protection from full to semi so as to allow for editing aside from this dispute. It is unfair that the article should be locked to others because some of the editors involved here cannot behave properly. Please do not edit the article in relation to the dispute without first discussing and demonstrating a consensus here first. --cj | talk 03:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CJ! I was beginning to think all the admins had their heads up their bum. Or each other's. I think Hesperian's little aid showed a result some time back. --Pete 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Footnote anyway

Sigh, this is totally pointless. IMO, I believe the Royal Anthem should be in this article.

“God Save the Queen" is by law the Royal Anthem of Australia. On 19 April 1984 a Proclamation was issued, which proclaimed “Advance Australia Fair” as Australia’s National Anthem and “God Save The Queen” as Australia’s Royal Anthem

The footnote, is a weak substitute for staying the Royal Anthem of Australia, also it is incorrect, The Royal anthem is not only “played only in the presence of a member of the Australian Royal Family when they are in Australia.” This is a mistake that dates back to a Press Release, issued by the then Prime Minister Hawke. The draft Proclamation that was first submitted to the Governor-General stated that the Australian Royal Anthem was to be used only in the presence of The Queen or a member of the Royal Family.

However, at the Executive Council, the Draft Proclamation was amended, by deleting the word "only" from the Proclamation, after which it as approved, and gazetted.

Nevertheless, when Hawke’s press came out, there was an error, as the press statement contained the word “only” which in fact had been deleted from the Proclamation. .

The fact is that “God Save the Queen”, the Royal Anthem of Australia, may be played or sung by Australians wherever and whenever they think it appropriate, regardless of whether the Queen or a member of the Royal Family is present, provided only that it is not used as a substitute for either the National Anthem or the Vice-Regal Salute.

Quite Frankly, I believe it should remain in the infobox, with a footnote, explaining this, it had been in the Articles for months, passed FA with it in, and there is no need to change that fact, or at the very least, please make sure the footnote there is factually correct. Brian | (Talk) 05:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified this once or twice already, but the misconception apparently persists. It was not present when the article passed FA, and even if it were, it would not speak anything of its merit now or ever.--cj | talk 05:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Of cause it does not, after all, consensus can change. Mea culpa, I was reading through the above discussion and could swear I read it was there at FA, anyway, that’s not important. If this editwaring continues, it could damage this articles chance of remaining at FA. Brian | (Talk) 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Brian, while I still think prominent inclusion in the box is overstating a technical curiosity, it is good to see someone actually dealing with its notability in Australia, and not simply seeking to establish notability by saying other wikipedia country articles do it. if the info in the footnote is incorrect, then of course change it, if it is verifiable. Merbabu 05:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can see where you are coming from. In my opinion, as long as it is mentioned, in the article somewhere (either infobox or footnote), is fine. Anyway, the Monarchy in Australia article could be expanded to cover all these 'technical curiosity' Brian | (Talk) 05:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"What Happened?" It was put back in and then taken out I thought we came to a consensus (corrct me if im wrong).

It's time to finish this nonsense
Administrator JP has been very tolerant of this argument about inclusion of 'Royal anthem' in the article but it is time to wind it up. Consensus has been demonstrated by the voting in the section above this one--consensus that the info box should NOT have a numeral linking to the footnote but that the footnote should be retained so let's do it and stop the petty monarchist vs republican issues. The Article is about Australia and continuing the current arguments is demeaning to the article and to Australia.
Read the discussion of the Article USA and note the greater objectivity of posting in that discussion!
There is an old joke about ten Australians and ten Yanks marooned on an island. The Yanks elect one of the group as leader to try and find a solution to their problem. The Aussies divide into three factions.Geoffrey Wickham 06:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know whether you mean me or cj, and I don't really see how either of us has been particularly tolerant. Anyway, whichever version we use, there must not be any more edit warring. JPD (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it seems I'm a little late to this discussion, but I feel that both anthems should be mentioned, with explanatory footnotes if that is considered necessary. The retention of God Save the Queen as a royal anthem among the Commonwealth countries as they gained degrees of independence and adopted their own national anthems is significant. While both of these retain official status as anthems, they both ought to be mentioned. --bainer (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Is not, the display of both anthems on equal footing in the highly prominent top of info box giving the Royal Anthem a little too much weight? The Royal anthem is currently mentioned in the footnotes - is that not an appropriate place for a technical curiosity? Anyway, I don't know of any reason why you can't add you name to the table above. A majority opinion on the issue (unanimous consensus seems impossible) was starting to form. Merbabu 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral mass-edits to remove royal anthem

Roundwell (talk · contribs) has been going around to all the Commonwealth country articles and removing references to the royal anthem from the infoboxes, citing that concensus has been reached in the Australia talk page to do this. It doesn't seem like he's correct, so I'm noting this here. Carson 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any agreement, consensus or majority decisions reached here that specifically relate to Australia, should not be used as 'consensus' for other country articles - in exactly the same way that a decision for another country should not be forced upon this country article. regards --Merbabu 09:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen there would definitely be justification to have the royal anthem in the New Zealand infobox and possibly Canada as it is used regularly there too, it is part of the contemporary identity of those countries. So I would agree strongly with Merbabu, any final conclusion that is reached on this article could not be considered a consensus for any other article, other than being a good reference point for contextual points for and against the inclusion of a royal anthem. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hello , god save the queen is not an athem of australia anymore, it is a a footnote and should be treated as such, only it only a cermonial honour really that is played at all. the footnote is a good idea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charleykit (talkcontribs) 23:16, 11 July 2007 (ACST).

Honesty do any of you know the 'Royal Anthem'? It gives a false impression of Australia.

Official languages

I regret that I have to add to an already complex discussion.
The sidebox headed "Commonwealth of Australia", under subheading "Official languages" was modified to read de facto ref 2 by User:WikiTownsvillian at 0529 31May. The reference 2 cited is a speech given to the 1995 Global Diversity Conference, Sydney, by Joseph Lo Bianco chief executive of "The National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia Limited". Note that the word "Limited" means an incorporated Company and as such expresses a personal opinion in contradiction of WP:NPOV.
English is the common language of Australia, as used by government, taught by government schools, used by the general media and by citizens in general; but the use of English language is not enforced by Legislation.

I thus argue that, in the subheading, the words "Official language" should be replaced by the words "Common language" and the words defacto together with ref 2 be deleted as otherwise we are into an argument about opinions.Geoffrey Wickham 08:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Geoffrey, good point, I only moved the note out of the info box and down to the bottom of the article, I do not know who originally added the external link. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is not as good as it seems, as academic papers (by people who may work for universities, incorporated companies, or whatever else) are perfectly good sources for academic opinions that belong in Wikipedia. WP:NPOV becomes relevant only if there is a dissenting view. In this case, changing the heading from official languages is not so simple, as it is part of the template used for all country articles, but I don't think it is necessary anyway, as official language can refer to the language used for official purposes, not just one which has been legislated for. The "de facto" makes it clear that there is no legislation. JPD (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:WikiTownsvillian and JPD for your contributions. In reply to JPD , I make the point that within your argument (re academic sources) there are alternative opinions; for example English is also a requirement for University entrance
Regarding the use of the words "de facto", while you and I may understand the strict meaning, will all other readers of this encyclopaedic entry also understand the meaning? Further, "de facto" has now fallen out of common useage; eg. it is now generally unacceptable to refer to a person's partner as their de facto wife/husband !
Regarding your other point, the matter of an available template, there is available the template National language (insert |languages_type=National language). In summary; I suggest it would be best to delete the current template & the words de facto, and replace with "National language English". Geoffrey Wickham 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The links you have provided do not at all opposing the idea that it is the official language in some sense, they simply use different words to describe the situation. The issue of how to describe cohabitation relationships is not to do with the general acceptability of "de facto", which has a welll established and in encyclopedias and similar writing can be used in all sorts of contexts. Having said that, I would be happy with "national language" in the infobox. JPD (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See also this discussion: Talk:Australia/Archive 7#Languages. --bainer (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As a minor point on languages (to avoid starting a new section) the article says "A considerable proportion of first- and second-generation migrants are bilingual." According to the census it is only 14.6% of Australia's population as a whole. It is a no brainer that first and second gen migrants would be largely bilingual so shouldn't the article mention the overall %age instead? Another point to this is that I have several friends who’s parents are migrants and although they can all speak their parents language fluently at home they can barely understand it (or be understood) when speaking to other than family members which indicates using the term bilingual is a bit generous. Wayne 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Without reading through all the discussion above, I just want to say that the only language worth recognising in Australia is English. And to any prospective immigrants: It is the only language that is welcome. If you want to yap in your own language, stay in your own country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Without reading through all your comment above, I just want to say that in my opinion, your contribtion was not helpful in the slightest, in the future, perhaps you could read the discussion before adding your opinion to save re-stating what has been said previously. Whitehatnetizen 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The unsigned comment above regarding immigrants and english is totally uncalled for and has been placed by an individual obviously looking for a bite, perhaps excited by the heated exchanges in the various discussions on this page. From that particular editors history of editing articles relating to New Zealand and the consistent removal of references to indigenous terms it would seem that comments on Australia, and immigration to it, may be an issue. HelloMojo 14:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Our constitution unlike that of that of France does nor delineate an official language, but English is our de facto official language and lingua franca. There is no point saying any other language even remotely has any official recognition. Other languages are rarely used out of a particular ethnic community.

"Our constitution"? You claim that Iran is your culture and that you're Iranian. We're talking here Australia not Iran. Make up your mind. Please sign your posts in future. MegX 23:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes 'Our constitution' does not stipulate you to be of a particular race to have an opinion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


I've removed the forced pixel size from all images in accordance with the recommendation on the relevant section of MOS. In some 'portrait' shaped pics, I have used the (new?) 'upright' parameter. Merbabu 07:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference format...

Is there any reason why this style of reference listing is preferred over {{reflist|2}}, which gives a neat two-column listing? I understand it has no effect in IE (it just gives a single listing) but it works well in Firefox, and makes no visible difference in IE. I've put {{reflist|2}} back for now. Merbabu 07:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider, I really prefer the old way, I can't stand the two column references, the gap in the middle looks like something rude. I can't stand it, but I just have to look. PLEASE!!!!!!! Why do you care so much about it anyway? I'M BEGGING YOU!!!! Change it back. Firelover1 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi, can anyone add the Mongolian Interwiki link mn:Австрали? --Chinneeb 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 Estimate Population Figure

{{editprotected}} Please update the population figure in the infobox under the heading of "2007 estimate" to the newest population clock figure of 20,997,000 . This figure may be verified by clicking the superscript above the current figure, and then following the link to the population clock. The large jump in numbers is due to the Australian Bureau of Statistics re-basing the figure on newer data (probably from the 2006 census). —Upper Lines 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Steve (Stephen) talk 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This task has not been executed as stated here. Somebody please do so. —Upper Lines 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely done now, must have been a glitch. --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The population figure for 2007 is still too high. The July 2007 estimate was about 20,400,000.(

Separate page for "Commonwealth"?

Would anyone here be interested in starting a separate article entitled "The Commonwealth of Australia"? This article would pertain specifically to information regarding the history and state of Australia as a British colony. I'd like to hear others' opinion on this. If anyone has info they could use to get this article off the ground, or simply think this is a good idea, please let me know.The Kensington Blonde T CFlag of the United Kingdom.svg 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. How does your suggestion differ from:
All those articles could do with some work. Better referencing for starters. regards --Merbabu 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
PS, Australia's current full name is 'Commonwealth of Australia' --Merbabu 22:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Commonwealth of Australia" is the legal title of the Australian nation. It does not really relate to the colonial period. A page on the history of Australia in the 20thC may be appropriate. --Michael Johnson 22:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess to be specific, an article that describes the Commonwealth of Australia as a state, as opposed to a geographical region. Here are some parallels, there's an article on the Netherlands, then there's an article on Holland. An article on the Balkans, then an article on the state of Yugoslavia. In short, the article would be about Australia as a Westernised entity, but if this would be too similar to the articles mentioned abouve, I could see why it would not be necessary.The Kensington Blonde T CFlag of the United Kingdom.svg 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your examples are that while Holland and Yugoslavia are "subunits" of the Netherlands and the Balkans respectively, Australia and Commonwealth of Australia are effectively the same thing.--Michael Johnson 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The Commonwealth of Australia in its political form could be thought of as a chronological subunit of Australia. It didn't exist until Europeanisation.The Kensington Blonde T CFlag of the United Kingdom.svg 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It didn't exist until January 1st 1901. In any case if you refer to History of Australia you will find links to sub articles on all eras of Australian history, from prehistoric to the current day. Perhaps you can review them, and assist in editing where appropiate. --Michael Johnson 02:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I thought you wanted an article specifically on Australia as an English colony, but I don't know why the suggested history articles (above) don't cover that period? (although I'd agree with need for further improvement). Or are you talking about the geographical entity? Geography of Australia. None of these articles cover what you want to write about? Merbabu 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No. Per common usage, this article is reserved for the country of Australia. Any other conceptions of "Australia" are discussed within the History of Australia series and Australia (continent). In any event, what you are seeking is unclear. There is no such thing as an "Australia as a British colony"; there were several British colonies on the Australian continent, and these federated to form the country of Australia which this article covers.--cj | talk 01:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I added in the sentence "The removal of children from their families" "half-aboriginal half-white" so that it becomes "The removal of half-aboriginal half-white children from their families" as they were the kind of children that were taken. If anyone wants to debate with me about it, feel free to on my talk page. BlackSlivers 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Health care in Australia

A subarticle on health care in Australia would be useful to provide overview information, similar to [4] and [5]. It would be the main article for Category:Healthcare in Australia, which currently has none. -- Beland 04:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Been watching Sicko? Slac speak up! 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Anthem 2

Just to bring this subject up again. Are you aware that Australia is almost the only article about a Commonwealth Realm which does not have the Royal Anthem listed on its infobox? Whether you like it or not, God Save the Queen *is* the Royal Anthem of Australia which is used on Regal, vice-regal, and Commonwealth occasions. The little note at the bottom isn't adequate for this. It needs addressing on the main part of the article to be consistent. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of us were aware of this, although to be fair, most of the other articles had the information added very recently, and the addition is sometimes disputed, so your argument is not valid. More to the point, it is silly to assume that the articles must deal with the information in exactly the same way - that is not the way Wikipedia works. This would be true even if God Save the Queen does actually have the same status in each realm, and it's not clear that this is the case officially, let alone in practice. Basically, you need to give a reason why a note at the bottom isn't adequate, and mentioning consistency with other articles doesn't do this. JPD (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It absolutely ought to be added under the national anthem. No-one is contesting that it is not the Royal Anthem, but people with a republican POV have pushed it to the bottom as a footnote. I am not pro-monarchy by the way. 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not including God Save the Queen as a Royal Anthem in the info box is POV. Simple, straight forward, republican POV. That it is used rarely reflects the protocol of royal anthems and the rarity of a visit to Australia by a member of the royal family. Like it or not, the Head of State of Australia IS the Queen and when she or any of her family visit the RA should be played. If rarity of the event was reason for leaving things out of the article then the dismissal of the Whitlam Govt. should be left out since it is a much rarer event than the playing of the RA. Of course the dismissal deserves to be there and so does the info box mention of the RA. Anyone opposing putting the RA into the info box should ask themselves the question. "Do you support the playing of the Royal Anthem when a member of the royal family visits Australia?" If your answer is "No" then you need to consider that your objection to putting the RA into the info box is POV. --CloudSurfer 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The argument that it is a republican push to remove the Royal Anthem may not be valid. In my experience Australian monarchists have tended to downplay the "royal" aspects of Australian national life, for instance by claiming (incorrectly) that the GG is head of state. OTOH some republicans like to push some of the minor aspects of monarchy out front, in the hope of promoting public disquiet, and thus re-opening the debate. Of course I am sure these motives do not apply to any of the editors here, as I can assume good faith. The issue of playing the royal anthem when a member of the Royal Family visits Australia is neither here nor there, as of course that anthem would be played whether Australia was a republic or not. --Michael Johnson 02:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I had no idea that on wikipedia a POV, however popular, could be used to change how fact is represented on an article. I think that's a very sad day for wikipedia.
Obviously those people above who gained 'consensus' have not bothered enough to come back and contribute again. Therefore I'm going to re-add it to the article. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A consensus has been formed already, trying to reopen debate again does not change this fact and you would be going against a consensus decision if you do change it again. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 08:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It is complete nonsense to suggest that it is POV whether or not to include the Royal Anthem in the info box. The only question is if it is important enough. Most countries only include their National Anthem, and rightly so. Look for instance, at the United States article. Hail to the Chief, the anthem of the President, is not mentioned, even in a footnote. The Royal Anthem is not an alternative National Anthem, it is an anthem used solely as a salute to the Head of State. Including it is entirely unjustified. --Michael Johnson 08:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Michael. Good point about the USA. And to any saying that it is based on republican bias, that is as unhelpful and stupid as saying you are arguing on Monarchist bias. It's not POV, it's relevance. --Merbabu 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that only when I actually edit the page do you come out the woodwork. I'd like Michael to prove to me that 'most' countries only include their national anthem. It was actually quite the contrary of that which drew me to this cause. Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No Biofoundationsoflanguage, a consensus decision has already been made and there is no need for the decision to be reviewed and re-debated less than a month later just because you disagree with it. No one bothered to respond to your initial comment (or bating) because we've all moved on and you should too. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 09:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Most of us spend much more than 5 minutes trying to write good articles, and don't have the time to run round trying to pacify the demands of those who can't seem to get over the fall of the British Empire. --Michael Johnson 09:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You're charming aren't you? I'm sorry you seem to struggle understanding my sense of humour. I do actually try to make constructive edits to wikipedia. I think it's a shame that some of these are killed off by likes of people of some sort of disposition. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Merbabu, your angry retort "... is as helpful and stupid ..." clarifies your position beautifully. --CloudSurfer 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, unhelpful is what I meant (and no doubt is perfectly obvious if takes into account the context). But, please stick to the point. I'm not angry and accusations that I am are as unhelpful as calling me a biased republican. I didn't call you and others a biased monarchist for that very reason. Please calm down. --Merbabu 07:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
When people call what other people say "stupid" they are usually angry. I assume therefore that you were angry when you wrote that. I am not angry, merely amused at the passion that such a simple matter is producing.
What I have asked in a previous posting was, 'Anyone opposing putting the RA into the info box should ask themselves the question. "Do you support the playing of the Royal Anthem when a member of the royal family visits Australia?" If your answer is "No" then you need to consider that your objection to putting the RA into the info box is POV.' No one has addressed this point in any of the postings. Let me state my position to make it clear. My answer to this question is that I have no objection to it being played and believe that it is entirely appropriate that it be played. On the issue of a republic, I am happy to see a republic in Australia that maintains a balance of powers, which was not the case in the model proposed in the last referendum. I have no particular objection to having the Queen as Head of State and prefer this to a situation where we had a disempowered President that leaves the ballot box as the only check on the power of the government of the day. However, I would prefer to have a presidential republic with a president elected by the people. That is my position. What is yours?
This brings up another issue. It has been stated that the US entry does not have "Hail to the Chief" as a listed anthem. There is a infobox heading for National Anthem and for Royal Anthem. Is there one for Head of State anthem? If there is then "Hail to the Chief" should be listed. If there is not then it seems like there should be a Head of State anthem heading with a Royal Anthem being a variant of this. Part of the issue here is protocol. What anthem should be played in a particular circumstance. For instance, if the Queen represents Australia in France, what anthem should be played? My guess is "Advance Australia Fair" because she is representing the country and is not the Head of State of France. However, if she is in Australia opening something, then "God Save the Queen" should be played. To complicate it further, I suspect that if she were in the UK in her role as Queen of Australia then they should play "Advance Australia Fair". The entry for Royal Anthem does not go into detail on this matter. I will try to find an answer to this.
--CloudSurfer 14:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

CloudSurfer, This discussion is inappropriate for this page (WP:DISCUSSION), I have gone into more detail on your user talk page. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:Discussion that excludes what I am saying other than perhaps the level of detail I have given. I am not trying to start a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the Monarchy in Australia. What I am trying to tease out is any bias that might be present in the contributors from both sides of the argument. Ultimately, Wikipedia is written by individuals with individual viewpoints. If any person has a particular bias then it behoves the writer to be clear about this and attempt to retain a NPOV. All I am asking is for people to consider their particular political views and ask themselves if these views are distorting their point of view on this matter. Other than a flat denial, this has yet to be addressed adequately. --CloudSurfer 15:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
...and what is your evidence to support your accusations of bias? again I've responded already on this point on your talk page and am not going to engage further on this issue which has already been debated at length and decided. WikiTownsvillian 15:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No decision is final in Wikipedia. That is the nature of the beast. The issue remains that Australia has a Royal Anthem and that there are special entries in the infobox template for "national_anthem", "royal_anthem", and "anthem". Now at some stage, someone or some people decided that a royal anthem was worth including in the infobox. It is in the specification of the infobox that the decision to have it included should be made, not on a country by country basis. The footnote still references it but if it’s good enough to leave out of the Australia infobox then why not every other country and why not remove it from the infobox code? The point remains that it is an anthem played at some official functions, albeit rarely, and people looking to see at a glance what anthems exist in a particular country may miss the footnote. It would probably be a good idea if the infobox included all official categories of anthems including a head_of_state anthem. --CloudSurfer 16:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is a field in the infobox for the royal anthem does not mean it needs to be used here. The infobox is designed so that it can be conviently used in whichever way is appropriate for each particular article, not so that every article has to have exactly the same information. More than that, the infobox only recently obtained that field, as a result of this debate, so it is quite circular to use it to support your argument.

The infobox is too long even without the royal anthem. The last thing it needs is the addition of something as marginally relevant as that. I suppose some people would like to know all official anthems, but I would suggest that expecting to find them all in an infobox is a bit much. Is it really that hard to actually follow some links and read some articles, let alone look at a footnote? JPD (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, none of the RA pushers have established why it is not undue weight to put it next to the NA. They should also know that when it was deleted, there was no note mentioning the R anthem. It is a technical obscurity and should thus not be given the implied equal footing next to the national anthem. --Merbabu 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors position on the Republican issue should not be and is not relevant to this debate. Last I looked the Queen is head of state, so a Royal anthem is a Head of State anthem. Here is a logical way of looking at it. National anthems should be mentioned on articles about the relevant Nation. Head of State anthems (including Royal anthems) should be mentioned on articles about that particular Head of State (the office, not the person). --Michael Johnson 00:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Related discussions:

For completeness.--cj | talk 10:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if G2bambino could help reword the footnote to deal with his concerns. Obviously anyone may choose to play the royal anthem even if the Queen is not present, but it is only when a member of the Royal family is present that the proclamation gives an official mandate to do so. Of course, after the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne last year, it is hard to say that the royal anthem is actually played even when it is mandated. JPD (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have to tread very carefully here; I was blocked by an over-zealous bully of an admin not so long ago because I once restored the Royal Anthem to the info table. So, I'm not going to make any changes to the footnote until sufficient time has passed for someone to possibly raise a cite for the present claims. --G2bambino 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to edit the article in order to give a suggested better wording here. (You do realise that the admin was "zealous" because your edit was a continuation of an edit war that had already cause the article to be protected for four days, don't you?) I don't see how waiting for a cite helps - the issue seems to be with the wording, rather than the intention of the sentence. JPD (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well I certainly didn't like unwittingly stumbling into the trap of being blocked for one solitary edit; the apparent edit war still wasn't justification for that admin's totalitarian reaction nor his extremely distasteful attitude. Anyway, the sentence currently purports that the Royal Anthem is only played in the presence of members of the Royal Family, which, to my knowledge, and from my reading of the proclamation designating God Save the Queen as the Royal Anthem, is wrong. Unless, of course, I'm wrong and someone has a cite to the contrary. --G2bambino 21:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Until 1974 the anthem used was God Save the Queen/King. The Whitlam Government, following the result of a public opinion poll conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, changed the anthem to Advance Australia Fair, except for specifically royal occasions. In January 1976, the Fraser Government reinstated the use of God Save the Queen for royal, vice-regal, defence and loyal toast occasions. Advance Australia Fair was played on all other official occasions. ...From 1985 both God Save the Queen and Advance Australia Fair are played at the beginning of official functions attended by the Queen or member of the royal family."

proclamation of 19 April 1984: "that the anthem “God Save The Queen” shall hence-forth be known as the Royal Anthem and be used in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen or a member of the Royal Family;"

..."that the National Anthem shall be used on all official and ceremonial occasions, other than occasions on which either the Royal Anthem or the Vice-Regal Salute is used [6]"

My interpretation of the above is that:

1901-1974 GSTQ is the National Anthem
1974-1976 GSTQ used exclusively in presence of royalty
1976-1984 GSTQ used exclusively; in presence of royalty, in presence of G-G and Gs, for defense purposes and to pledge loyalty to the crown.
1984-present GSTQ used exclusively in presence of royalty.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I, as an ardent collector of Parliamentary Handbooks, applaud your research, a logical mind notices that "exclusively" dropping in, like rain from an airsick duck, or perhaps ex cathedra, as in the pigeons of St Pauls. None of the quotes proscribes the use of GSTQ, instead listing but not limiting the occasions when it may be officially played. Of course, the secondary source of the handbook may be in error, and it may well be that the primary sources give more detail. --Pete 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
exclusively = The National Anthem "shall be used on all official and ceremonial occasions, other than" where the Royal Anthem is used (which is defined as "in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen or a member of the Royal Family"). WikiTownsvillian 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The handbook claims to reproduce the text of the 1984 proclamation, which as has been said, does not proscribe the use of GSTQ, but does only give if official backing in the presence of royalty. Surely the question is simply how to express that without implying that you are not allowed to play it in other situations. JPD (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You both need to brush up on your logic skills. Nowhere is the official use of the RA exclusively limited to the presence of royalty. I am willing to stand corrected, but none of the sources provided explicitly back Alec's interpretation. --Pete 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To give one example of where the royal anthem was used recently outside the presence of royalty, I have been told by a reliable that the Presbyterian Church of NSW up until recently sung GSTQ in their General Assemblies as a sign of loyalty to the Queen, and apparently the motion to end the practice was heavily debated. Sure, it's not a government occasion, but yes, GSTQ is still used outside of government in certain places. There's nothing stopping someone from singing it anywhere, just something saying that if royalty is there, it *must* be used in addition to AAF. ajdlinux | utc 11:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC) - it's not mandated even in the presence of the Queen herself, like everything it depends on context, certainly where there is a diplomatic or governmental context protocol is at its most clear. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's what I mentioned earlier. The proclamation definitely says the royal anthem should be played in the presence of the Queen, but this isn't always done. Pete, where did I say that official use is limited to the presence of royalty? My point was that the proclamation which officially makes GSTQ the royal anthem just doesn't say anything at all about use when royalty is not present. Such use may be "official" if it is done at an official occasion, but it doesn't have any basis in any codified official protocol. If someone could say that briefly and unambiguously, it would be appropriate for the footnote. JPD (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Where I got your statement from is in your contribution above. You said, "...only give if official backing in the presence of royalty...". Again, this is not supported by the sources. There is no official source that limits the official use of GSTQ to occasions when royalty is present. You and Alec are strongly implying, if not out and out stating it in bold face, that there is some such limitation, and I make the point that such interpretations are incorrect. Risibly so, because they demonstrate flawed logical processes. --Pete 01:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I am replying to this only because of the misrepresentation of my comments. I have repeatedly tried to make a distinction between something being being officially limited to the presence of royalty, and the absence of an official mandate when royalty is not present. Right from the start, I have acknowledged that the wording then in the footnote implied the former rather than the latter, and said the question was how to express the latter without implying the former. Maybe you do not think the distinction makes sense, but to ignore the fact that I am trying to make it, and to interpret my remarks as meaning the same as Alec's earlier summary, is just as much a misinterpretation as saying that GSTQ is limited to the presence of royalty. JPD (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. There is often a gap between implication and inference, and I welcome any effort to close that gap. Nevertheless, the fact is that there is no official limitation on the use of GSTQ. --Pete 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No matter the above - I still don't understand how the RA should get equal with the National Anthem. It's almost like saying in this article "Sydney is the largest city in Australia, and Alice Springs is also a city". nonsensical, but at the RA actually gets it's own footnote, Alice Springs doesn't.--Merbabu 10:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The "equality" that you are looking for is that both are official anthems of Australia. Isn't it fascinating that an anthem that has been relegated to a footnote because it lacks relevance should provoke lines and lines of debate. Maybe it is relevant to see it as one of the two official Australian anthems and put it back in the box. You could then see if there is an ongoing debate about relegating it. Some time soon there will be a republic in Australia and then there will be no RA. This will happen when the people of Australia decide to do it. Until then there are two anthems. --CloudSurfer 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
edit conflict. Your debate is here because a few people keep bringing up a technical obscurity. Not because those (the majority) understanding it as an obscurity then have to respond to your debate. As we would if you wanted to mention, say, Alice Springs in the lead. --Merbabu 01:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that those who want to remove GSTQ generally don't have any edit history of fighting to reduce infobox size or any similar wikihousekeeping, but do have long edit histories of fighting for their political viewpoints, often holding out for the inclusion of long paragraphs of minimal notability. As a wikipedant of some longstanding, I find the debate here amusing. --Pete 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss the issue Skyring. Not editors. Also, claims of a moral high ground can easily be shot down. Back to the issue please. --Merbabu 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Pete, you're crossing a line here. If you want to continue participating, do so in a civil manner.--cj | talk 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
From the start I have posited that it is likely that those arguing to obfuscate the RA are influenced by their personal views on whether or not the RA should be played in Australia. Being a psychiatrist you may turn this around and say that I am biased towards looking for deeper motivations for people's actions. However, I am not attempting to attack individuals but rather to point out that individual bias is a part of everything we do in life. All I have asked of those involved in this debate is to disclose any views relevant to the RA that might then contribute to a particular stance. What I find amazing is that there has been a strong defence of anonymity allowing people to keep their view to themselves. Prior to my recent entry above, my last entry in this debate was 22 July. Since then it has continued with others putting forward their views. Merbabu's comment, "Your debate is here because a few people keep bringing up a technical obscurity." states his view that the RA is a "technical obscurity" as well as using the ad hominem "Your" suggesting that his stance is fairly emotive. Pete's comments address this as well but are a bit more personal and directed. He is described as "crossing a line". In discussions I have had about editorial issues on other pages, I do not recall a similar need for people to hide their own points of view to this extent. Could we please have more transparency and rationality in this discussion. --CloudSurfer 04:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You're deliberately trying to misdirect the conversation, people have not engaged with you on this issue because it is irrelvant to the discussion, this is not a debate about whether Australia should have a Royal Anthem or if people like the Royal Anthem, in fact that debate is against talk page policy. please assume good faith that we re all looking for a NPOV solution to where the Royal Anthem should be in the article, this is only a debate about the Royal Anthem's notability and relevance to the subject matter 'Australia'. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 09:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
What line am I crossing, Cyber? I think it self-evident that the debate over this minor issue is largely based upon political views, not whether we need to save space in the template. It was defending against political nibbling that drove out Adam Carr, and while I don't regret speeding the departure of an abusive editor, I do mourn the loss of his knowledge and skills. --Pete 05:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Diversions aside, Pete, the line you were crossing is called no personal attacks. You are fully aware of this policy, so you ought to know better. This debate shouldn't be at all about political views; it should be about the relevance and worth of the royal anthem to the infobox (remembering that its purpose is to summarise only the most pertinent facts of a subject) in particular and the article in general. --cj | talk 12:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I know the policy very well. Looking at WP:NPA, I haven't broken it, unless you consider a reference to user contribution history a form of PA. In which case the ArbCom is in constant violation. Judging by the line that says, "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack," I think you owe me an apology. If you disagree, then kindly point out precisely where you think I am in breach. Precisely. Otherwise, kindly respond to the point I raise or in some other way move the discussion forward. --Pete 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Spare us the pettifogging, Pete. Re-read your comment, and then consider it in light of the policy's key message: comment on content, not on the contributor. You clearly weren't.--cj | talk 01:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Spare us the hypocrisy and name-calling, please. A user's contribution history is clearly relevant to content, and is taken into account constantly. Are you seriously saying that it's OK to examine a user's past edits in the privacy of one's home, but it's a sin to refer to them in public? Seriously? --Pete 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I personally take offense at the constant attempts to ascribe motives to editors by Pete. The only issue as far as I am concerned is relevance and notability. And that issue has been argued ad infinitum, with the (in my opinion correct) conclusion that the Royal Anthem does not belong in the info box. --Michael Johnson 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


i added hobart to the part about where the population is located because it is a state capital. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casenj (talkcontribs) 03:18, 18 July 2007.

I've reverted. There are 6 more non-capital cities which have greater populations than Hobart.--cj | talk 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Population clock...

Do we have to update this daily? It's really annoying in my watch list. It's also gimicky in my opinion. Can't we just use the census data? Really, do we need to update every 1000 people? I mean, really? --Merbabu

One option would be too use a less precise figure, accurate to 100,000, 0.1 million or even 1 million. The census data is for last year, not this year. However, I suspect that the country infobox was originally intended to include a single population estimate for the current year (possibly the 1 Jan estimate?), and it would be quite good if all country infoboxes used this standard. JPD (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Australia a police state? help required

The Gun_politics#Balance_of_power article describes Australia as a police state. I would think that this is not correct! Evidently a lot of Yanks use this for an "example of what happens if you have liberal gun laws", and it is popularly believed in the USA that Australia is a police state. Please could someone knowledgeable add a refutation with references, or remove the statement and justify it in references. -- Q Chris 10:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"and it is popularly believed in the USA that Australia is a police state." it isn't. O_o Travis Cleveland 04:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Referendum of November 6th, 1999 in external Australian territories

Please anybody give me a reference on source (on this page) about and Republican referendum on Cocos (Keeling) islands, Christmas island and Norfolk island. --User: 14:35 28 July 2007.

I don't quite understand the question. There is no reason why this page would go into that much detail about the referendum. However, reference number 13 is a link to the AEC's reports and statistics from the 1999 referendums. The don't give any details about the non-mainland territories, but I presume that electors inthese territories were entitled to vote as part of the electorates they usually vote, generally Canberra or Lingiari, so their votes would not have been counted seperately. JPD (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This was asked at Talk:Referendums in Australia, and I answered there. They apparently don't vote because their territories are not separately represented in the House of Reps. ajdlinux | utc 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia's size

Australia's size should be increased to 13637720 taking account of the AAT seeing that the USA get away with Hawaii and Alaska. and its not a sovereignty debate because Hawaii still considers it self to be independent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:10, 31 July 2007 (ACST).

No, it doesn't. Sovereignty does have everything to do with it. Australia, under treaty obligations, does not actively assert sovereignty over its Antarctic claim. Alaska and Hawaiʻi are US states. The comparison doesn't fly.--cj | talk 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

can someone please edit the following out? ive never used this so please excuse my shit-ness "The BEST Ausies root better then every one else! and we have the biggest penises inb the world!" its just below Etymology - dan

Request for comment on "royal" residence of the Governor-General

Editors of this article may wish to comment on the edits being made at Official residence, advancing the unusual view that the official residence of the Governor-General of Australia, and those of his equivalents in other jurisdictions, are "royal" residences (i.e. official residences of the monarch), and that this aspect (assuming for the moment that it exists) deserves mention in a list of official residences, alongside "vice-regal", the somewhat opaque term being substituted for "Governor-General" and the like. -- Lonewolf BC 17:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: User:Lonewolf BC is here omitting the point that the edits at Official residence are part of a broader cleanup of the article to create a uniform standard; "royal" and "vice-regal" in place of the specific Australian Monarch and Governor General of Australia brings the Australian section into line with others which use (by other editors' contributions) "royal," "vice-regal," "presidential," "prime ministerial" and the like.
Comments are certainly welcome at Talk:Official residence to improve the article as a whole. --G2bambino 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In regard to G's comments, I trust that you folks will forgive me for focussing on the issue. For your information, though, the "general cleanup" only began after the "royal" issue had arisen, though the two spread to the "Australia" entry at the same time. Please judge for yourselves which actions have brought about which. (The "cleanup" is also making the article worse in some other ways, in my opinion. You may wish to look at that, also, but those are separate, or at most indirectly related issues.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix this immediately

There is a dumb sentence about Australian male organs right after the etymology, I do not know how one can do so because it is not in the source. the title is "the BEST".

You were unlucky, an automated bot fixed it up less than a minute after it was added, which is why it disappeared by the time you tried to edit it. ajdlinux | utc 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Demographics, etc

Australia demographics are changing very fast with majority of new immigrants are from China and Indian Subcontinent, the article is incomplete if not enough coverage is given to their presence in the country. Also the largest trading partner of Australia are China and Japan therefore it is unwise to exclude the facts from the discussion. Also Abroginal culture, history and arts should be discussed in a separate paragraph without which the article is incomplete. The country race relations, treatment of indegenous people, migrants and refugees has been criticised by Amnesty international, kindly mention them to maintain the neutrality of the article. (Himhifi 06:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Your first two factual claims are already presented in the article, appropriately in context. I do not know why you suggest they have been excluded. Aboriginal culture and history shoudl indeed be covered, although I don't see why it should be in context in the culture and history sections. Please remember that this is an overview article and there are other articles where these issues are dealt with in more detail.
On a related matter, can anyone explain to me what half of the table added to the demographics section actually has to do with demographics? JPD (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently added demography table...

I've just removed this table that was recently added to the "Demography" section. It was unreferenced and I question whether (a) the parameters shown are all relevant balanced and (b) do we even need such table form information? Ie, if something is important enough to be in the article, should it not go into the prose? We already have an info box for the main article/lead; do we really need one for potentially each section? Or is there actually a place for such a box as long as (a) the fields are well-chosen and (b) reliably referenced.

By the way - is the section best named "demography" or should it be changed to "Demographics"? --Merbabu 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't even see what many of the parameters have to do with demography. JPD (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure if it's been mentioned earlier since I haven't been around much recently - but the some of the 2006 census data is out. There is certainly enough there to update demographic information for Australia and the capitals. --Peta 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

India, explicitly modelled on this article, is in a storm

People here have expertise in constructing and maintaining a country article (that I lack). I've raised a few issues on the talk page of India, and there appears to be a lot of turbulence at the moment.

If anyone has time to have a look, their input at India would probably be an advantage. Tony 03:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)