Talk:Australia/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18


Update to 2010 GDP

Go to the list of countries by GDP (nominal)

update the GDP figures for both nominal and the less relevant PPP in the right hand side column and economy section

they currently show 2009 figures

the GDP figures for 2010 are now listed on the aforementioned articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My god. One would think such a major and crucial detail would be updated immediately, let alone still be left unchanged weeks after the suggestion was made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Figures have now been updated but the nominal figure is in the format of 1,_ _ _ billion, rather than 1._ _ _ trillion, which is the format used for other countries' articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove redundant sentence in intro

The sentence "Approximately 56 per cent of Australia's population live in either Victoria or New South Wales, and approximately 77 per cent live on the mainland's east coast" should be removed from the intro as there is already a sentence in regards to the proportion of population living in the 5 major capitals, any more is too detailed for the intro and unnecessary. Further, selecting Vic and NSW is very arbitrary, why not say __% live in vic, nsw and qld, as these states have the largest populations by far, and the difference between the nsw and vic population is greater than the diff between the vic and qld population. As such, it is an arbritrary figure to be putting in an intro which is supposed to be succinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing arbitrary about selecting New South Wales and Victoria. The statement is obviously related to population density and while Queensland has the third largest population, its average population density is very low (2.61/km2) compared to Victoria (24.39/km2) and NSW (9.04/km2) Tasmania is Australia's third most densely populated state, with 7.36/km2. VIC and NSW lead the country in both population and population density while TAS and QLD are 3rd in only one each, which is why the statement specifies VIC and NSW and excludes the other two. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Still seems rather detailed for an intro and quite arbitrary given that a) The populations of Victoria and Queensland are far closer than those of NSW and Victoria, and b) if were considering density, the population density in NSW is closer to that of QLD than Victoria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, the "closeness" of the populations has nothing to do with it, it's population density and 9.04/km2 (NSW) is a long way from 2.61/km2 (QLD). The average population density of QLD is lower than the current average population density of the entire country. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

...And 24.39/km2 (vic) is even further away again from 9.04km2 (nsw) ! I cannot see any reason for this wholely arbitrary and overly detailed fact to be in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Australia

This revert is fair enough, it gives a source

which certainly looks relevant. I'll investigate further.

Many years ago when I worked for the Australan Government, after a change of government they made quite a big thing of removing the words Commonwealth of from all our stationery and correspondence. Perhaps this has been quietly reversed!

Agree that if it's the official name it should be in the infobox. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think what you probably saw was the machinations of politicians in making things look the way they wanted them to look. Politicians, however, cannot on their own change the Constitution, which clearly refers to the Commonwealth in many places. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Australia's neighbours

Can someone tell me, what are the nearest neighbors to Australia, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought about consulting an atlas or Google Maps? Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Australia shares a sea border with Papua New Guinea, with Australia "owning" most of the islands in Torres Strait, the closest being only a few kilometres from the PNG coastline. Other near neighbours are East Timor and Indonesia (starting with the western end of Timor) around 500km from Australia's north west coast, and New Zealand, around 1,500km to the south east. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And AussieLegend wins the Nationalist Pedant Award of the Day with that change that took me quite a while to figure out ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all the members of the Academy....... --AussieLegend (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to upstage you ...  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
No, that was easy to figure out. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary note - "Not to be confused with Austria"

"Not to be confused with Austria." is kind of silly. I suggest it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, note that the Austria article does not have the correspending link on its page (nor should it). --Merbabu (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Plus Austria is a lot less confusing than Australasia. Hesperian 04:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I just removed it, I doubt there'll be much objection.Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not disputing this decision at all (and I didn't add the text in question), but I thought I'd add a little anecdote to illustrate that the confusion does occur, silly as it may seem.

At one stage I was corresponding, from Australia, regularly with a party in rural France. The letters, by air post, typically arrived in the second day after posting, very impressive considering that Paris-Sydney was at the time a 28 hour flight.

Then one from France to Australia diaappeared, to arrive, intact, three weeks later. Inspecting the envelope, it had been postmarked in Vienna. So despite beng clearly addressed Australie, it had been sent via Austria.

The bizarre thing being, the French name for Austria is Autriche, and the French often call it Österreich in my experience, while Australia is always known as Australie, so the confusion is far more likely in English than in French. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Not to be confused with Austria."-note should stay. I'v noticed on YouTube comments how many people seems to confuse them, propably because Austria is not so popular country. However, I do not have any good source for that, so I do understand if this will not pass. --Pek (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly confusing. Bidgee (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"hardly confusing" should not to be confused with "very confusing". ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a note directing them to the Simple English Wikipedia (which by the way does not have this note, despite its "simple" nature) would be more appropriate: Click here if you were looking for Austria. Seriously guys, this discussion does not need to be happening - if you can't find Austria instead of Australia, shame on you. IgnorantArmies 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First European to claim Australia was French

I want to make that : ( But Nickm57 said "Sorry this edit is poorly expressed or doesnt make much sense" ) , then i post here to inform you.

  • After discovery by Dutch explorers in 1606, followed by the first European one to have demanded the sovereignty of Australia in 1772, was the French officer Louis Aleno de St Aloüarn this demand was not able to be known from the whole world of the fact that St Aloüarn died during the journey which returned him in France. Also signs of taking possession by St Aloüarn can even see itself nowadays on Dirk Hartog's island

See By Picaballo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Picaballo (talkcontribs) 10:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Louis Aleno de St Aloüarn apparently made a claim over Western Australia in March 1772, but this was two years after Cook's voyage along the East coast in April-August 1770, and his claim for Britain. One cannot argue therefore, "the first european to claim Australia was French." Anyway, today, the technicalities of which european power "claimed" or "discovered" Australia first has much less significance than they once did and the summary provided here is quite adequate. In my view the article is not improved by the text you have proposed.Nickm57 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Youth unemployment

I've just reverted this addition to the article which cites this CNBC article to claim that "one in six" young Australians (15 24 year olds) are unemployed and that this is a serious problem. The problem with youth unemployment data is that most of the relevant share of the population is out of the labour force as they're studying (for instance, the great bulk of 15-18 year olds are at high school and a majority of people aged in their early 20s are in some form of education). As a result, the number of people in this age group who are eligible to be counted in the ABS' definition of unemployment is pretty small, and they tend to be highly disadvantaged (as they have low levels of education and tend to come from a low socioeconomic status background). To cut a long story short, the proportion of young Australians who are both out of work and not studying is pretty small (much lower than one in six) and that news story is totally wrong-headed. The fact that it directly compares Australia's youth unemployment rate with the total unemployment rate in other countries says it all really (these countries with high total unemployment rates have even higher youth unemployment rates). This OECD paper from late last year shows that the proportion of 15-19 year olds in Australia who were not in education or employment in 2008 (which is the most recent year data are available for) was actually about 6 percent and is below the OECD average (though it was a bit higher than the rates in a lot of other OECD countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Population of the Aussie Clock should be updated DAILY!!

n 5 May 2011 at 18:33:16 (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:


This is an example

IT SHOULD BE UPDATED DAILY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedoniarulez (talkcontribs) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel this is necessary, feel free to do this if you can find a reliable source. IgnorantArmies 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The estimated population is updated daily at 00:00 UTC (10am EST), and has been for the past 16 months. It's 99% automatic and requires a tweak only when the rate of increase changes, which is about every three months. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be most annoying to have this page appearing in watchlists daily simply for an updated population figure. --Merbabu (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
...which is but one advantage of automatic updates. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

English vs Australian English as de facto language

I have recently finished editing the Australian English article so that it now very detailed includes a substantial history, phonology, regional dialects, cultural dialects, etc.

Given that English is currently listed in the table as australia's 'de facto' language, i think it obvious that the de facto language of this country is Australian English given the fact that de facto means by default. For example, British or American English would not be the de facto language of Australia.

Given that this is an article on Australia, it follows that the de facto language should be listed as the variety of english that is native to and particular to this country, just as culture links to culture of australia, specific to australia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talkcontribs) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You might care to check out Talk:Australia/Archive 15#Is "Ozzie" superfluous? "Australian English" or English?, where this was most recently discussed 11 months ago. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

problem sentence

Hi, a few days ago, I added the 3rd + 2nd last sentences in the 'religion' section.. citing a survey of the Bertelsmann Foundation.. I believe my sentences express the feeling + sentiment of the last sentence, supporting it with the research of the Bertelsmann Foundation; to make the last sentence more relevant, I could do a 'Church attendance and identification with religions has fallen dramatically over the past few decades...' citing information from the article 'Australians losing the faith', which the last sentence uses as a citation. Tjpob (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, the statement, 'Religion does not play an important role in the lives of m... population.', is clearly a POV. Providing the statistics of less numbers in attendance at religious services and identification with Christian denominations, as provided in the original citation, is higher quality. Open to discuss.. Tjpob (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a difficult area. The massive discrepancy between Christian church attendance and what people say on the five-yearly census means that any analysis of our own will be a perfect demonstration of a breach of WIkipedia's ban on original research. We need excellent sources to tell us what's happening. Is the Bertelsmann Foundation an excellent source? (Innocent question. I don't know. If it is, maybe some evidence can be presented.) I do see a seeming contradiction in that part of the article now though. Your added material seems to be telling us that 16% attend religious services, while the preceding paragraph seems to say 7.5%. A big difference. Can that be cleared up? HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good good pick up on 16 vs 7.5. The 16% figure is monthly, 7.5% weekly. I have added this info now. Tjpob (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The Bertelsmann survey is published in a report by the Agence France-Presse in July 2008. As I can't find when the survey was done, or published (requires subscription to the foundation), is it okay to assume it was published in 2008, or should I cite the AFP article + date in the sentence (which is a bit clunky)? Tjpob (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Population Statistics in Table

Why does the 'non-indigenous population' heading end at 1850 (in the population table under 'demographics')? The populations of Aboriginal Australians were unmeasured (estimated) until 1971. (See ABS 2005 yearbook (time-line)) Or are the official estimates included in the 1900-1960 statistics..? I can check with the creator of the source Population statistics. It seems semi-reliable. Though he has a page of sources used Sources, he doesn't say on the Australian page what source he used. - census data much better imo. Tjpob (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the citation, "19th century figures do not include the indigenous population." Apparently the 20th century figures do. This is based on the source,[c] which says "Data for the 19th century do not include the number of Aborigines." There is no data between 1850 and 1900 because the 19th century data is in 50 year increments. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I know it's based on [1], I'm wondering what his source is.. Tjpob (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't state it, hence, I think it's important to check with him on, or use census data instead. Tjpob (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
census data is the better all the same Tjpob (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you find census data for 1788-1900? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good point. did the colonies take censuses? If so, they're probably on line, at ABS website maybe? I don't understand, in this document 1911 Non-European races Census data Aboriginals are included (albeit in the non-european section).. though the female figures look dodgy Tjpob (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Colonial censuses are on line at 1911 Non-Europeans only included 'half-caste' Aborigines - the few 'full-bloods' enumerated were shown in a separate section in accordance with s.127 of the Constitution. See main article on census in Australia.Phantomnubian (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
And 52 000 seems an incredibly low figure. Compared with 500 000 pre-British colonisation + now. Tjpob (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Point is, that, although being in a table + all that, it looks very nice in increments of 10 years + with percentage changes... the fact is that it is based on fairly low quality sources/no sources at all. To state that the figures are estimates would be a start, at the moment it would be easy to think that they're official figures. It's not about aesthetics, reliability is a much more important quality for an, albeit free, encyclopaedia. Tjpob (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
i say put 'estimated' next to the heading before searching for sourced data. Tjpob (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of estimates

When examining the estimates ('20, '30, '40, '50, '60) in relation to census data, they look pretty good actually. 1920 estimate ('000): 5 411, 1921 Census data ('000): 5 435; 1930 6 501, 1933 6 629; 1940 7078, 1947 7 579; 1950 8 307, 1954 8 986; 1960 10 392, 1961 10 508 Tjpob (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

total population or non-indigenous?

Seeing as the figures are fairly accurate, I assume they're based on the census data. Hence, they don't include the Indigenous population, and should state that. Tjpob (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the owner of the source, at the website, knows that Aboriginal numbers were included post 1900, as per the notation. Tjpob (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ASIAN AUSTRALIAN In the article about "Asian Australians" there have been clearly vandalism with the percentage of Asians living in Sidney and Melbourne.-- (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed IgnorantArmies?! 12:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


It's now compulsory to enrol to vote in South Australia, when you turn 18. It was changed in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinese exploration of Australia

Can someone add in information on Chinese exploration and links with Australia through 1250-1420 This page only mentions European exploration. Like not mentioning Viking exploration of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What information? If you have reliably sourced information, then YOU can add it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

12 unusual facts about Australia

Of possible interest to editors of Australia–related articles:12 unusual facts about Australia --Pawyilee (talk) 02:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much trivia, and inaccurate in parts. As I understand it, Francis De Groot's cutting of the ribbon for the Sydney Harbour Bridge was no accident. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not an accident; it was a political statement against Jack Lang, the left-wing premier who was supposed to be cutting the ribbon (and de Groot wasn't a member of the honour guard, though he was posing as one). The claim that he was 'carried off to a mental hospital' also seems a bit questionable. --GenericBob (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

National Lanuage

According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia's national is english. [1] but it states some 3 millions speak other languages. would that classify English as the "official" language? Nobletripe (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying (you did a good job though). Are you saying 'According to this government department Australia's national language is English. 3 million people speak other languages. Is English still the 'official' language' or did I get it wrong? Comics (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Australia does not have an official language. For more information, please see the previous discussions at:
--AussieLegend (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you :( looking at those past talks, others have brought it up. Nobletripe (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Aussie Antarctic Territory

You have to add the Aussie Antarctic Territory as in Chile Makedonija (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no international treaty recognising the sovereignty of Australia over the Antarctic territory. Indeed no claims of any country over Antarctica are universally recognised. Nevertheless it cpuild be noted that Australia 'claims' sovereignty over a section of Antartica.Gazzster (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

Another meaning for the word Australia is "land of the (fallen) star." This is derived from the word 'astra' meaning 'star,' and the suffix -alia "of the area." The reason for this is that both the Judeo-Christian Bible and modern geology hint at the fact that the earth used to be one land mass. Regarding the Bible, this is found in Genesis 10:25, "And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan."

The word Peleg has the meaning division. While one would think that this refers to a migratory division of the peoples of the earth, it does not fit the text, in that many peoples already were upon the earth at this time and had spread out from their location near the mountains of Ararat (Urartu.) The real meaning of Peleg refers to the breaking up of the 'Gondwana' supercontinent.

Contrary to what evolutionary science tells us regarding this, the impact was not a water-based landing for the asteroid, but rather land-based. As can be gathered by the numerous impact craters scattered around the planet, the earth was involved in a super meteor shower except that it was asteroids.

If such a thing happened, whether biblical or evolutionary, there would be evidence of such a large asteroid residing somewhere on the planet, whether under the sea or on land. I believe that this super-asteroid is none other than Mt. Uluru/Ayers Rock located in west-central Australia. It may be that evidence of its non-terrestrial origin can be found if looked at closely enough. (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

you know, i think you may be on to something. except that it's spelled "australia", not "astralia" (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Another meaning for the word Australia is "land of the (fallen) star. - do you have a reliable source for that claim?
... super-asteroid ... Uluru/Ayers Rock ... It may be that evidence of its non-terrestrial origin can be found ... - and when someone finds that evidence, and publishes it in reliable source, we'll consider mentioning it in the article. In the meantime, we don't do speculation. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
That comment about the meaning of 'Australia' appears to be your personal views, and you do not provide any reliable sources to support it. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

incorrect climate map

The climate map is missing the temperate zone in the southwest of Western Australia, it currently incorrectly shows it as being subtropical

Here is a link to the original map showing the complete southwest section of WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Number of years of compulsory eduction

After a relevant edit and reversion the article now says "All children receive eleven years of compulsory education from the age of 6 to 16 (Year Prep/Kindergarten to 10)", however this does not agree with the cited ref which says that prep/kindergarten is not compulsory - ie the compulsory years are 1 to 10 (ie "ten years of compulsory eduction"). Unfortunately the ref doesn't actually say that it's compulsory up to year 10. I think the matter may be complicated by the fact that:

  • Pre-primary may be compulsory in some states but not others
  • It's possible that the rules may be changing (in the recent past or near future), and that the cited ref is out of date
  • It may be necessary to be at school until a particular age, rather than the end of year 10
  • For some ages (approx 16-17) it may be compulsory to be at school or in some approved training (ref for WA)(which I guess we can call "education" so this point may be irrelevant)

The above points are based purely on my recollection of the rules - obviously we need to find appropriate current references with the current rules. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's probably a good start for references (if you can wade through all the government spin and self-congratulation!). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Example of rules changing: Pre-primary will become compulsory in WA in 2013. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. This area is problematic for two main reasons. Different rules in different states, plus some recent (and probably near future) changes (at both ends of the age ranges). Given that these rules are state decisions, it's wrong for the article to try to describe a national state of affairs. There is really no such thing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've re-written the first paragraph or two to reflect the apparent reality. I don't actually like what I've written (it's too vague), but I think it's more correct than what was there before. With any luck someone will tidy it up a bit so that it reads a bit better. I actually think it might be better to just say "School attendance is compulsory throughout Australia." and leave it at that - and let Education in Australia worry about the details. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Environment section needs updating

Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but the Environment section appears to refer to the Rudd Ministry in the present tense. It also does not mention what the Gillard Government has done in terms of Greenhouse gas emission legislation. I think this section needs an update.

It also refers to Water Restrictions due to drought, however I think these have been partially lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydog429 (talkcontribs) 08:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording slightly to remove the present tense, but more significant rewording is probably required. Perhaps "Rudd Ministry" should be changed to "Labor government", but which Labor govt? - We probably need to qualify it with a year or 42nd Parliament of Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

aboriginal archaeological history

This page needs updating as the general archaeological evidence for aboriginal habitation goes back at least 66,000 years and the possibilty of a further 10-20,000 yrs has support. Recent genetic research shows the aboriginal types (gracile/robustus), to have separated from the "african root" of humanity before its spread to the european/asian continent. There was a claim of human "rock pitting"/art in the Kimberley in the 1990's of 110,000-120,000 yrs ago, but this claim has been dismissed as being "too" old to be acceptable. By now - 2012, newer researh is supporting these claims and is fairly easy to track down.

This subject should be of major significance globally as the Aboriginal culture is by far the oldest continual culture known.

The deplorable treatment by non-indigenous "Australians" and especially the Government should be taken up by the United Nations as a situation of utmost importance and pressure brought to bear on said government to finally get real about this cultural genocide.

How the traditional owners of this land have not to any great degree retaliated as almost all other cultures have done worldwide under similar circumstances, is beyond me. I can only guess that they are so demoralized by their repression, they find it hard to envisage any action on their part as being successful. With newer generations of non-indigenous people populating this country that incorporate less racist attitudes, and further indigenous education, perhaps a glimmer of a future can be detected, but it had better happen soon or their will only be dust to study.

Hopefully I've not overstepped the bounds of this site causing this page to be deleted, signed, Kram — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Much of your post is forum style material, and not appropriate here, but in response to your comment on Aboriginal archaeology, if you can find reliable sources that can be cited in the article it is possibly valuable comment. Do you know of such sources? HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Commonwealth Star"

Is there any good basis for referring to the star on the Australian flag as the "Commonwealth Star". So, for example: (1) when was this phrase first used? (2) does the Australian Government refer to it as the "Commonwealth Star"? (3) is this "Commonwealth Star" description any more commonly used than other names attributed to the Star? (4) is the "Commonwealth Star" description a term that only came into use by virtue of Wikipedia (bar isolated use before that) ?

I don't know the answers but am interested in informed comment (which refers to sources). (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

These web sites refer to the Commonwealth Star:
(Both claim the same name, but two different web sites!)
The home page of the Australian National Flag Association currently has a digitised copy of the Review of Reviews, the Government Gazette of 1901, which reviews the flag competition entries and announces the winner. The last page of that is a detailed description of the new flag, including (under Description and Proportions of Star) the term "Commonwealth Star". Mitch Ames (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for providing a good response. It was well sourced and strikes me as a good faith contribution. Thanks. I note that the following:

  • the (which you pointed to) also uses the name "Star of Federation" here [2]
  • the website (which you pointed to) also uses the name "Star of Federation" [3]
  • the website you pointed to (Govt. site) also uses the name "Star of Federation"
  • the [4] (Govt. site) you pointed to also uses the name "Star of Federation"

in each case, in addition to the term "Commonwealth Star". In my view the most important source by far which you have pointed to is the "Review of Reviews" [5] and the detailed flag description therein. It does indeed use the "name" "Commonwealth Star". That is the best and most authoritive source I have seen to date. I wonder was the flag approved by the Royal Herald (or whatever the relevant title is in this case); I would have thought it would be and that in so doing the flag would be described. If you found that source, it might well use the term "Commonwealth Star" also. That would put the question to bed entirely. At present, I am happy that "Commonwealth Star" is not a bogus Wiki invention or some such but a genuine term. I am also happy with the name of the article. I may add in a para showing some of the sources you have pointed to as it would seem a waste not to (as you have gone off and found this valuable information). (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Schedule 1 of the Flags Act, 1953 includes "Table A--Commonwealth Star", but appears to have no mention of "Star of Federation", so "Commonwealth Star" would certainly appear to be the official name. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dental Care

On my last visit to Australia I noticed many Australians have very bad teeth. I have been told there is dental care in Australia. Maybe you should add it under health so people know why Australians have bad teeth.

Also, I found interesting the long (years and years) queues for social housing. That was in fact very shocking to me. Maybe you could aslo add this. Finally, I find the Australia article doesnt really represent the truth. It is more like a tourist brochure - only nice things are stated. I assume it is written moslty by the Australians... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that isn't something better suited for Health care in Australia? Are you sure it's also a national problem, or just an issue in a particular area (say, Redfern in Sydney)? Are you also sure that maybe the most notable points about Australia is that it's generally a nice place, and the articles spinning off from this main article go into more detail about the negative aspects? It is a big country after all and you could hardly expect one article to comprehensively detail every little detail. Comics (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys I'm Australian and I don't know anyone with bad teeth so don't add "they have bad teeth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm Australian and my teeth are terrible. I got a lot of fillings under the Commonwealth Dental Plan, but during treatment in 1999, Paul Keating lost the election to John Howard, and one of the first things John Howard's government did was to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Plan. This was, fortunately, just after I'd gotten a partial plate which really helped me attending job interviews (my front three teeth are missing). But I still needed more fillings. Since then, all the previous fillings have fallen out and I need more, but hey, some of my fillings are three or four surfaces and would cost maybe $300-400 each: overall we're talking many thousands of dollars, which might last five to eight years maximum. It's serious money taken on a national level, but I reckon it's something we need to aspire to. Mind you, whether we'd put this in a WP article is not something that I'd support. WP is not a blog. TheBustopher (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia got its independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Currently the infor box says Aust. got its indo. from the United Kingdom. I suggest this be amended to be "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom" (linked). Could some one make the small linking change. I am an IP editor and can't edit the article. (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK of G. Britain and Ireland ended in 1922 according to that article. The Statutes and Acts that granted independence to Australia were all passed after Ireland had become a dominion (and, later, sovereign nation of it's own) and the other country became the United Kingdom; the only act that could be seen as independence from the earlier country is the federation of Australia. What made you concerned about the link in the first place? Comics (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first user in that the generally accepted date of independence cited in the vast majority of cases worldwide is 1901. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The proper article to link to is United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and it has nothing to do with what year you consider independence to have come in. Click on that second link, and you will see that it is not about a country. It begins, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was the formal name of the United Kingdom during the period when what is now the Republic of Ireland formed a part of it." From that, which would imply the article is about the formal name, it turns into a history of Ireland from 1801 to 1922. An article about 121 years of Irish history is not a sensible one to which this article should link in noting the country it achieved its independence from. It is not as though the United Kingdom only came to be called that after separation with Ireland, so it is not as though using the current link would somehow be deceptive. You can add on top of that Comic master's point that 1901 didn't fully provide independence anyway. You can say that the "generally accepted date" is 1901, but even were that true (which I am not convinced of), what is generally accepted is not true. Independence came in stages, which is why the infobox lists four acts (and five dates). -Rrius (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it was not my suggestion so i do not care much either way, however using UK of GB and Irl would probably be more consistent as the US is listed as getting independence from "the Kingdom of Great Britain". I agree that independence was a process, however to back up the person who made the original suggestion I will say that if 1901 is taken as the key date in that process, which i believe it was (more important than stat. westminst., aust. act...), then the conventional and consistent practice would be to link to the UK of GB and Irl article, as the UK of GB and N.I. did not exist on that date. I will not change it myself, though, because it doesnt bother me much either way. Saruman-the-white (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first user in that the generally accepted date of independence cited in the vast majority of cases worldwide is 1901. - Saruman, I'd like to see some sources, because it is certainly NOT the case that Federation in 1901 was seen at the time as anything like independence, and no reputable historian of the present day would describe it that way either. The 6 colonies chose to federate into a single polity, but the links to the "mother country" continued uninterrupted. They were even strengthened, because there were now 7 representatives of the queen, not 6. All appointments to Australian vice-regal offices were approved by the British government until Scullin's time in the early 1930s. That certainly doesn't sound like independence to me. When the UK declared war on Germany in 1939, Menzies made no separate declaration of a state of war between Australia and Germany; rather, he simply confirmed that the UK's declaration automatically applied to Australia. That certainly doesn't sound like independence to me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

UTC Offset

I have just altered the UTC offsets from 10.5 in normal and 11.5 in Daylight saving to 10 and 11 which is the true status. I wonder why it was given as 10.5 and 11.5 in the first place? All the Eastern States are UTC +10 (and those with Daylight Saving go to 11 in summer). SA and NT are UTC +9.5 which is possibly where the confusion lies. In fact as far as I know there is NO time zone at all that's UTC +10.5. Vanuatu, Solomons and probably parts of Russia (etc) are +11 and New Zealand (etc) is +12. In fact SA/NT are quite unusual with a half-hour time zone: geographically they are well and truly UTC +9 - the borders line up really well with 120-135 degrees longitude but they've chosen to be only half an hour behind the Eastern states for "convenience" (and so are essentially on permanent 1/2 hr daylight saving - SA goes 1-1/2 hrs forward in summer!!). Anyway, I digress: can someone suggest why we had UTC +10.5/11.5 in there at all, or was it simply a misinterpretation of where South Australia is in the scheme of things?? TheBustopher (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated in my reversion, this is explained at Time in Australia, as specified in the note for the timezones. Lord Howe Island uses UTC+10:30 during the winter months and Norfolk Island uses UTC+11:30 all year round. The article actually appears wrong in that it should specify (UTC+8 to +11.5) all year round. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I see: I have failed to consider external territories. I can see reasons for an against including external territories into consideration - I suppose those living on Norfolk of Lord Howe WOULD call themselves Australians. I wonder what time zones other countries are given in their WP pages? (eg Hawaii for USA or maybe Gibraltar for UK (examples off the top of my head - I'm sure a few other countries wil have external territories in far removed time zones)). Better have a look, but thanks for the explanation. TheBustopher (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Good heavens, I HAVE read Time in Australia, and given that we are including external territories here, what about Heard and McDonald Islands which is UTC +5 with no DST as the furthest of the range??? In summary it needs to be UTC+5 to UTC+11.5 if we are going to have regard to all external territories... TheBustopher (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Heard and McDonald Islands are unpopulated and a very long way from Australia so we really don't need to cater for them. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, people on Norfolk Island are often quite keen to not be considered Australians. Many are descended from the Bounty mutineers, who have had nothing to do with Australia historically. But it is part of the country, they use Australian currency and are supported in many ways by Australia, so the time zone should probably be considered an Australian one. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If we include Australian Antarctic Territory, I calculate the range starting at UTC +3 (45°E), although I notice that Time in Australia#External territories doesn't include this complete range - presumably because we don't have a station right on the edge. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. First of all, Hawaii is as much a US state as California, so of course it is included in the range. Note that the Northern Marianas and U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which elect non-voting delegates to Congress, are not included in the range. Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are not included in Britain's range, and France's various overseas departments aren't included at France. That said, the real question is how much the fact that Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island are populated and physically close to Australia matters versus the fact that their political position is significantly different from NT and the ACT. Mine own view is that it really doesn't matter because Australia's time zone situation is so complicated. -Rrius (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple "Various" would suffice? IA 13:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The population of Antarctica is negligible, and non-permanent (they get rotated after a few years max - I once knew a guy with the bureau of meteorology (hi Dave) who got rotated from Antarctica to Cairns - that's a bit of a contrast). So I think by the Heard and MacDonald Island principles outlined by AussieLegend above, we really need to eliminate Antarctica from consideration as well. However, the more I think about it, I think Norfolk and Lord Howe need to also come out of consideration, too. They are listed under 'anomolies' under the Time in Australia article. TheBustopher (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia has free tv (meaning not 3 commercial channels)

Hey, australia now has free tv (digital). The article says it has sbs, abc and 3 commercial channels. I live in Melbourne and we now have like 15 channels including sbs and abc, not to mention sbs 2 and 3 and abc 1,2 and 3!!!! Can someone fix this??!! (talk) Kolin —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Australia has always had free TV, in both analogue and digital form. Despite the plethora of channels available, I have 23 digital and 7 analogue here, they're all owned by one of public broadcasters or one of the three commercial networks so the article, which refers to networks and not channels, is correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

population density

In reference to the info box on the right side of the article, specifically: "- Density 2.8/km2, 7.3/sq mi"
A mile is longer than a kilometer, thus a square mile is bigger than a square kilometer. Consequently, should the density per square mile not be lower than the density per square kilometer? Of course I might misunderstand the intention of the data, any clarification is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Think it through :) More people can fit in a square mile than in a square kilometre, so the density for a square mile will be bigger than that of a square kilometre. IA 10:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, there are 2.59 square kilometres in a square mile, so if there are 2.8 people per square kilometre, then there are 2.59 x 2.8, or 2.7527.252 people per square mile. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, thanks for the enlightenment and sorry for the stupidity on my part. Had it just the other way around in my head: a square mile is bigger, so one person has more room (if the number of people is to remain constant) so the density should be lower. But of course that is not how it works :D Maybe I should stop my science studies. AussieLegend you meant 2.59 x 2.8 = 7.12768, right?
Yes, stop your science studies and concentrate on mathematics. How did you manage to get 7.12768? --AussieLegend (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ran 2.59 x 2.752 (which should have been 2.8) through my calculator. Where did the 2.752 come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said here, there are 2.59 square kilometres in a square mile, so if there are 2.8 people per square kilometre, then there are 2.59 x 2.8, or 2.7527.252 people per square mile. 2.59 x 2.8 = 2.7527.252 *sigh* --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a few digits were misplaced, as 2.59 x 2.8 = 7.252 :) IA 09:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you are correct. Obviously my wife's crApple iPhone is itoo iclose to my PC and is causing the calculator to be idyslexic. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hooray for confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Metrication WAS a wise move, wasn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Like+ --Pete (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves of 30+ Melbourne street names

Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:

These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.

Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.

NoeticaTea? 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Judiciary in InfoBox

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

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

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

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

Sound file for National Anthem

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

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

  • Remove the sound file from the Australia page infobox. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that it is one editor in particular who is adding it to a number of countries. I've suggested that they seek a consensus first as it's also being removed from other country pages. --Merbabu (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "put up sound files" the national anthem is very important like the flag. im here to improve the articles not and i mean NOT to vandalize them. its easier to put the sound file on the first page. plus most of the world is out to make wikipedia better! so please revert all edits- philpm930 4/21/12 9:50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philpm930 4/21/12 9:55 —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC).
Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair
"[N 1]
I don't really have a problem with including a sound file for the convenience of our readers. (Too many editors seem to forget that it is our readers we write for, not other editors.) However, even minimising the size of the sound file icon and moving it to the right ([[File:Filename.ext|right|35px]]) still results in excessive space being taken up by the media file link, as can be seen to the right. For this reason, it's better to just link to the anthem's article and include the sound file there. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Perhaps infobox needs updating to include less intrusive sound file link

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

Why include it at all? The fact that it is large is just an additional problem to the irrelevancy/redundancy of the music file in a country article. In an article on the song, that's fine. But not here. --Merbabu (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
My response - and ongoing discussion - on the template talk page. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia Royal National Anthem

I'm trying to add it, but there was an issue: |royal_anthem =

"God Save the Queen

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

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

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

I thought Wikipedia was about the facts, not about what is commonly known? In addition, all other nations who are Commonwealth realm's list their royal anthem on their infobox, why is Australia any different? The Australian Royal Symbols page lists the Australian Royal Anthem as still in use and official and God Save The Queen lists it as the Royal Anthem for Australia. Also, references; 1234 Also, where would I find these previous discussions on the matter? Anjwalker Talk 08:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
To me there's a problem with the fact that Royal anthem is a redirect to Honors music, not even spelt correctly for Australian use. While I can see some merit in mentioning the Royal anthem, that seems a very clumsy way to be doing it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that is strange way to do it but that requires a different discussion elsewhere to resolve. Anjwalker Talk 11:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
'God Save the Queen' should be clearly listed as the Royal Anthem in the infobox, as per Canada, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica and Tuvalu. There is no dispute as to whether GSTQ is the Australian Royal Anthem, so why is there a problem? The 'honours music' page is incredibly daft, but that is another issue completely. 'Royal Anthem' should link directly to: 'List of Royal Anthems'. Conay (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, include mention of the Royal anthem, but avoid using any hyperlink that takes us to Honors music. That really doesn't work for me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It is listed already, however as a note. I believe this was the consensus that was reached several times in the past, given that the anthem is almost entirely unknown and even less used, however you would have to look at the previous discussions to see what the reasoning was.Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
My grandfather fought most of his life to have Advance Australia Fair become the national anthem. Peter Dodds McCormick actually sought him out to explain how he came to write the song and the written explanation is now in the National Library. Both of those men would be surprised to see anyone claim that God Save The Queen is "almost entirely unknown". --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Saruman's (lack of) age and/or ignorance is showing. Anyone aged over 50 (and yes, there's still some of us left) would know it off by heart. Younger folks must have heard it. If they ignored it, that's a personal choice, not reason to say it's "almost entirely unknown". HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The logic that the Royal Anthem be included only as a note because it's 'almost entirely unknown and even less used' is both incorrect and just illogical. The linking to 'honours music' cannot be helped, that must be changed through other means. However, the point of having the Royal Anthem included in the info box is that it's official. As AussieLegend said above, most people in Australia do know God Save the Queen (perhaps not the lyrics, but they know it's their Royal Anthem). It's very simple, just list 'God Save the Queen' as the Royal Anthem of Australia like they do in every other Commonwealth Realm (excluding New Zealand, as GSTQ acts as a secondary anthem as opposed to just a royal one). Conay (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I wasn't really opposed to the addition. I just found the linked title Honors music rather silly. But as I think about this, I try to recall when I last heard GSTQ here. Apart from in a movie reflecting the 1960s, I haven't heard it for decades. I guess we play it when royals visit and attend ceremonial events in their honour (at least I can spell that word correctly), but we don't see many royals these days either. It's a pretty tiny part of our culture, much like other elements of protocol about how we treat the royals (such as not touching Her Maj), but we don't list those here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 13 April 2012‎ (UTC)
I didn't say that GSTQ hasn't been an anthem since the 80s, nor would I since that is clearly wrong. It is still the official royal anthem, and likely will be for a long time yet. I don't really agree that it's a tiny part of our culture either. It might be right now because there are no royal visits, but Wikipedia doesn't concentrate on just "now". GSTQ was a very big part of our culture for most of Australia's history and since it is still recognised officially as the royal anthem I find it peculiar that it's not included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

No. It would be virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article. Yet, it is a trivial technicality in comparison to the rest of the (large) scope of this article. That other pages may do a similar thing is irrelevant. Don't elevate trivia to the highest prominence. --Merbabu (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
By that logic the anthem shouldn't be there either. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No. That's silly. Obviously the national anthem is used often at all sorts of ceremonial occasions, sports events, school assemblies, etc. It's common. The royal anthem isn't. Not a valid "by that logic" comparison. And in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS we read "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in...content disputes..." In other words, just because it's in "other Commonwealth Realm pages" is not a reason to include it here. That leaves us with "it's official". That's obviously true, but it's much less significant than a lot of other facts, including the national anthem. If it's included it should not be prominent, which it is now. And sadly, the Edit summary for the most recent addition highlighted one of my concerns by misspelling Honours music. <- See what I mean? HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. What you are saying is either an attempt at humour, or shows you haven't read what Conay and I said. He complained that GSTQ would be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial given the scope of the article. The anthem would also be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article" despite being trivial. Regardless of being more important than GSTQ, the anthem is hardly central enough to the article to be "virtually the most prominent piece of info in the article". If Conay wants to argue that GSTQ is so much less important than the anthem, he is welcome to do so, but that is not what he argued in the passage I responded to. Personally, I couldn't care less whether both or either appears in the infobox, but that argument was weak enough to deserve a response. -Rrius (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you people sure you're not confusing me (Merbabu) with Conay? Anyway, to reiterate my position, it is an incredibly trivial piece of information that would be provided with an inordinate amount of prominence, exceeding its relevance many many times over. As for the National Anthem, indeed, it too could be argued that's it's give too much prominence, but the GTSQ inclusion would be many times worse than this. Personally, I see lots of faults in info boxes - the prominence given to national anthems being just one issue. Are they really more important than population, ethnic makeup, key economic indicators, history, etc, etc? In this case, the inclusion of national anthem as virtually the most prominent item in a wide scope article is a problem. And, the inclusion of GTSQ would be 100 times worse. The former issue (AAF) is an issue for another day perhaps, for now I'm happy to focus on the worse of the two issues - inclusion of GTSQ. Not including GTSQ doesn't meant we must remove AAF - but that would be nice. --Merbabu (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
National anthems please nationalists. Royal anthems please royalists. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a great way to lower the debate. shame. So, by your logic, your input is based on your Royalist bias? For what it's worth, i'd be just as happy to see AAF gone too. It's just the lesser of two evils. And as for the ogg file at the top of the article, don't get me started.--Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand that response to my post. And I don't think it's lowering the standard of debate at all. Whenever these matters are publicly debated it's obvious that many views are based on predetermined positions of the sorts of things that matter in a country. Is that happening here? BTW, you seem a little confused about my position. It's that the national anthem is of some significance because it is widely used. The royal anthem's ONLY significance is its official status, and it's of very minor importance here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Proposal - that the info box contains no sound file - if necessary find another article to take the burden of what for many australians (despite their politics or allegiances culturally) is increasingly swamped by other noises - and leave this article with some form of link/redirect to another which adequately imparts the info shared in this discussion (you could almost create a stub on Australian anthems from here) - in other words simply take out of info box and try somewhere else SatuSuro 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that. Infoboxes give disproportionate importance to everything they contain. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, but we're not about to win consensus to remove info boxes - rather, IMO, the GTSQ issue is about "harm minimisation", and managing the worst excesses of the info boxes. --Merbabu (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with previous consensuses I would support leaving it as it is, in a footnote.Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I also support leaving GSTQ as a footnote, ie as it currently is. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see the issue with including Australia's official royal anthem in the royal_anthem field that is provided specifically for that purpose. The Australian people decided that we would retain our status as a constitutional monarchy and that our links to the royal family, including GSTQ, would remain. As an official anthem it clearly has significance, especially since it has a higher order of precedence than AAF at some functions. Based on our decision to retain our royal ties, arguments that inclusion of GSTQ is "is an incredibly trivial piece of information" don't fly. The fact that we rejected change to a republic is significant, and GSTQ is part of that. Claiming that inclusion in the infobox provides GSTQ "with an inordinate amount of prominence" is really rubbish. GSTQ has been part of Australia for a lot longer than Quentin Bryce or Julia Gillard and they both get a mention. Country infoboxes provide readers with information with pertinent information about countries and anthems are pertinent information. There seems to be a misconception about what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means. It does not say that inclusion of content in other articles is not justification to include content here. Far from it. It says to use such information wisely. One of the examples it uses is that of a deletion discussion where one editor votes to retain an article because other similar articles exist. Another editor says that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. Neither editor has provided sufficient justification for retention or deletion of the article. This is the case here. On the merits, given its history, status and significance, especially since we rejected a republic less than 13 years ago, we should include the official royal anthem in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue is being created by others when it really does not exist. Wikipedia is about the inclusion of facts, and the fact is that GSTQ is the Royal Anthem of Australia. As Wikipedia provides a 'royal_anthem' tag on the info box, it should be used in the proper way. Not only that, but what AussieLegend pointed out. Conay (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Being a "fact" is not the sole criteria for inclusion of info in a Wikipedia article. If it was, then we should immediately include everything in this page that is remotely related to "Australia" including my street and house, and yours. just saying.
Indeed, neither my street, or either anthem is actually mentioned in the article - we are only discussing the anthems because there is a field in the info box for them. No one thought it was relevant enough to put into the article. SO much for the info box summarising the article. --Merbabu (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(1984) - QUOTE = "His Excellency, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, ... hereby declare: that the anthem 'God Save The Queen' shall henceforth be known as the Royal Anthem" - Australian Bureau of Statistics (1986). Year Book Australia 1986. Aust. Bureau of Statistics. p. 44. ... Moxy (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed an official Australian anthem, rarely used nowadays. Australia likewise has several official flags, but we only show one in the info box. The multiple flags and anthems belong elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There are no fields asking for multiple flags to be placed, but there is a field asking for the Royal Anthem of Australia. And as Australia HAS a Royal Anthem, it should be included as such. Like Canada or Norway. It's very simple logic. Conay (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
But that’s the core of the problem – "simple logic" in this case is bad logic. So what if there is a field for it in the infobox? It doesn’t mean that we stop thinking, turn on auto-pilot, and just apply “simple logic” and then back it up by saying others are doing it too.
Neither anthem is even mentioned in the (feature) article - how important are they then? And, since when are infobox discussions the source of all wisdom and the key to a great article? Since when are those who get involved in those discussions about infobox fields the experts in writing a brilliant wikipedia article?
The case of other country articles is irrelevant. It may make sense in those articles, or it might be equally silly as it is here (I suspect the latter). I admit I don’t know about those cases, but that doesn't matter - the point is they are other cases and are not relevant to the appropriate choices here. It gets back to the proverbial childhood question “would you jump of a cliff because others did it?”
Again, it’s a technical obscurity (in comparison to the rest of the topic “Australia”) and simply because there’s an infobox field (due to other's wisdom or otherwise - again, i suspect the latter), you want to make it virtually the most prominent thing in the article. Um, no thanks. And yes, if I had my way, I’d remove a lot of other stuff from the over-bloated info box including AAF or at least demote it down – but I try to choose my battles with some care. --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
That the anthems are not mentioned in the article is, perhaps, an oversight, but there is really no need to mention them. Help:Infobox doesn't mandate it: "They (generally) only summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, partly because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox." Note use of "generally". It does say "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles." The anthems are common to related (other country) articles. Given that other countries include their national anthems, and royal anthems where applicable, in the infobox I ask, directly this time, why we shouldn't include the fact in the infobox? Prominence in the infobox is not something we can fix here, that is up to those who maintain the infobox. Arguing along those lines because of personal beliefs about the significance of the anthem is not really maintaining neutrality. We should be presenting facts here, not opinions. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Some might call it opinion vs facts, I’d call it discretion vs. prescriptive editing. Also the word judgement springs to mind. It’s why we have talk pages and work to consensus. If it’s just about the “facts” with no judgement or discretion, then all the info in the Australia Project would be in this article and we could remove the talk pages. Afterall, we’d just be reporting the facts and removing the need to discuss our collective judgement. --Merbabu (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A more appropriate question is “why copy other articles?” rather than “why not copy other articles?”. --Merbabu (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I also have made a judgement. Based on the fact that the vast majority of Australian war veterans died under the anthem of God Save the Queen, that Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Norway, Sweden and Tuvalu all list their Royal Anthems, the fact that there is a 'royal_anthem' option in the infobox and the fact that there are numerous reliable sources that suggest and clarify that God Save the Queen is the official Royal Anthem of Australia (for example: The declaration quoted above). Whether or not you disagree where the Royal Anthem is places is completed irrelevant, as it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. Conay (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody dies under an anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. But, even if they did, the majority would have been under the National Anthem which is included.--Merbabu (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Umm no. If they died under the national anthem, they died under God Save the Queen, which was the national anthem at the time and which isn't included. The position of royal anthem before 1984 didn't exist in Australia, as there was only one anthem. As for the question "why copy other articles?" the answer is simple and something that is desirable: consistency. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As HiLo said, no one dies under an anthem. And, if they did, they died under the national anthem - as you point out, there was no Royal anthem before 1984.
Consistency is the weakest argument on Wikipedia. A position could be consistently stupid or consistently wise. --Merbabu (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As I also pointed out, the national anthem was God Save the Queen, not Advance Australia Fair. Consistency is hardly a weak argument when building an encyclopaedia. I'm still waiting for a reason why we shouldn't be consistent, why we shouldn't use provided fields to present facts that are not in dispute and, above all, why we shouldn't be neutral. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
it is decided by the people who manage info boxes. And I might point out that this can't be appealed to the High Court. So there. --Pete (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

It's not a question of whether people know it or not, it's about relevance and significance. GDP is fundamental characteristic, the Royal Anthem is but a technicality - insignificant to the rest of the info here. As for "yae" or "nae" you are asking for a vote, not a consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that whether people know something or not is crucial to our function as an encyclopaedia. We should present the information and quite clearly at least one of us should know more about the subject. I don't think we need to have the Royal anthem in the infobox for something that only gets a run every few years when the Queen trots out, but perhaps there should be a section or even an article describing the interesting history of Australian anthems? And flags, for that matter. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that God Save the Queen should be included in the info box, as it is consistent and relevant. My post above essentially sums up my belief on the matter, it's ridiculous that it's even being questioned. Whether it is only used occasionally or not is another matter completely. When a country has a national anthem, we list their national anthem. When a country has a Royal anthem, how on Earth does not including the Royal anthem make any sense?Conay (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow - after all this discussion you still don't understand the other side's point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but it's not that hard to understand. But, it's an age-old technique, ignore the core of the argument, or misconstrue an argument to obfuscate it. --Merbabu (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to put everything in the info box. Only the main, salient, important information. I wouldn't include a rarely used piece of music in that category. But that's just me. --Pete (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In fact, it's very rare to see every field in an Infobox used. I've often thought it would be hilarious fun to go around "correcting" articles by sticking something in every Infobox field. Might have a go one day, insisting that my changes were valid because the fields were there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. --Merbabu (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If you were to actually read one's argument, you would realise that the field being there is just one of the reasons why God Save the Queen should be included in the Infobox. Pete, I understand where you're coming from. However, God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services, as well as Royal visits. A country's Royal Anthem, to me at least, is important information. Conay (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If "God Save the Queen is often used at remembrance and veteran services", without any royals present, it's probably in breach of protocol, either through ignorance or because of reactionary, archaic, confrontational attitudes held by conservative organisers. We certainly wouldn't include that kind of thing in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's used enough to warrant being in the infobox. It's important enough to get a mention in the article. I can't see any consensus developing here for Conay's view. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Conveniently, we will have a few remembrance ceremonies next week; it might be interesting to see whether GSTQ gets played. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's rather interesting to seem some editors who usually make some pretty good arguments providing some very weak ones in this discussion. Of course it's rare to see every field in infobox filled. That's generally because there's no content for that field. When information is available, as is the case here, we fill the field. We don't pretend it doesn't exist. GSTQ (or GSTK) was Australia's national anthem for 186 years, it has a definite place in Australia's history, including the present. The protocols state when GSTQ should be played, not when it shouldn't. You can play it whenever you want, provided the protocols concerning the national anthem are followed. It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010. The RSL's decision to withdraw its use was controversial. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That it was the national anthem for a long time is completely irrelevant to a discussion about the royal anthem. And it was NOT played at every Anzac ceremony until 2010. That's just bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant at all. GSTQ has been an anthem of Australia for its entire history. When Advance Australia Fair was finally declared to be our national anthem in 1984, GSTQ moved from national anthem to royal anthem. This clearly demonstrates it has significance that justifies its inclusion, especially since it has been the only royal anthem we've ever had. You're correct regarding individual ceremonies, however it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011, and its removal was controversial.[6][7][8][9] It's inconsistent and not presenting facts neutrally by not listing it where it should be listed. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I despair regarding your logic, and use of language. Yes, GSTQ WAS the national anthem, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the Royal anthem. And you first said "It was played at every Anzac day ceremony until 2010." That is patently untrue. Without acknowledging your error, you now write "it has been played on every Anzac day, even in 2011", leaving out the word "ceremony" and hence talking about something quite different. And you have not even proven that claim. You presumably believe what you write, odd as it is, but here you have to convince others. Just saying it doesn't make it true. HiLo48 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you try reading what I wrote again. I acknowledged my error very clearly when I wrote "You're correct regarding individual ceremonies". As the links I provided show, prior to 2010 GSTQ was part of the dawn service, at least in Melbourne, so my point is proven, as was the claim that it was played in 2011. As for the royal anthem, there has been argument that GSTQ is not significant, when clearly it is. Prior to Advance Australia Fair becoming the national anthem, we didn't have a separate royal anthem, as GSTQ served as both national and royal anthem. Had Wikipedia existed in 1974, GSTQ could have been used in both fields. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, so now we're talking about just the Dawn Service, and just in Melbourne, right? That's completely different from your first claim that it was played at EVERY Anzac ceremony. Are you sure you've got it right yet? You certainly haven't got the other bit right. It's obvious you just don't understand, so I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Without acknowledging that I actually did acknowledge my error you....No, I won't go down that path. Perhaps you should read this. Then have a look at what I wrote immediately after that, remembering that I did acknowledge my mistake. You're twisting yourself in circles unnecessarily. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

You were involved in the discussion on the Canadian Talk page, I believe. They came to the conclusion that they should include it in the infobox. Conay (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The other articles have smarter editors than here. We should just stop using our judgement, and copy them without any further thought. Their context is completely transferable to this page, and there is no way on earth that their opinions could be poor. How on earth could we do it better here?
Um, right? --Merbabu (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it would be best to not have such a discussion and simply copy the other Commonwealth realm pages, however several people refused to let the Royal Anthem be included and so, because of Wikipedia policy, we now need a clear consensus. Anjwalker Talk 11:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I never suggested we should just 'copy' other Commonwealth Realm pages, simply follow their example. It makes sense to include a Royal Anthem in the infobox, just as it makes sense to include them on, not only other Realm pages, but most countries with a monarchy. Conay (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you missed my meaning (or else I didn't make it clear enough) but yes, that is what I was saying. Anjwalker Talk 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

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

Wikipedia doesn't work by voting. It works by consensus. If this is decided on voting, then I will take it from this page through the dispute resolution processes. just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Include for the reasons that I've outlined above. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment. While I know it isn't regular, discussion didn't resolve anything so I tried starting a vote. Well, the voting appears to have failed anyway so there is no problem. Anjwalker Talk 02:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen. As the official Royal Anthem of Australia, it warrants mention in the infobox; it would be different if someone was proposing to include Waltzing Matilda or similar because they are unofficial anthems, but God Save the Queen is official. However, I do agree that the sound file is too instrusive Anjwalker Talk 11:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Include as link in infobox to God Save The Queen.Not up to the editors here to decide what our readers read - All we can do is follow the sources - Does not matter that some believe the song is not relevant - its recognized by law. What we should be doing is simply regurgitation what is source-able - not up to us to decide what to omit (push a POV) because some dont like the idea of the Queen and crown. Facts are facts and its a fact that the song is legally recognized - who are we to omit it? .Moxy (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors don't decide what readers read? really? Who does then? so since we must publish everything that is true, there is therefore no limit to the amount of stuff that should go in here? No discretion? Are you kidding? --Merbabu (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Who
We are not talking about everything - we are talking about one link to a legally recognized song. Can you explain how omitting information is good for our readers? Thus far the exclusion argument is "I dont like it despite its legal status". What we do here is regurgitate widely available information. So here we are with editors saying one link to a legal song is undue weight. So it should be omitted because the one link will make the article size way to mush? Come on - can anyone show us that the inclusion criteria has not been meet? Moxy (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Your stated criteria in your 2nd most recent comments is, if I may paraphrase, "if it is true we must include it, who are we to decide?". In what way does that not mean we must include everything? You are saying use no discretion - include everything! In your most recent comment, you are saying we must not omit info. This is where you are wrong. We must omit most information. Because this subject is very broad, and GSTQ is relatively (i.e., comparatively) highly trivial. But of course you know we must omit info. You know we only include the most important aspects of the topic "Ausytalia" in this article due to WP:SUMMARY. So, in what way is GSTQ so fundamental to an understanding of Australia? And if it is so fundamental, why is it not even in the article prose?
No-one said they "didn't like it". That's rubbish. Rather, people said it was trivial, not relevant, and comparatively unimportant against the rest of the subject matter. Indeed, if it was such a natural inclusion, then why isn'tt it mentioned in the article proper? Because it doesn't have a place.
to make the problem worse, we would be giving the what is almost prime position in the article. Indeed, such prominence is undue weight. And I say "bollocks" to blindly saying "it's in the info box, we must use it". --Merbabu (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
So omitting is the solution you believe - best thing to do would be to expand our readers knowledge on the matter - not omit because some believe one link is to much. So its trivial that the royal anthem has legal status but not for the national anthem? Can you see how outsiders see a double standards her because neutrality also applies to exclusion aswell. So again how is it harmfully to inform or link more information for our readers? All that said there is a note on the matter so I guess our readers will be informed if they read the note, that actually makes the topic standout more the it should. Moxy (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No double standard. I said above that I think the National Anthem is also an unfortunate inclusion. Probably more than once from memory. --Merbabu (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nationalistic & patriotic songs
Anthems and nationalistic songs of Australia
100 percent agree with your point (sorry did not see it before) all or nothing is best - not just half the info. Perhaps the solution that the Canadian music article has come up with is a good idea here... that is a new article that explains all like Anthems and nationalistic songs of Canada.Moxy (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Commonwealth of Australia
Anthem: "Advance Australia Fair[N 2]
Royal anthem"God Save the Queen"
[N 3]
Hmmmm, that might work. It would also eliminate the problem that we have with button size and the annoying "i" icon. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Listing the royal anthem does not eliminate the button size and icon problem. In fact, it may make complicate matters. On the example above, the "i" button next to to the royal anthem name does not give information about the royal anthem! (I think) I understand why, but some of our less experienced readers may get confused. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
On voting and consensus .... I for one (as currently the sole dissenter in the vote) will concede and accept the opinion of the significant majority if needs be. I still think the royal anthem is more appropriately mentioned as a footnote than prominent in the infobox, but it is only an opinion and the other opinions are reasonable and valid. (I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" answer to the question, so there's no point in "fighting" for the "right" outcome.) Mitch Ames (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You might be the sole dissenter, but there's a few abstainers. --Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I agree an infobox specific to Australian needs is the ideal solution but considerable effort by a few users over the last couple of years to consolidate everything into a one size fits all has been the general consenss Gnangarra 03:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you think most Australians care about the Gini coefficient, purchasing power parity or Human Development Index? There are lots of things that most Australians neither know nor care about but we still mention them because this is an encyclopaedia, not a book of what's popular or general knowledge. The anthems are displayed in the location they are becaue we use a standard template. There's not much we can do about that, but it's not a reason for exclusion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There's far too many posts here supporting inclusion which say, at least in part, "That's what the Infobox demands". I'm sorry, but that's NOT how to create a great encyclopaedia. It means we have a consensus (on Infoboxes) to include content which wouldn't be there without that Infobox. Stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You raise a good point - why does this article not talk about its anthems? Odd to see mention of music without talking about the only legal music there is in the country. We build a good encyclopedia by informing our readers about valid information. I think acts of parliament recognizing these songs should be metioned long before any-other music. As seen here by this long long talk it is relevant to many - including the government that made them OFFICIAL songs. Your legally recognized anthems deserve mention over things like Mad Max any day. What has more cultural significant to our readers random movies or nation songs and symbols? Moxy (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you might have the US spell checker turned on. "encyclopaedia" became "encyclopedia". --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL - wife is laughing her head off at mee... You just made her day. :-)Moxy (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
One thing I can assure you of is that God Save The Queen has no cultural significance at all to most Australians aged under 40, and only historical significance to older Australians as the National Anthem from when they were young, NOT the Royal Anthem. It's a bit like that old Canadian flag with the Union Jack in the corner.... HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
So we should gear Wikipedia towards people under the age of forty and forget what has passed over hundreds of years of history (dont for get the vets) - or should we include what is historical to ever generation born before 1970 and what young people may want to learn about? Best we link so all can learn its place now and in history . The Flag of Canada to use your example - is linked from the main Canada article and leads our younger (and old alike) readers to lean about the new and old flag and there place in history - the topic is not simply omitted. Thus far total omission from the body of the article is what is being advocated over advancing readers knowledge of a sensitive issue. A simple link - perhaps in the infobox or even in the culture section is not much. knowledge over ignorance of topics and there situations is always best for our readers. It has so much cultural significance that there was an Act of parliament to insure its place in history and to cement its place in the future.Moxy (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You have just completely misrepresented my position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh - sorry for the rant bad.Moxy (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Request For Comment

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

This is getting tedious. You have no consensus to add the info. Now what do you expect to do if someone throws in their opinion? Are you looking for a casting vote from someone who probably doesn't know anything about the issue? If you don't get the result you want, then what? More forum shopping? --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Anjwalker is well within his rights to request input from other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
ANd I'm well with in my right to say what I think of that. And to ask him how he suggest it's going to go. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Although I would be disappointed if the royal anthem was excluded from the infobox, we do need a conclusion either way. It might be the wrong one in my personal opinion, or it might be what I consider the right one, but I’m entitled to my personal opinion and at least it will clear up this point. Anjwalker Talk 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No My reasons and more detailed view are above, several times. I hope you really don't expect me to repeat them again! (How will this be anything but another vote?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No There are lots of "official" things associated with Australia that aren't in the infobox, because they aren't considered relevant or important enough. Off the top of my head, Australian of the Year, Australia Day, Floral emblem etc. Royal anthem is probably official, but it is not used very often and is not relevant to imparting knowledge about Australia to others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talkcontribs)
  • No. Skimmed over the above discussion, agree with HiLo's and AussieLegend's comments. Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hilo and I disagree. I think it should be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh, obviously I skimmed too quickly. Thanks for catching that. Jenks24 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem. Bidgee (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Get out of the clouds and add info about the only legal music/songs the country has for our readers (In the article screw the info box). Ignorance is not what we wish for our readers - knowledge and relevant info is what builds the encyclopedia. Not exclusion of what the layman believes over official status. The "I dont like it" "Its not used often" is not a valid reason - need to come up with why it should be omitted Moxy (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't know about "We see more blue moons then we do singing the royal anthem." or "It's hardly ever used and is much too obscure to be highlighted in this way." but God Save the Queen (GSTQ) is played by some (though not all) elements of the ADF and ADFC on the Queen's Birthday! I have attended several navy and air force regimental/mess dinners and the tune has always been played at the start. GTSQ is as official as Advance Australia Fair (AAF) and so if GTSQ is to be excluded than so should be AAF! Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No Many official thing not listed in infobox. Having a footnote is a good compromise. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it is not used and yet official, then adding a footnote would be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No For consistency with other national wiki pages the national anthem should be referred to in the infobox. I notice the Royal Anthem and the history re the 1984 vote is referred to in that article [[10]] which is appropriate. A footnote in the main article [[11]] would also be a good compromise. isfutile:P (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Your vote explains why it should be referred to in the article, but it really doesn't explain why it shouldn't be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No: While there are undoubtedly many 'official' flags and other formal fripperies recognised in Australia, there is only one national flag and anthem we take to the world. Representing 'God Save the Queen' as the Australian national anthem would be like doing the same for the USA with 'Dixie', which is undoubtedly played on many occasions, but never to represent the USA to the world. Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The aim is not to represent GSTQ as the national anthem at all, it's to represent it as the royal anthem. See Canada's infobox for how this is done. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"Dixie" was the unofficial anthem of the CSA. In the US, we only have one National Anthem. However, if we thought it was ok to have to kneel to some royal family - we would also have a Royal Anthem to pay respects to our sovereign. We wouldn't play the Royal Anthem to the World because the purpose of the Royal anthem is internal - to remind the subjects who is in charge. But as stated we don't have a royal family thus we do not have a royal anthem. A national anthem is for nationalistic pride and identity, and is why that anthem is played to the world. Patriot1010 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes The Commonwealth of Australia is a "country" Commonwealth - but here's the catch - whose form of government is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Monarch as the head of state. That Monarch is the "Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." which includes Austrailia, and this subordinate status is recognized by the Constitutionally mandated government. Since the Country known as Austrailia is not an independant state, but under Monarch (Royal) rule defined in a Constiution, both the anthem decided by Constitutional authority (which applies in this case), "Advance Australia Fair" AND the anthem of the Monarch "God Save the Queen" under Royal authority (as specified in the Constitution) which is the "Nation" known as the "UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms." This understanding feels "weird" for those who live in a Constitutional Republic like the US - but this situation should not be compared to the US since the US does not have a Monarch. I am sure this detail is contentious in Austrailia (sorry) and why a call for comments went out. The Government of Austrailia must play the Royal Anthem per their Monarch and Governor-General at events when appropriate, and the National Anthem when appropriate for national occasions - so both are appropriate and even the Governor-General concedes that both are played thus put both on there! Take the Royal one out if Austrailia becomes a Constitutional Republic at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talkcontribs) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a very recent example of God Save the Queen being played at parliament House in Canberra without either a member of the Royal family or the Governor General being present - (link removed by Bidgee (talk) per WP:COPYLINK), for those of you who watch the video and wonder why our PM doesnt sing it is because she is a republican and our oppisition leader is a monarchist. Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I bit my tongue before but it was painfully obvious when I read all this the first time the debate is not about the Royal Anthem - it is merely a proxy argument to use Wikipedia as your online mouthpeice rebellion against your monarch - you know the one you kneel to? Rebels want to show the world they are independent of royal rule by omitting it on this article....egged on by your Prime Minister's actions. Its interesting how an anthem can be a proxy for so many things - isn't it? The Royal Anthem stays until you man up and declare Independance. My 2 shillings. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I played GSTQ to two classes of 13 yo students the other day, and none of them knew what it was. I doubt that they'll remember either. Oh, and being older than our PM, I had established my opinions long before she came along. And what makes anyone think that Australians follow the lead of politicians? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sure if I played the US National Anthem to 13 year old kids in El Paso, they would not know what it is either - but - Ignorance of one's national (or Royal in this case) anthems, and the failure of public school teachers to educate young Citizens of one's national (and Royal, if applicable) anthems does not mean they do not exist. Furthermore, if one's chieftain, or in Australia's case, Governor-General - decrees that there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia - then there is a National Anthem and a Royal Anthem for Australia! (at least until the Governor-general is beheaded in the town square). Once that happens whatever authority that follows will make that determination, be it Representatives elected by the People, or another Governor-General installed by the Monarch Patriot1010 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
What a stupid and insulting post. The stuff about US kids is pure speculation and, I suspect wrong. I AM a public school teacher. What do you think I was doing by playing GSTQ to them? Guess what? I was attempting to educate them. So take your speculative and bigoted insults elsewhere! HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey there was a call for comments for people with NPOV and I was picked - you get your money's worth when I come. I am merely stating the obvious. Don't get angry at me there is 10 pages of text of Australians in denial that the National anthem of Australia is "Advance Australia Fair" and the Royal Anthem is "God Save the Queen." Honestly...... and that is in every other commonwealth wiki page to boot... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot1010 (talkcontribs) 07:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Patriot, I know we should all rise above it, and look beyond your style, but sorry, it's really clouding your message. Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No: When I went to school we had to sing GSTQ and salute the flag at morning assembly. Also, Church of England Religious instruction as a subject was compulsory, regardless of your own particular branch of Christianity, faith or lack of it. Just as compulsory CofE instruction is outdated, so is GSTQ. Apart from hearing it on TV several times a decade, I have not heard GSTQ played in public in over 40 years. Wayne (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No For reasons I have explained before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talkcontribs) 11:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, documented estimations

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

"Human habitation of the Australian continent is variously estimated to have begun between c. 6,000[37] and 48,000 years ago,[38]"

IS ESTIMATED. This is a passive statement about estimations, not about the fact. It is well documented that some scholars believe that the entire world was populated after c. 6000 years ago. Morris and Whitcomb are just two scholars among those with earned doctorates who hold such a view. The citation was given. Various estimates, if given, should be inclusive. Intolerant dogmatism is a disgrace and unscholarly. Kindly refrain from edit-warring & intolerance.(EnochBethany (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Please take your fringe, young earth creationist views elsewhere. They don't belong here. And I asked you to discuss. That doesn't mean changing the article again and then starting a discussion! HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not a young earth creationist. So kindly stop posting lies about my position. I am not giving my position; I am recording a corrected statement about estimations which intelligent persons have made. Being arrogant & dogmatic is not intelligent. Nor do you win a debate by calling something "fringe." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Cuz the Bible told you so? --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - you could put that here. Indeed, you wouldn't even need to mention the 48,000 years. You could just ignore that bit of bullshit. Only problem is, before you register to edit, you have to be screened to ensure that you hold correct political, scientific, and religious views. --Merbabu (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Conservapedia is like Wikipedia; one's views have to be politically correct for their politic. I am not politically correct for them any more than for the intolerant secular humanists who control this venue.(EnochBethany (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
EnochBethany, I rise to support my colleagues here, though perhaps not their attitude. I understand your position, but we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity, is that humanity arrived in Australia at least 40 000 years ago. This is an important number, because it illustrates that the ancestors of Aboriginal Australians arrived at this extremity of the earth well before humans reached (say) the Americas or New Zealand. While I understand and appreciate your passion, you would be best served finding a more appropriate forum to present your views. Seeking easier targets than places where actual scientists may be found is not a valid strategy - you'll be reverted, and your contributions will be checked to see that other examples are also reverted, and you'll eventually face sanctions. We're not a bunch of barbarians, we work together in a civil fashion and we achieve results. If we can produces articles like Evolution without too much drama, we should be able to find you a place where you can present your case in a collegiate atmosphere. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No, they are not presenting a neutral point of view, but trying to be dogmatic. To be neutral, if you are recording estimates, you must be inclusive. I have a number of degrees, both from secular and Biblical institutions. The only institutions that included a serious discussing of the opposing POV's were the Biblical institutions. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Just having a look at the source provided by Enoch, I'm inclined to think that there is more recent scholarship that suggests objectively that Aboriginal Australians arrived in Australia a little under 50, 000 years ago. Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer. Darwin's view that the Tertiary Period was 300 million years long is similarly not found on the article for the Tertiary Period as it is also no longer considered valid. Comics (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The point is not on what is more recent. Proponents of young earth continue to exist. I don't consider myself one of them. But the POV needs to be included if you speak about "various estimates." (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate, and they might estimate anything from "um, twenty years old?", based on personal experience, to "millions and millions of years", based on a confusion of dinosaurs. In point of fact, we don't have any historical records going back beyond a few hundred years, because nobody here before then was able to write. 1769 might be such an estimate. My point is that we don't have to include every estimate in this article. We don't have room to discuss every estimate, so we go for the best, based on scientific evidence. There are other estimates pushing the arrival of humankind in Australia even earlier, but we don't include them either. We go for the best information available, which is a range that is widely supported by reliable sources. If we had an article called List of estimates of beginning of human settlement in Australia (and you are welcome to begin such an article, because it is a fascinating subject) then of course the 6 000 year estimate would have a place there, on NPOV grounds. But not in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS. As suggested by Merbabu, if you want to write stuff like this try Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know that nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. The long and apparently serious article here deals with pure fantasy, for example. There are entire collections of articles based around Pokemon or Harry Potter, built and maintained by unsmiling nerds. Technically speaking, the 6 000 to 48 000 YA estimated date range is accurate. EnochBethany is probably serious about this and feeling aggrieved about his treatment here. Editors should not be abused and ridiculed for well-intentioned edits. The answer, I think, is to say that this article relies on a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one, and both have their appropriate but largely separate places. "Render unto Caesar etc." If we tried to barge into (say) Cars (film) and edit out all the obvious nonsense, like point out that cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing, we'd be intruding into a different reality and we'd be told to go mind our own business. And I hope we'd be told to do so politely. I think if editors are at the stage where they use abusive and mocking language (even in edit summaries) to make other editors feel bad, then maybe they should take a break, for a bit. --Pete (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an article about a fantasy world, so that comparison isn't valid. You might want to check the article's recent history. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That's my point. Wikipedia includes articles on diverse worldviews and this is a science-based one, at least when we're talking about topics such as geology or archaeology. A faith-based editor will accept that. We can nudge him towards more appropriate areas where his work will be accepted and welcomed. We can always find a way to be polite about it. --Pete (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and anthropologists and cited a creationist that has himself been ridiculed by mainstream scientists, which validates HiLo48's claim that this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism. It's not the first time this user has inserted fringe creationist theories into popular articles. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course. Let's make sure that this view doesn't last here more than a few minutes. And I might take a look at what else he's been doing, crusading through Wikipedia one article at a time. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
May I point out that this editor has blind reverted without an edit summary, has told Hi-Lo that he is edit warring, that he is editing by "dogma", is "unscholarly", "ignorant" and a "disgrace". Oh, and "intolerant". Just saying. --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
PS - and was blocked on 13 June for edit warring. --Merbabu (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Morris has a PH.D. in science. One should not be so dogmatic and intolerant. Ad hominem arguments are invalid. You may sort of win by having more power on Wikipedia than I. But might does not make right. Yes, I got blocked for a day once after a factual dispute in which I reverted 3 times (not more). Then the lie was made that I have reverted a 4th time. I documented extensively that the term "homophobia" was a slur word and that no such phobia exists. And of course the pro-sodomists who guarded their slur-word article had the power. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Really? Proof please. Look, I seriously suggest that you gain a bit of perspective and give up now. Trying to make that change to the article, especially without discussion, presents you as a religious nutter. I don't know if that's true, but your whole approach here does your cause no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Really what? I already posted the proof. Now you prove that no scholar believes in a young earth. That is not my POV; but I don't put my head in the sand and insist otherwise. The last I knew making a bold change in an article and then defending it was an approved approach. How does throwing out "religious nutter" prove anything? Are you an intolerant liberal with your head in the sand? It is simply a fact that the various estimates of the origin of the population include c. 6000 years ago. This is not a statement that such is the truth. Can you not stand having other POV's included in a list of various estimates? (EnochBethany (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
EnochBethany. You need to learn about what is a reliable source. I could find sites that state that the world is only 6000 years old, or was made by god in 7 days, or the world is flat, but they are all fringe ideas that don't stand up to scientific or historical analysis. Your point of view push is not only in error, it is annoying and disruptive. Please keep your fringe ideas to yourself or discuss them with other like-minded people at your local church. These ideas do not belong here and we are wasting time trying to convince you of that.--Dmol (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I hold 4 graduate degrees, and I don't need you to tell me about reliable sources. What you need to learn, apparently, is not to stick your head in the sand and live in a delusional world where certain ideas you don't like, don't exit. I will not keep my ideas to myself. Who are you to tell me that? And if you read the discussion, you should know by now that I was not presenting MY idea, but documenting the existence of a POV which is not mine. I know it would be a waste of time to tell you that you don't have any proof for your theories. What do you believe except that someone told you so? It may be annoying to you to realize that your little comfort zone of dogma is not the only POV out there. But you need to have enough objectivity to accept that when one is tabulating a range of views, one should not stick head in sand. Your POV seems to be faith-based in the negative sense of credulity (not the only definition of faith of course). Learn to think out of the box and accept reality as it is. This insistance on excluding a significant POV from the objective statement "is estimated," is a clear violation of neutral POV, as is the label of a POV of many serious scholars as (scoffing) "fringe."(EnochBethany (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
Enoch, sorry to but in here but we're arguing about using a source from 1961 in addition to a 2002 source; if anything I'd say that what it shows is a consensus towards thinking maybe the Aboriginal Australian's got here earlier. Perhaps your source was valid in 1961, but almost 50 years have gone by. The world changes. That doesn't mean that they haven't got doctorates, it simply means that the technology now available can date things with greater certainty. The abstract for the 2002 article states:
The dating of selected archaeological and megafaunal sites from the Australian region is reviewed, with emphasis on recent work at some of the oldest sites. Improved chemical procedures with decreased analytical background for 14C analysis, combined with new luminescence dating methods, has confirmed many of the results processed decades ago and significantly increased the maximum age for some others. The oldest occupation horizons in four different regions reliably dated by defendable multi-method results are in the range 42–48,000 calendar years ago, overlapping with the age range for similarly well-dated undisturbed sites containing the youngest extinct megafauna. There is less secure evidence suggesting some archaeology may be earlier and some megafauna may have survived later than this period.
Yes, perhaps it's all just technobabble to disguise the fact that they know nothing. The point is that they've used methods that still stand up ten years later to arrive at an approximation as to when the Aboriginal Australian's arrived. The article obviously explores those points in more detail than the abstract does. Besides, with the 2002 approach we get to say we had Diprotodon and everything's better with Diprotodon, yeah? Comics (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I note the arrival of a NPOVD tag on the article. I think we have consensus here already, but just to be sure, let's test it. The Australia article includes the statement, Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago... and is supported by the source, Dating the First Australians. This statement belongs in the article.

  • Support as per my contributions in discussion above. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I removed the NPOV tag before I noticed this continued discussion. I explained my reasons in the edit summary so I'll leave it removed for now. But I think it's time to stop feeding the trolls and close this once and for all.--Dmol (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The npov flag is always an attempt at hostage taking. It's rarely used as described in its guideline, and this occassion seems no different. Glad to see it removed so quickly. This editor may be bucking process, and may be doing it with excessive assertiveness, even uncivilly. And he may be the only one supporting his edit, but troll is the wrong word. I don't think he's doing it to stir us up and get a reaction (which is all a troll is about). I'm sure he's doing it because he genuinely (but mistakenly) thinks this is what the article needs. His edit and arguably his style/process are not inline with Wikipedia policies, but he is not a troll in my opinion. Certainly I agree that enough time has been spent on the issue. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair point. I've removed the term from my comments above.--Dmol (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support! I am gratified that so many support the NPOV label! For indeed the article does not have an NPOV. Now in response to some of the claims made by antagonists:
1) Someone says, "your fringe, young earth, creationist views." This requires an apology from the poster. I did not state my POV. So if I don't state it, how can you call it fringe, pray tell? And how can you call it "young earth"? Backquote me where I ever asserted such. How can you be objective if you judge like that?
2) Someone says, "They don't belong here." My what tolerance. Do you imagine that you prove your point by telling someone begone?
3) Some person, again being judgmental, sneered, "Cuz the Bible told you so?" Since we are reporting estimates of antiquity, and since the Bible doesn't give a bibliography on POV's regarding this estimate of antiquity, does this sneer make sense? How could be Bible record the POV's of persons living in the last 100 years?
4) Some persons tried to shovel me off to Conservapedia, though I never indicated that I agreed with Conservapedia. Did I indicate that I was a conservative Roman Catholic? a Schafley?
5) "before you register to edit [Conserapedia] you have to be screened." Well I would be screened out for them. But what does Conservapedia have to do with the need to record all POV's & be neutral here? This is an illogical red-herring.
5) "we're trying to present a neutral point of view, and the scientific view, rather than that supported by doctors of divinity." The POV I recorded (but did NOT endorse) is held by scientists. It was put forth by the head of a science department at a secular university (or college). This is just one example. I suppose that the majority of "doctors of divinity" would oppose young earth & endorse most humanistic POV's. Now inserting "doctor of divinity" is another red-herring, since I cited no such persons.
6) "I understand an appreciate your passion." I don't think so. I think like most of the responders, you just jumped to conclusions, instead of confining your comments to my edit.
7) "your contributions will be checked." Now how does attempting to intimidate me and personally attacking me support your POV? My edit was bibliographic. Your response indicates a lack of objectivity and failure to read, jumping to conclusions. Actually your attempt to intimidate me is barbarian.
8) "Perhaps the findings of Whitcomb and Morris were valid in 1961, but they're not any longer." If you haven't read W & M then how can you say that? Now before I go to the bother of posting more citations, tell me what year you will accept? 1990 and later? Now tell me what year you will accept and that you are going to stop objecting to including a bibliographic reference to it before I do the work. Will you drop your objections to my edit if I post a more recent citation?
9) "I could ask (say) the young fellows lounging around outside the government flats for their estimate." What does that have to do with anything? Did I propose citing loafer instead of scholars?
10) "We don't have room to discuss every estimate." You are saying that the article doesn't have room for a change in the date range which involves about 2 words and is no longer than the original???
11)"This nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. The book being cited is obviously some kind of religious tract, and definitely not a RS." How do you know that it is a religious tract? Have you read it? How can something be obvious to you if you haven't read it? Is your POV in fact bigoted humanism? If a book is authored by the head of a university science dept, how can you dismiss it so lightly? "no place on Wikipedia"? So Wikipedia is an authority on something? Give me a break.
12)"a scientific worldview rather than a faith-based one." IMHO this article is based on a credulity-based worldview held by persons who need to be politically correct among dogmatic humanists. Faith-based? For me proper faith is the resting of the soul in the sufficiency of the evidence & in the obviousness of the self-evident. It appears to me that in unobservable areas like ancient history (unrepeatable unique events of long ago), persons who hold to the party-line, hold those views mostly just because someone told them so, not because they themselves have handled ancient artifacts and done replicable experiments on them. What do you believe in this area except on the basis that someone told you so?
13) "cars don't actually talk or do all the other stuff the movie shows them doing." What does talking cars have to do with this?
14) "The intentions of the user may be benign but they are certainly not neutral as he/she ignored probably thousands of studies by well documented geologists and . . . this is merely a fringe theory. In my opinion, this is an attempt to censor anything that refutes the bible or creationism."
Now what on earth does that statement have to do with my little edit? The issue is not whether or not I am ignored. I suppose that everyone who has posted on this talk page here has probably been ignored. How does using the term "mainstream" prove anything? I am the one being censored. I did not erase the ancient earth POV, nor assert it, nor deny it. I just record that another scientific POV exists, which it does.
15) "presents you as a religious nutter." Do you think that an insult commends the rationality of your position? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC))
I'm not ignoring you. Just saying that we operate by consensus, and it looks like you are the only editor supporting the change. I do agree that some of the comments directed at you were impolite, and I trust that those editors find it in their hearts to apologise. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, let me add my support to EnochBethany, not to push a particular POV, but to simply avoide having a "long-age-only" POV presented. Supt. of Printing (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Let’s put the credibility of using religious or religious-based sources aside for just a moment and consider that what you are proposing would have huge wikipedia-wide implications. Are you suggesting that such consideration of the young-earth POV be implemented across all relevant articles? It would not make sense to have it only in this article. There must be thousands upon thousands of articles that could require such a change to be consistent – and up until now, almost all of them, including this one, had not been influenced by religious text, or sources based on religious texts.
Is it legitimate concern about wikipedia-wide implications? Are you saying that you are supporting the present state of this article based on other Wikedpedia articles? Isn't it against the rules to use as authority for one article other Wikipedia articles? Now if you want to exclude even reference to young earth POV (as if it did not exist in your universe), what reliable sources can you site to support that? If you don't have such reliable secondary sources, how can you push the ostrich POV? ( (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC))
Given the clear opposition to your proposed text here, I suggest you now leave this debate here – for now – at least, and find a central location to establish a new wikipedia-precedent to incorporate. Then it will become clear, either way, whether you can roll out your POV across Wikipedia. Clarity is good.
So, if there’s nothing further, why not take this away particular article, and move it to a central location proposing it for consistent wikipedia-wide implementation? Let us know your plans. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I could consider such a move after you find reliable secondary sources to support your suggestion that such be done. ( (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC))
I can't say if this user has read Wiki's article on NPOV or not, but I would just like to emphasise one point that, for this article at least, might suggest we don't include their suggested changes:
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.
Maybe, in the interest of fairness, we can say the source Enoch is suggesting falls under plausible, but currently unaccepted? Yes, we should reflect all viewpoints where possible. Comparing the plausible, but currently unaccepted theory proposed by Enoch's insistence we include this source in the interests of neutrality, to the accepted academic scholarship we give it undue legitimisation and importance. Yes, people going off at Enoch and calling them 'Young earth nutter' and the like does violate Wiki policy but we're talking to the same person who compared me to the Master on my Talk page. I think I in spirit agree with Merabu; let's end this discussion, take chill pills and see Enoch suggest changes in other areas of Wikipedia. It sorta pains me to see what should have been a simple discussion effectively transformed into a Religion V Science debate. Comics (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I say close and archive. If EnochBethany continues, we cut it off and move on to some sort of formal scenario like AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree - what a time waster - close... SatuSuro 04:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Close now. Let's implement any changes that come from a centralised request to incorporate the young earth pov across all wikipedia if that consensus comes (for which I won't hold my breath). This article is not the place for that discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Close now. It's only a waste of time as it would be unbelievable if the proposal was ever accepted to allow this would pass any centralised discussion. --Dmol (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
"Accepted Academic scholarship" is difficult to define unless it is said accepted "by whom." Are you saying that IF I can post citations that demonstrate that professors in accredited universities and colleges hold the young earth POV and that books written by persons with Ph.D.'s hold young earth, you will drop your objection to including this POV in your universe of ideas? Will you continue to insist that this is not accepted academic scholarship if I can cite such sources -- or do you intend to find some reason to exclude this willy nilly?
And BTW, to call me a religious nutter is an insult. Both that and dismissal of the young earth POV appear to be based on editors' primary sources and original research, if not mere common prejudice, not on reliable secondary sources.
For a person on a personal talk page to joke with an in-common Dr.Who fan about him POSSIBLY being the Master is not an insult. One can assume that a fan of Dr. Who has a sense of humor, at least if he be a fan of the Bakers in that role. And he should note that I never suggested he was the Black Guardian.
This discussion needs to be here so all can note the protest vs NPOV. Is it not enough for you to 1) object to young earth POV, then 2) object to including it in the history ideas, without then trying to pretend that noone claimed claimed that this POV should be included? You really need to sweep it all under the rug for Linus-blanket security?(EnochBethany (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC))
We're likely at the point of chasing our own tails here. EnochBethany, I have read what you have to say carefully. I am sorry that you were treated impolitely by other editors. The "young earth" POV you mention is not a mainstream view, and in this article it would not be appropriate to include it, just as there are other minority views claiming that humanity arrived in Australia 60 000 BCE or earlier. We go with our best shot. The POV you support might be included in more detailed articles, as noted above. You do not appear to have consensus for the changes you support, and you are welcome to follow wiki procedures to get more people to look at the matter. I do, however, suggest you avoid any appearance of canvassing. Until you do that, any further discussion here is unlikely to give you any joy, and would be considered disruptive if you argue pointlessly. You have had a fair hearing here over several days. Please accept the situation. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Support and snowball close. If we're going to include mythical accounts of the origin of Indigenous Australians, surely we could at least start with their own creation myths rather than those written half a world away.
And no, being able to produce a PhD who believes in YEC would not justify including it here. Producing a PhD at an accredited university in a relevant field would not justify it. They do exist - as an example, Marcus Ross is a paleontology PhD who somehow manages to compartmentalise things so he can believe in a 6000-year-old Earth and yet perform research where he dates fossils to millions of years old. But within their scientific fields, these have the status of fringe theories held only by a tiny minority. Those theories might merit coverage in an article on creation science, but NOT in an article about Australia. --GenericBob (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean Wikipedia:Snowball clause? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 04:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Study by the Australia Early Development Index

According to Australia#Language

A 2010–2011 study by the Australia Early Development Index found that ...

According to its web page, the AEDI is a "collection of information", which to me suggest that the Index itself is unlikely to do a study. The AEDI is apparently collated by The Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and State and Territory Governments (working in partnership with others). I suggest that the article needs rewording, but without having access to the cited ref (Agence France-Presse/Jiji Press, "Arabic Australia's second language", Japan Times, 16 April 2011, p. 4.), I can't determine whether DEEWR et al did the study or someone else did it using the data. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Population density incorrect

The population density info is incorrect - It should be 2.83 people per square kilometer and 1.08 per square mile.

Not likely. A square mile is bigger than a square kilometre, so would have to contain more people. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if we should include the decimal portions. Can we round these figures up or down, please? This is extremely distressing. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The figures don't want to be any rounder than they are. Half a percent of inaccuracy is fine. What you're asking for is 6% to 8% inaccuracy – far too big an error. And if you restrict yourself to whole numbers, the error will increase to 50% when you are representing 1.5 as 1, flipping down at that point to the still massive 33 (and a third) percent when you change from 1 to 2. Possibly your suggestion is intended to be humorous. If not, then you need to know that it is not normal to be distressed by two decimal places. (If this suggestion doesn't annoy you, then you're probably okay – it's minor.) Koro Neil (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Any discussion of population density is academic really, as it's essentially a meaningless figure, only telling you that the country is ...... well it doesn't really tell you anything. There are large tracts of land, even along main highways, where the population density is always zero, and yet it can rise in the cities to 9,700 or more. It just doesn't mean anything without context. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation is uh-strail-yuh

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

That is, the current pronunciation guide says "Australia ( /əˈstreɪljə/)". Which I believe is wrong.TheThomas (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Google searches are not reliable sources. There has been quite a bit of discussion about this in the past. I suggest you check out the archives. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that my suggested pronunciation is incorrect? If so, you should say that. I am not likely to wander aimlessly through archives of 10,000 edits. I am seeing that the uh-strail-yuh pronunciation comes from Australian English, I suppose that is appropriate.TheThomas (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
archives to this page that is - as to whether something is wrong or right - you need more than a google search (or another wikipedia page...) - and my copy of Pearsall, Judy; Trumble, Bill (2002), The Oxford English reference dictionary (2nd ed., rev ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-860652-9  agrees with the article - SatuSuro 12:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
If something is correct/incorrect in your perception - it is better to place your comments here first with WP:RS to back it up and more than one - to confirm your suspicion - at large articles like this - the inordinate time spent dotting i's and crossing t's by editors means the effort is to be put in here before going onto the page - you can only expect grief if you edit the page and then state your claim swith a google search summary here - that simply is not the way to go about it SatuSuro 12:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There are many pronunciations of Australia. Firstly, there are those used by Australians, and by non-Australians. My view is that we should only consider the pronunciations used by the citizens of a place (does Wikipedia have rules on this?), and there are definitely more than one of those, depending on the formality of the speech and the location of the speaker. The way most Australians pronounce it when singing their national anthem is quite different from the more common spoken forms. Some routinely omit the "l" when saying the name. The sound of the second "a" varies a lot. Not a simple, clear cut thing at all. HiLo48 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If the truth be known, you will probably find that all major cities have some variation in the way they pronounce vowels; vowels being represented by imprecise positions of the tongue in the mouth. So if one is arguing about whether or not a unaccented syllable has been reduced to a vocal schwa, no determinative national consensus may be obtainable. (EnochBethany (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC))
The Macquarie Dictionary is the best place to look as it’s accepted in academic arenas as the official Australian English spelling & pronunciation resource - maybe try --Amckern (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More attention needed on the 'l'

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

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

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

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

How the French say France is not a valid comparison. They speak a different language. Among English speakers, I strongly believe we should always respect pronunciation by citizens of a country as the primary form. If some variations are common, maybe they could crack a mention, but common cannot come to mean that the US pronunciation of everything dominates simply because there's a lot of Americans. HiLo48 (talk)
Politicians are not elected for their skills with the language, so the fact that they sometimes omit the 'l' is of no more import than journalists or dentists or taxidermists sometimes omitting the 'l'. But you're right - Pauline Hanson and Anthony Albanese would be two classic examples. On the other hand, John Howard and Phillip Ruddock would rather have cut their own heads off than say it without the 'l'.
The thing is: Does any parent or teacher ever advocate the dropping of the 'l' as a good thing to do? I'd be very surprised. How they actually say it when they're not thinking about it may be different. But is it the job of an encyclopedia to record every possible variation of the pronunciation of a word, as actually encountered in practice? Where would it ever end? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

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

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

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

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

You have put back in a British RP pronunciation ("ostralia/awstralia") and left in the General Australian pronunciation ("estralia/ustralia") but not included the General American pronunciation ("ahhstralia"). This is very inconsistent. You could either follow the Canadian precedent and use only the Maquarie Dictionary Australian pronunciation, or include the pronunciations from ALL major native dialects of English - not merely Australian and British RP, but also General American (which has vastly more speakers than British RP, by the way). As it is, it is now highly arbitrary, with understandably the pronunciation of the native country (Australia) and also one of the other two major English varieties but not the other. Where is the logic in this? Include all three or just include the Australian pronunciation. As such I've removed the British RP pronunciation and just left the General Australian one for now, cited from the Macquarie Dictionary. If you want to include foreign pronunciations in future it would be only logical to include both General American and British RP.Saruman-the-white (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't wish to sound condescending, but it would be helpful if you respond to my actual points so that I feel sure that you have read and understood them and so we can have dialogue, rather than talk over each other. You should probably also take a close look at the explanatory guide at WP:IPA for English, which it seems you don't understand. I didn't put a "British" pronunciation but rather a diaphonemic one that encodes for multiple dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You do not sound condescending. Even if the pronunciation you gave first does work when pronounced in both British and American English (but as previously acknowledged, not Australian), the fact remains that you put this pronunciation first, before the Australian one, which you labelled as "locally" (which does indeed sound somewhat condescending) as this pronunciation is used not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. As such, if two pronunciations are needed to all dialects with one IPA pronunciation, the Australian one should go first, just as "Australian English is used throughout this article" (see note on article), because Australia is the topic of the article. There is probably no need for the "locally", which when used to refer to a whole country, or a whole continent in the case of Australia, does not sound entirely natural. The fact that this pronunciation also exists in New Zealand, SIngapore and Malaysia (so, over the continents of Australia, Oceanis and Asia) "locally" certainly doesn't seem applicable. If these are the only two pronunciations needed for IPA in accordance with what you said before then they should maybe just both be listed normally with the one used in Aust. first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talkcontribs) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I think you're right. As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY pronunciation that should be listed is the local one. It's really the only correct one. There will always be many others, but as soon as we include one or more of those, others will whinge about their incorrect pronunciation being excluded. Sadly, it often again leads to "There's a lot of us Americans. The way we get it wrong MUST be mentioned." Safest approach? Include none of them. Won't offend anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Having a clear and consistent policy helps prevent edit warring. The issue of local vs. general has, in the past, gotten especially tendentious. It would be false to say that the "local" pronunciation is the only correct one in this case. There are regional standards so that the non-"local" pronunciation is, for example indicated in a number of dictionaries. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to see the logic that convinces me that, for a place with a unique name, the pronunciation used by people who've never even been there can be considered correct. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not just places. I'm still looking for one of those mythical "eemoos" that the Americans talk about. Maybe they live in Brisbayne. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Or Mel-borrrn. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 06:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
There is actually a Melbourne in the USA, in Florida. The article suggests that the vowel part of the second syllable rhymes with the er in finger. That's not how Americans tend to pronounce Australia's Melbourne. And the interesting part is that Florida's Melbourne "was named Melbourne in honor of its first postmaster, Cornthwaite John Hector, an Englishman who had spent much of his life in Melbourne, Australia." Is this the only American place named after an Australian place? HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, there'd be a few. According to its article, Brisbane, California is most likely named for Brisbane, Australia. I agree that only the local pron. should be included because there are just so many accents of English, however, to say that the British or American pronunciations are incorrect because those people "have never been here" is ridiculous. It discredits the argument. We in English pronounce "Paris" with the "s" on the end rather than "Paree" as the French do, but I don't see anyone arguing that this pronunciation is incorrect. It is correct for the English language, but would be incorrect in the French language. Likewise, saying "awwstralia/ostralia" in Britain or "aahstraliya" in the US is, maybe not incorrect, but non-standard, for us, but entirely correct for them. This doesn't take away from the argument that there are many pronunciations of English that are acceptable (New Zealand, Canada, Southern USA, Northern England, Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, to name a few) so to save the complexity and bother merely listing the native pronunciation for an article about the country is the most simple. However, according to Aeusoes1, the additional non-Australian pronunciation he included covers both US and UK English, which form a very, very large proportion of English speakers outside of Australia, so I can't see that the inclusion of one more pronunciation to cover both of these dialects poses a problem or unnecessary complication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Paris doesn't count. It's a different language. On the broader matter, I'll admit now to being torn. I'm normally of the view that common usage makes correct usage, which would mean that the way American pronounce a word is correct for Americans. But I just can't escape the fact that nobody from the place the word comes from, speaking the same language, says it that way, or, it would seem, has ever said it that way. Someone in the US must have got it wrong at some stage, and everyone else copied the mistake. I can't convince myself that copying a mistake makes it right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
A better example is New Orleans, where the local pronunciation is different from the non-local pronunciation(s) in ways that go beyond the normal regular differences in accent (that is, differences in incidence). The simplest justification of not completely ignoring non-local pronunciations is that place names are still talked about by non-locals. This is why we try to accommodate multiple dialects in English dialects in out transcriptions, even in place names like New York or Southwark.
Considering the spelling of Australia, it's more likely that the non-local pronunciation reflects a more recent reduction of the first vowel than that the word was pronounced as it is in the region and others have come to pronounce it incorrectly through spelling pronunciation. Characterizing either of these as "copying a mistake" is arbitrarily drawing the line in the sand of language change. Couldn't we say that of all changes between Proto-Indo-European and now? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding Young-Earth dates to article

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

My proposed change in the article entails expanding the range in the list of estimates to include a date as early as c. 6000 years ago, even though that date is connected to the politically incorrect view of a young earth (not MY view). I have about 100 more citations (70 percent by authors with earned doctorates) to support my little edit to make the bibliographical reference to the latitude of variation in date more accurate. Now before I post them, tell me: Is anyone so bigoted that he has already decided to find some way to object, no matter what citations I post, regardless of when they were published (despite the pretense that Morris is to be ignored because published in 1961), regardless of the academic credentials of the authors? Are you already pre-judged? (EnochBethany (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC))

If they're are not your views then why are you so tenacious and persistent in attempting to advance these views in this article and many others, it's not directly pertinent to the issue here but if they are then accept it, we're not as intolerant as you attempt to portray us as... Feel free to list your citations here to allow your peers to assess them before citing it in the actual article, if these sources are rejected on the basis of "bigotry" then you may appeal it at the reliable source noticeboard where third party editors from many cultural and religious background will assess your sources. Directly citing those sources of yours will simply result in a nasty edit war which we are all trying to avoid. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
EnochBethany, I have followed the discussion below, but I am still not clear on how/why you feel your edit will improve the article? As an aside, I notice there is a WP article on the work you wished to cite here. This notes the polarising impact/controversial aspects of the book, which might have alerted you to the likely response to its inclusion as a source elsewhere on wikipedia - like this page. My view is you need to gain very clear consensus here before proceeding. Nickm57 (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Lay off THE SHOUTING and the accusations of bigotry, please. And no, changing "at least 40,000 years" to "at least 6000 years" would not be a "little edit", it's a stonking huge one.
If you intend to post citations, be aware that readers are likely to apply the following filters:
  • Are those "earned doctorates" in a relevant field? In my experience, YECs really love the aura of respectability that accompanies any sort of vaguely science-y tertiary qualification, and aren't at all fussy about whether their pet doctors are working in anything resembling their area of expertise.
  • Was the cited material published in a mainstream peer-reviewed publication (edit: in a relevant field)?
  • How many distinct authors are represented by those citations after applying the previous two filters?
--GenericBob (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
For something that isn't your POV, you're going to great extremes to include it in the article. Okay, you have 100 sources. Where are these 100 sources? Could you include them, allow them to be assessed by the community, and then allow everyone to come to a consensus? I also sorta agree with GenericBob that changing the ~40 000 years ago estimate to include ~6000 years ago is a very big change that not only affects this article but a whole series of others (including, say, Canada, United States, New Zealand, Prehistory in Australia...). Comics (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
this is influenced solely by the editors clear religious beliefs - look at the rest of his contribs. He says on Talk:Angel that God (his use of upper case) and the Bible are all powerful and never wrong or contradictory. Below it was suggested that he take his case away from this page and seek to establish a consensus for a Wikipedia-wide consensus to include young earth pov as a standard across Wikipedia in the 1000s of articles like this one. Why is picking in this page alone? What about all those 1000s of other articles that mention anything that happened more than 6000 years old? Every dinosaur species article just for starters.
The editor has ignored the consensus below to close the discussion, he has ignored the suggestion to seek a broader consensus. Simply reopening it here is purely disruptive and I would be happy at this point to see an administrator step in.
At the very least, the editor needs to read and consider WP:DEADHORSE. --Merbabu (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor shows particularly poor form in his leading question that should anyone now disagree they are bigots. As someone else has already pointed out. For what it's worth, I'm more than happy for Enoch to think I'm a bigot, as I really don't hold much respect for the positions he is espousing. Bigotry and all the other labels below included. --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE is probably very appropriate here. I just went on JSTOR to try and find articles that support the earlier date (48ka) (which was hard to do; still not 100% used to finding stuff on JSTOR). Google searches pop up wikipedia, kid sites... y'know. Proper content exists, though. I'm prefectly willing to let Enoch continue their argument or for someone to bring in an admin. *shrug*
I'd personally like to think I've been reasonable in handling this. Comics (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm also a little puzzled as to why an editor from the USA (unless there are two "Enoch Bethany"s out there?) has chosen to flog this particular horse on Talk:Australia rather than at any of the equivalent US articles. --GenericBob (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
So are American editors supposed to limit themselves to US-centric articles? That person visited this article and saw something they wanted changed (I won't wade into the motive and brainpower involved). What possible difference could it make that the person is from the US? Incidentally, the "equivalent US article[]" (there is only one, called United States) has said there were Indians there "many thousands of years" for a long time, and said merely "thousands of years" before that. So EB presumably feels no need to quibble over what "many" means. As for this article, there might be a better way of handling this situation than prolonging it by finding new and more fun ways to offend the single editor who thinks we should include the Young Earth flummery. -Rrius (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's just puzzlement that, of all the countries available to edit, they stumbled upon the Australia article and chose to focus so much of their time advocating a change here. The US article also seems to state a specific, but wider, estimate in the section "History", which I believe corresponds with the section under debate at this article. I'm not advocating abuse of the editor and think they should share their opinion, but there was already a heated discussion about whether or not to change the standing statement and a consensus that it didn't add to the article at best and promoted fringe views at its extreme. Comics (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I neither understand why it is so puzzling that an American would take an interest in this article nor why you thought it was a good idea to express that puzzlement when it could so easily be taken to mean that Americans don't belong here. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Rius, the point is that it seems most unusual that this editor is determined to insert the young earth pov into this article in particular. THere must be many thousands of articles in wikipedia that refer to timeframes beyond 6,000 years ago (or thereabouts) and are thus problematic for the young earth pov. So why this one? It has been suggested to the editor that he seek to establish a broader consensus - i.e., not on this page - to establish a wikipedia-wide standard to incorporate young earth pov in all articles where timeframes of greater than 6,000 years ago.
As for anyone saying Americans shouldn't edit here, you've just made that up (i suggest a deliberate misinterpretation to obfuscate the issue). I suggest you go no further down that path - it's a furphy, a deliberate red herring to obfuscate the actual issue. A lot of time has been devoted to these two sections already, why spend more time a new irrelevant rabbit warren?
And why are you so quick to defend the young earth pov inserter against apparent WP:CIVIL - why not call him up on his numerous and so far ongoing issues with understanding WP:CIVIL? --Merbabu (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a good reason for the young earth creationists to target this particular article. Of all the aboriginal histories around the world, this goes back the longest, and is therefore the greatest challenge to their dogma. And that's what we must perpetually challenge. Dogma. Excellent, very independent sources would be required to agree to this proposal. I sincerely doubt if any exist. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
By "very independent" I presume you mean not supported by any religious influence what so ever. --Merbabu (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably, although I liked the suggestion by someone earlier that Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime stories would have a greater claim to being a valid source here than American Creationist material. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rrius, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. At no point did I suggest that US editors should be banned for editing Australian articles - if Americans are interested in Australian subjects, that's a good thing and I welcome their input. But the issue EnochBethany has raised is not a particularly Australian issue; either the whole Earth was magicked into existence 6000 years ago or none of it was.
As for the statement that the only equivalent US article is United States, I think you've misinterpreted what I meant by "equivalent": i.e. one that discusses dates of first settlement. On a quick search, I can find at least six that discuss dates of first settlement for North America:
  • United States: contrary to your claim that it merely says "many thousands of years", it is actually quite explicit in dating migrations to "between 40,000 and 12,000 years ago". History of the United States and Pre-Columbian era make similar claims.
  • Native Americans in the United States: "According to the most generally accepted theory of the settlement of the Americas, migrations of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia... The latest this migration could have taken place is 12,000 years ago".
  • Settlement of the Americas: "The archeological evidence suggests that the Paleo-Indians' first "widespread" habitation of America occurred during the end of the last glacial period or, more specifically, what is known as the late glacial maximum, around 16,500–13,000 years ago."
  • Paleo-Indians: "Evidence suggests big-game hunters crossed the Bering Strait from Asia (Eurasia) into North America over a land and ice bridge (Beringia), that existed between 45,000 BCE–12,000 BCE (47,000 – 14,000 years ago)... From 16,500 BCE – 13,500 BCE (18,500 – 15,500 years ago), ice-free corridors developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America."
So I repeat: it strikes me as curious that a US-based editor - one whose edit history doesn't suggest any other interest in Australian topics that I can see - should have chosen this page as a place to raise an issue that could just as easily have been raised on any of those equivalent US articles, or on the RS noticeboard. If EB wants to make a general argument about the inclusion of YEC claims in prehistorical material, Talk:Australia is an odd place to do it. --GenericBob (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
But it's not just articles covering human settlement. Off the top of my head, we'd also need to do a POV cheque on: Asiaceratops, Dinilysia, and Tyrannosaurus. Again, why just this article? --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I reverted Merbabu's change to reversion of the section heading per WP:TPO, as it is no more descriptive of what is being discussed that it was previously. Using "bigotry" in the header could be construed as a personal attack, particularly with your edit summary claiming it "shows the nature of the editor". IA 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
My "change" to the heading was merely a reinstatement of Enoch's own original heading. I reinstated it incorrectly thinking another editor had changed it to tone down its inflammatory nature. However, it's since been pointed out to me that ENoch himself changed his own heading. The point remains - it is Enoch "SHOUTING" and labelling those "bigots" who disagree with his proposal. If there was a personal attack, then it was Enoch, albeit one that he did come back and clean up. --Merbabu (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No, you were right the first time: EB created the section with the "NPOV BIGOTRY" title. I was the one who changed that title because I thought EB's title was inflammatory and unlikely to help resolve this to anybody's satisfaction. While I agree that the title does exemplify EB's approach to this issue, IMHO we already have enough other examples that we don't need to keep this one.--GenericBob (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha, I was only right by assuming. The diffs don't lie and I didn't check them. lol --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for not further investigating who made the edit first. I pretty much agree with GenericBob's last point. IA 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────EnochBethany, based on the previous discussion there's obviously no support to add material claiming that the human habitation of Australia began 6000 years ago on the grounds that this is a fringe view. As such, if you add any such material to this article, it's going to get removed very quickly and you're likely to end up being blocked from editing for POV pushing against consensus. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This talkpage is probably not the best place to discuss proposed changes in regards to dating certain articles. As other editors above have already noted, changes in what is considered a reputable source for dating prehistory, would affect a very large number of articles. I would suggest EnochBethany takes this to a broader forum such as WikiProject Time or something in the MOS, if they think that such an argument is worth pursuing and would result in a different outcome to this discussion. IA 10:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it is Enoch that has re-opened the discussion here without an acknowledgement of that suggestion, even if to disagree with it. Time to close this one too? --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd say yes, time to close this as well. I doubt this would be the end, though. Comics (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely close, with strong emphasis given to EB on taking it elsewhere, if at all. IA 11:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether the purported "100 more citations" are citations to sources that actually make directly relevant assertions about the date of human colonization of Australia. If these sources merely make assertions about the age of the earth, without addressing the actual point at hand, then the proposal to include them as relevant could be rejected on grounds of novel synthesis alone. Hesperian 03:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that EB meant he had 100 sources specifically on human settlement of Australia being only 6000 years old (and indeed, I didn’t believe it). If however he is saying his sources are only general – ie, they don’t mention Australian settlement – and he is thus synthesising that human settlement in Australia is only 6,000 years old, he definitely has no case.
But aren’t we closing this again already? --Merbabu (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing this. I thought the matter was already closed in the archive listed above. Can we close it once and for all. Is there any moderator decree that can prevent any new additions to this arguement and prevent us having to respond to any more nonsense.--Dmol (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I note that EB has not commented in 24 hours, but has been on other pages. Maybe even he has moved on. --Merbabu (talk)|

To address both who responded to me, I said that the words could be interpreted as saying Americans shouldn't edit here, not that it was intended that way. The point is that referring to the person's national origin was needlessly provocative. As for the body of United States being more detailed, so what? I seriously doubt this particular editor would have read that far. Americans of a certain political and religious bent figure they know everything about their country without actually reading anything. In any event, I concur with the suggestion that we close this discussion (and archive it in a few days). -Rrius (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Word

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

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

It should read:

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

I would fix it myself, but the article is protected from non-membership edits. (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The phrase "to form government" is well-established and is in fact the customary usage. There is an element of ambiguity about the phrase "the government" which makes your suggestion awkward. Do we mean the machinery of government, down to clerks and policemen? Do we mean the departments of government? Do we mean the government party, such as all members of the Federal ALP, or do we mean government in the strict constitutional sense, composed of those ministers of state appointed by the Governor-General? --Pete (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Living in a presidential system, I was rather unaware that was a customary usage. It just sounds strange to me fluency-wise. Would, "to form a government" work? If not, I'll just take note for the future. Thanks for clearing that up, though. (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
No. Skyring/Pete is right. By far the most common usage in Australia is the form of words that is already there. Both your proposals really have a slightly different meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"two groups forming a/the government" implies a Coalition government - which is a different thing. Perhaps the article might be more accurate if it said "two groups ... form parliament..." - where "parliament" comprises the government (eg currently Labor) and the opposition (Lib/Nat coalition). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Lol - I agree with HiLo that the existing text is grammatically correct, however, Mitch Ames is right in saying it's factually incorrect. Ie, it does imply (incorrectly) that the two parties form a Coalition government. But Mitch's proposal that they form Parliament is not the answer as there are other parties and independents, and more importantly it misses the actual point. Ie, that one of the two largest parties have always formed government: either Labor or the Liberal-National Party Coalition. How to express that better? --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups"? --AussieLegend (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) This question - over the wording - has always bugged me. We so often have a Prime Minister leading a minority party. As we do now, or as we generally do when the Liberals are second behind Labor but have the Nationals to prop them up. And there's at least one time where government was supplied by the third most numerous party. Chris Watson's Labour Party in 1904 had fewer seats (23) than Deakin's Protectionists (26) or Reid's Free Traders (24). Three minors held a kind of balance of power, but there were no formal coalitions. Gillard thinks she's got it tough now, but those three guys were taking turns being PM and unable to get anything contentious through! How do we find wording that is clear, but also accurate for every situation? Legend's wording above is accurate, but I don't know if Americans will follow it. Government there doesn't rest on numbers in Congress. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
While I know the term "government" is a common term to describe the executive branch in parliamentary systems, maybe a solution could be, "There are two major political groups, the Labor Party and the Nationals, that usually form the cabinet, sometimes with support from smaller parties, both in the states and federally." You could even say something like, "the ministers usually come from and are supported by..." or, taking on Legend's idea, "A government is usually formed by one of two major political groups." Just a thought. (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Truss. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I like Aussielegend's suggestion "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups" to which I would add ", the Labor party and the Liberal-National Party Coalition.". --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The article already contains something like that, making the wording "Government is usually formed by one of two major political groups, federally and in the states: the Australian Labor Party, and the Coalition which is a formal grouping of the Liberal Party and its minor partner, the National Party." --AussieLegend (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"...a formal grouping of several conservative (centre-right?) parties" (from AussieLegend) might be better, to account for all the partners in the coalition. IA 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Beat me to this point. But it still needs qualification when talking about state-level politics; Victoria and NSW are the only two states where a formal Liberal Party-National Party coalition competes for state government. In Qld, Liberals and Nationals have merged into a single party; in NT, they always were. In WA and SA the Nats are habitually but not formally allied with the Liberals (not that the SA Nats are a major force), and in Tas and ACT the Nats don't run.
Taking AL and IA's wording as a starting point, what about something like this? "Federal government is usually formed by one of two major political groups: the Australian Labor Party, or the Coalition, a formal grouping of the Liberal, National, and related parties. State-level politics are dominated by similar groups, although the exact relationship between Liberal and National parties varies by state." ("Liberal and National parties" here including CLP and LNP.) --GenericBob (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Should I mention that right now the federal government is made up of what in most of the rest of the world would be described as a coalition between the Labor Party and the Greens, if that word wasn't anathema to the ALP? Or would that complicate things too much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs)
I'm thinking that overthrowing the government and becoming dictator might ease the confusion at this point. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I was a little bewildered in the aftermath of last election when certain members of the Coalition started suggesting that it would be somehow unnatural for the ALP to do deals with another party to make up the numbers. I approve of AL's suggestion, and would like to add that as long as we're reforming politics, we ought to make the ALP fix the spelling of their name, and get the Liberals to change to something less likely to confuse the rest of the world :-) --GenericBob (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, it isn't a coalition in any real sense. There are no Greens ministers, there are no joint party meetings. etc. What unites them is common contempt for the Lib/Nats. -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 05:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Back to the question, shall we go with Aussie Legend's suggestion? --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 06:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Largest ethnic minority"

Re. this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to leave in the mention that 12% of Australians have Asian ancestry, but anything like "only significant ethnic minority" would need to be based in a solid definition of "ethnic minority". Arguably, Irish-Australians are an ethnic minority; since around 2% of Australians note Indian ancestry (classified under "Southern and Central Asian"), it's not clear that those of East Asian ancestry would outnumber the Irish.
Note that while African Americans might have very disparate genetic origins, the last two hundred years of history (and US cultural norms) have created a strong group identity in a way that doesn't apply to Asian Australians. --GenericBob (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some would say the group identity is ridiculously strong; a white American born in Africa can't be an African-American but a black american who has never been outside the US can be. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, "African American" is one of a great many compounds which don't mean the same thing as the literal sum of their parts. See also "West Indian", "Pennsylvania Dutch", and let's not forget my Black Irish relatives who'd have been legally classified as "white people" but are actually varying shades of pink. That's the English language for you. --GenericBob (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Update athletics

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

edit request

the first link in the external links doesnt have a star by it but the rest do — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian national anthem

Maybe we should talk about an Australian national anthem change. Seriously, we need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImHerelol (talkcontribs) 10:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but this isn't the place to discuss it. Wikipedia is not a forum. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

I notice in the sport section that Australian rules football isn't mentioned. I think it should be mentioned as the sport the most popular winter sport in the country with the sport having the most participants out of all of the major main stream team sports, and the AFL is the highest attended sports league in the country and the 3rd highest in the world. Also the AFL Grand Final is regularly the most viewed program on Australian television. (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: AFL is mentioned in the sport section. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 September 2012

I recently made a request that was answered that Australian rules football is not mentioned in the sports section. It was answered that it is, but all that is mentioned is that there is a league called the Australian Football League, people from over seas won't know what the sport is as there are many different codes of Football. I think it should be stated that the sport of Australian rules football is played in Australia for the reason's I stated in the last request.

It is also mentioned that the NRL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sport programs yearly and the AFL Grand Final isn't mentioned. I Think it should be mentioned that the AFL Grand Final is one of the most viewed sports program yearly, and I think it should be mentioned before the NRL Grand Final. Because it is one of the most viewed sports programs yearly and it regulary gets higher numbers than the NRL Grand Final. (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Given that I declined the last change I'm not going to mark the request as answered, but I will say the following:
Concern 1 - people won't know what AFL is. That's why there is a wikilink to Australian Football League and to Sport in Australia so people can click on the link and find out more.
Concern 2 - the AFL grand final isn't mentioned. Yes it is, see this quote from the bottom of the Sports section "The highest-rating television programs include ... the grand finals of the National Rugby League and Australian Football League."
Concern 3 - the AFL grand final should be first. Firstly, you need to provide a reliable source which states that. Secondly, even if it were the case (and I'm not saying that it is or is not) I don't see a reason to swap them, as it really doesn't matter which order they go in.
As I said I won't mark this is answered, I'll leave that for someone else, but I hope that my reply has answered your question to an extent. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done (ec) I was going to say pretty much what Callanecc has said. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent info boxes?

I noticed that each city in Australia has an inconsistently structured info-box. Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide for example have the run-of-the-mill "image montage", while Darwin, Newcastle and Sydney do not. What's the status quo? Indsnd (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Different images don't make "inconsistently structured info-box"es. Images are chosen for their applicability to the subject and every infobox is different. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Alishakitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has returned again! Bidgee (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


There is a Request for comment about the question, "does a largest cities template/city population template add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?" This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The queen of Australia

A common mislabel as well as the Australian coins as of 1975 the official title of the queen is Elizabeth of Australia and not Elizabeth II (this a British title only) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously discussed at Talk:Australia/Archive 16#Formal name of the Monarch. The present Elizabeth is Australia's first Elizabeth, not second. -- AussieLegend () 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


In American English, it's pronounced /ɔːˈstreɪljə/. Fête (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel this is relevant.?--Dmol (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms displayed here shows the coat of arms of the private corporation registered with the Securities Exchange Commission in Washington DC; ABN: 122 104 616. The commonwealth act of 1900 uses a different coat of arms, and as no referendum has as yet changed the legal status, it doesn't really represent the legal government. Can this be changed please to the coat of arms representing the lawful 'Commonwealth of Australia'? Lord Chao (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The coat of arms used here is the 1912 version (ie the current version) and was sourced from the AUSTRALIAN national archives (US registers are irrelevant).[12] Its use and adoption are explained at --AussieLegend () 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


I removed two sentences that said: Some historians say the "Stolen Generations should be referred to as "genocide"." "Other historians say it's a load of b.s."

These two opinions constitute a debate. The two opinions have a very important place in the article Stolen Generations where they can be dealt with thoroughly, to the satisfaction of anyone who wants "opinion" as well as fact.

For the purpose of a generic article of very large scope, it is best to just stick to the facts. The fact is that a great number of children were removed from their families and communities.

I will source and add a further fact which confirms that this has caused problems.

Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

added Rudd's apology. Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed Rudd's apology. While a significant moment in recent politics, it doesn't warrant a long mention in what should be a very concise overview of Australian history. It is mentioned in the more detailed History of Australia. CMD (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

a racist response defended by a typical pseudointellectual arguement--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Indians now top migrants not Chinese ?

NDIA has become Australia's biggest source of migrants for the first time, eclipsing China and the once-dominant Britain.

In 2011-12, permanent migration from India reached 29,018 - 15.7 per cent of the total program, according to figures released yesterday by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen.

"The scale of recent Indian migration is striking," said the University of Melbourne's Lesleyanne Hawthorne, who studies migration and workforce needs.

"We can assume large numbers were former international students who had qualified onshore."

In 2010-11, China was Australia's No 1 source of permanent migrants with 29,549 visas. The year before it was Britain, with 25,738 migrants. Britain had held the top position right back to 1996-97, when current records began, Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said.

However, India and China grew strongly as source countries last decade, partly in step with the international student business.

A decade ago, loose government policy led to an explosion in courses such as accounting, cookery and hairdressing that would give students skilled migration visas. Job outcomes were poor, with weak English a problem.

New rules mean that in future it will be harder for non-native speakers of English to qualify as skilled migrants but many thousands of ex-students are still in the queue for permanent residence.

Amitabh Mattoo, director of the Melbourne-based Australia-India Institute, welcomed yesterday's migration figures, saying India and Australia had much in common as "democratic, English-speaking, federal" countries.

He predicted that India, with 500 million people under 25, would continue to be a source of skilled migration.

"While most of the rest of the world is ageing, India will remain young for the next 20-25 years," Professor Mattoo said.

In the latest figures, a quarter of Indian migrants were approved in visa categories associated with ex-students and family members already in Australia.

In the skilled stream of the migration program, there were still 143,000 people "in the pipeline" at June 30, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship said.

In 2011-12, the number of cooks to be accepted as permanent migrants doubled to 4836, an increase that was questioned on labour market grounds by Professor Hawthorne.

Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said 43 per cent of these cooks were from India. Students from India were prominent in the 2004-08 boom in cookery courses.

Visas under a sponsorship scheme aimed at recruiting staff for employers in regional areas, including the city of Perth, grew 48 per cent in 2011-12.

This was likely to include Indian cookery graduates, according to Sydney migration and education agent Jonathan Granger.

"People stuck in that backlog (for independent skilled migration) have . . . sought other (visa) alternatives," he said.

In stark contrast to cooks, the number of accountants taken in as permanent migrants in 2011-12 fell by half to 6914.

Mr Granger said this probably reflected the emphasis on higher levels of English proficiency in the new skilled migration system.

Professor Hawthorne said skilled migration, dominated not long ago by ex-students in the independent visa category, had been "privatised" with the new emphasis on employer sponsorship.

And the permanent migration figures gave "only half the labour migration picture" because of today's government preference for temporary workers.

"Last year, Australia admitted an additional 131,000 people in the 457 (visa) temporary worker category, compared to around 34,000 temporary sponsored migrants seven years back," she said.

"Temporary migration is now dominant in select fields - (it is) the pathway, for instance, of four-fifths of recent medical migrants." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


"the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern""

Australia=Austrias=Habsburgo dinasty=Spain=Austral=South, Australia is an spanish word, not a latin derivation — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that we could use to verify this claim? Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if this counts, but it lists 'Australis' as meaning 'Southern', in addition to 'Auster' for 'southern wind' and 'austrinus' as also meaning 'southern'. I've heard somewhere Spanish, Italian and French share common ancestry in Latin - are you sure that the Spanish word isn't simply the Latin having mutated over time? Comics (talk) 12:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the name came from Spain! No doubt for this, also the first europeans were from Spain but the english history want to erase the real true, the name of that is "black legend" and even today stiil they use this to manipulate the real history. here Hertzen1945 (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm open minded on this, but I think you will need a more independent source than that one. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think more independent that a document of 1609 where captain Quiros presented to Felipe III his petition of naming, it's hard to find it.
Anyway it's up to you remain in the dark side or not, Quiros and Torres were real persons and their traveller in Oceania were real, why not reference in the Australia wiki entrance? Even if I show you the maps of the north coast of Australia that the spaniards did it in XVI century will be not enought.
Just recomend you to study and investigate a bit this and not erase automatically every spanish source, just for not coming from England.
Greetings.Hertzen1945 (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
All the scholarly study of the scans of the original logs of Quiros ( including the scans themselves) can be found in article by Gerritsen, Rupert (cited below). This would indicate that "Tierra Austral del Espíritu Santo" should be changed to "Tierra Austrialia del Espíritu Santo"
In his memorial Quirós quite clearly states, :cuya felice memoria de V. M., por el apellido de Austria le dí por nombre la Austrialia del Espíritu-Santo, porque en su mismo dia tome la posesion de ella, (Zaragoza 1880, 2:201)
[for the happy memory of Your Majesty, and for the surname of Austria I have given it the name Austrialia of the Holy Ghost, because on your day I took possession of it,]
A key phrase in the passage from the memorial is Quirós’ statement that “because on your day I took possession of it.” What did he mean by that? Collingridge (1895, 248) took it to mean “the anniversary of your birth”. However, it was not the King’s birthday, which had passed weeks before, on 14 April. Instead it most likely was referring to King Philip III’s name day, the feast day for the saint after whom an individual is named. Quirós expedition encountered Espíritu Santo in late April 1606, and on 1 May first entered a bay, which was subsequently named La Gran Baya de S. Philippe y S. Santiago, it being, as de Leza recorded, “the day of those apostles” (Markham 1904, 2:370). In the Tridentine Calendar,2 1 May was the feast day of St. Philip and St. Santiago (i.e. St. James). This simple phrase not only alludes directly to Philip but also to his position, as St. Santiago is the patron saint of Spain. Consequently it provides an additional layer of meaning by reinforcing the association between the name of the new land and the Spanish crown. (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Think its time for a new article on "Etymology" so we can trim this down - like Name of Canada - what do others think?Moxy (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Your idea is not new. It is old. Here is the redirect for Etymology of Australia.
And the Wikipedia history of the backlash to the info I posted today goes back to January of 2007. Here is the first time it got clobbered: [13]. This vandalism got quickly reverted, and then one week later it got clobbered again: [14]. This second excision took hold as the reason given was the seemingly innocuous purpose to "integrate recent edits (primary action: restoring original etymology)". [Read: Look at my right hand while I whitewash Aussie history with my left.]
We can anticipate how people today are going to react to the current edit as it stands right now. It may not be pleasant for those who have emotional investment, but Wikipedia is not about being pleasant. It is about being factual and verifiable.
I am totally fine with breaking the etymology back out into a separate article, as the concise story of how Australia got its name can be told accurately here in this main article in a short paragraph.--Tdadamemd (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
First, it is a new idea. Etymology of Australia was created as a redirect and has no subsequent edits. Its entire purpose seems to have been to serve as a passthrough for a link from List of country-name etymologies. As for the rest, jumping in with accusations and is probably not the best way to obtain the results you want. So instead of bitching about being "clobbered" and accusing other editors of outright dishonesty, why not just calmly and rationally explain why your proposed text should be included? -Rrius (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that I stand corrected. I have never heard of the concept of a "passthrough" link before. It strikes me as odd that someone would create an article just for that purpose.
As for your impression that I am "bitching" about people acting with "dishonesty", I am totally open to the possibility that the vandalism was sheer coincidence that the edit took out that info. And it might also be coincidence that the removal after that was done without any explanation. (Or perhaps you see "restoring original etymology" to be some kind of valid explanation.)
I saw my post here to be a recount of what has transpired, and I presented my best understanding as to why that has happened. If anyone wanted the complete history behind this, it spans several articles and several forums over many years. If someone were to present a logical alternate explanation for these reactions, I would be thrilled.
But from everything I know, there were many people in history who called that land Terra Australis with the belief that there was nothing significant further south. Flinders was not the first, nor was he the last. There are some references that tell this story. But every time it gets added to Wikipedia, it gets removed. Typically without justification.
So I repost it today, and the immediate response is this call to "trim...down" the etymology section, and then you joining in with calling my edit "proposed text" and asking me to explain why it should be there. I do find your question to be curious. The issue we had been discussing was whether or not the section should be split off into a separate article, and you are asking me this. My answer to you is that it is not proposed text. It is part of the article. It is a well-referenced historical fact that explains how Australia got its name. I presented my reason for posting it at the time I posted it yesterday. I see absolutely no need to present any case for keeping it there. Everyone can read it for themselves and see how important it is to the story.
For anyone who would like to remove it, I see it to be their duty to provide a valid reason for doing so.
But I will go ahead and add this for those who are interested in accurate history regarding this etymology. You can even find sources from within Australia that tell the full story. Here's one for example: -- Why is Australia called Australia? (excerpt)

It was Matthew Flinders, English navigator (and the first person to circumnavigate and map Australia's coastline), who first expressed a strong preference for the name Australia. He gave his reasons in 1805:

It is necessary, however, to geographical propriety, that the whole body of land should be designated under one general name; on this account, and under the circumstances of the discovery of the different parts, it seems best to refer back to the original Terra Australis, or Australia; which being descriptive of its situation, having antiquity to recommend it, and no reference to either of the two claiming nations, is perhaps the least objectionable that could have been chosen; for it is little to apprehended, that any considerable body of land, in a more southern situation, will be hereafter discovered.

Note that this website is the Australian National Dictionary Centre, which is part of The Australian National University (the only university established by act of the Federal Aussie Parliament). Maybe you would like to ask them to give you an explanation as to why this fact of the mistake in naming Australia was included in their article. Or not. It is clear that there are at least some Australians who embrace their history with the same passion as Americans do with the story of Columbus's total lack of situational awareness when he named the natives Indians.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think MORE should be said - as in its own article - sorry if my post implied the opposite. As seen in the books in the above section we have lots we could add.Moxy (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "the name Australia is derived from the Latin australis, meaning "southern"". This is not referenced. It either should be correctly referenced, or removed. I believe it should be replaced with a summary of the following from Gerritsen,Rupert(cited below):-

There can be little doubt that Quirós originally intended to apply the name “Austrialia Espíritu Santo” to Espíritu Santo in 1606. The term “Australia” then appeared in subsequent texts, either as an alternative spelling or a spelling error. Quirós’ memorials were only intended to have limited circulation, for King Philip III and royal officials. As the result of an unknown sequence of events the 8th Memorial found its way out of Spain, and by 1625 it had been translated into Italian, Dutch, French and lastly English (Purchas 1625, 4:1422-27). By this means it entered the lexicon of several languages and was ultimately applied to our nation, with the word “Australia” appearing for the first time in English in Purchas His Pilgrimes in 1625 (Purchas 1625, 4:1423 & 1432).8 Were it not for that historical accident, this discussion would not need to be taking place. LawrieM (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013 to add a template named Clothing brands by country

{{Clothing brands by country |state=autocollapse}} GbySmntalk2me07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Such a template might be appropriate for an article on Clothing brands of Australia or any of the articles linked from the template, but not the main Australia article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic place of Australia

In the beginning it says that Australia is the 12th largest economy and in the economic section it says that Australia is the 13th largest economy. Both of these claims redirect to the same link on wikipedia ( which states that in fact Australia is the 12th largest economy!! It is a shame this article is semi protected! Hope this mistake has a quick fix soon! Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. (I note that the link target lists Australia as 13th by the World Bank (2011), but the other 3 lists, including the 2012 IMF list show 12th.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Australia is the happyest country in the world

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Australia is to study Better Life Index Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the happiest among developing countries in the world, according to the BBC. The criteria were living space per person, employment, education, pollution, average life expectancy, general satisfaction, security, time spent at work. More than 73 percent of the population of Australia from 15-64 years has a paid job, and the average life expectancy is nearly 82 years. Among the ten happiest countries are Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the U.S., Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland and the United Kingdom. The 15 Countries With The Highest Quality Of Life - and - OECD Better Life Index. Australia -- (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

PM seat vacant

[2]Gillard has resigned the commission of PM and the office is now vacant.Flat Out let's discuss it 12:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


Change of Prime Minister

In the info box along the side of the article, the Prime Minister needs to be changed from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd due to the Labor internal poll on Tuesday the 26th of June, 2013.Fritxweb (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

<>Fritxweb (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Until such time as the GG has accepted Gillard's resignation she is still PM. Until such time as Kevin Rudd is sworn in as PM, he's not. The two events will not necessarily happen at the same time. --AussieLegend () 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"gaol" vs "jail"

There was a change today from "gaol" to "jail", citing the Macquarie dictionary. However, "gaol" is the traditional spelling. We even have a category full of articles titled "<foo> Gaol". We don't seem to have any titled "<foo> Jail". There's no doubt that gaol has fallen from popular use, most these days are called "<foo> Correctional Centre", or "<foo> Correctional Complex", as in the "new" name for Bathurst Gaol. Despite what one summary implied,[15] use of "jail" isn't the predominant use. The increasing use of jail can be traced back to the introduction of PCs, when spell checkers were predominantly US by default (I spent half my life fixing this on corporate PCs, especially those using MS Word). Prior to then, "gaol" was used almost exclusively, but that and the increasing availability of US TV programs has increased its popularity. That doesn't mean we should use it here. "Jail" is used by journalists, but they also use mdy dates, while the Australian standard is dmy. Arguing that jail is the modern spelling is no more valid than claimimg that "lt" and "mtr" are acceptable abbreviations for litre and metre. A quick check of AustlII shows that "gaol" is predominant in our legislation,[16] while a search for "jail" shows much fewer results, with a lot coming from New Zealand.[17] For these reasons, and more, we should stick with the traditional Australian spelling, not the recent Americanized version. The change that was made is really not appropriate anyway. Port Arthur was never a "jail", it was a "gaol". It was closed long before the "modern" spelling. That said, Port Arthur, Tasmania calls it a prison, which both gaol and jail redirect to, so that seems a far better word to use. --AussieLegend () 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I'm no longer a regular editor but I agree with your pointsNickm57 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious. The common use of jail preceded the introduction of the PC by at least 20 years. Nor has this anything to do with date formats. Jail is in widespread use now. There is nothing traditional about gaol, it's just old. --Dmol (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I expect he is. Do you have any evidence to support your opinions? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Macquarie Dictionary is the accepted standard for spelling in Australia, used by courts, in statute (yes there are two regular but not universal exceptions namely judgement as opposed to judgement and gaol as opposed to jail however these are legal specific spellings traditionally used in the legal profession just like fetus is specific to scientific professions rather than general; also, the drafting guides for statutes nevertheless specify Macquarie be followed), in university and press style guides, and by the ABC. As such, its spellings are of course the go-to for Australian spelling of words. The Macquarie has listed 'jail' since its inception. You are quite right that many old prisons in this country use the gaol spelling but the key is that these are all old jails. Spelling changes have occured frequently over time in this country with encyclopaedia => encyclopedia, programme => program being two other examples. The fact is 'jail' is listed as the preferred spelling by BOTH Australian English dictionaries (Macquarie and Oxford Australian) whereas 'gaol' is not listed in any and needs to go. Your misunderstanding is probably the same one that some people within Australia have regarding spelling, which is that Australian spelling is and remains the same as traditional British spelling (gaol, programme, etc) but this is not the case and historically speaking never has been. The fact is that 'jail' is the one which is backed up by all the style guides and dictionaries today, prevails in usage, and depending on the pedanticness of the examiner, if you used 'gaol' in an academic context in Australia (certainly in an editiorial context or published work) it would likely be marked wrong or changed. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As per above, gaol is only used for former "jails", even modern "jails" are referred as "correctional centres". Anyway an interesting article to read on The Daily Examiner site is Jail versus gaol. Bidgee (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).