This is an archive of past discussions about Australia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, first time user of this forum and new registrant with Wikipedia.
My concern is that there is no accurate reference to the Commonwealth of Australia on Wikipedia. The current page Commonwealth of australia (lowercase 'a') is redirected to a page that provides an inadequate definition of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I attempted to correct this page but the correction, as it appears below, was deleted. This text was my first draft.
How do we have Wikipedia represent the true meaning of the Commonwealth of Australia?
com·mon·wealth (kmn-wlth) n. 1. The people of a nation or state; the body politic. 2. A nation or state governed by the people; a republic.[1]
In the 17th century the definition of "Commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of "public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state."[2]
Australia, the land mass, [3] is a country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands. It is the world's sixth-largest country by total area and the world's largest island. Neighbouring countries include Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea to the north; the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the north-east; and New Zealand to the south-east.
The Commonwealth of Australia is embodied in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 and is commonly misinterpreted by references to the Australian land mass and not the People Of Australia as is it's true meaning.
The Commonwealth (The People) of Australia (The Land Mass) refers to the People Of Australia with whom the supreme power / law is invested. [4]
Not sure what you mean by "an inadequate definition of the Commonwealth of Australia". The Commonwealth of Australia is simply the formal name of the country generally known as Australia, and there's no need to parse each word of the title exhaustively. This is an encyclopedia, not some sort of encyclopedic dictionary. There's also a redirect from Commonwealth of Australia (upper case A). Not sure why you consider Commonwealth of australia (lc a) the "current page". The current page here is Australia. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]08:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at the edits (now reverted) you made to Commonwealth of australia. That page is a redirect, meaning, that when one types that title into the search box or clicks on such a link, the system will automatically take you somewhere else, in this case to Australia. Everything about Australia should appear in the article called Australia. There is potentially a large number of redirects to any primary article, so to have the text spread over many redirects would be most counter-productive. Redirects should contain no text about the subject. They are sometimes categorised so that the title still appears in category listings, but in italics. Maybe read WP:Redirect before proceeding any further. -- Jack of Oz[Talk]08:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Settled/invaded
I'm sure someone else has brought this up. I just signed on to wikipedia simply because the basic wording describing European entry into Australia is inaccurate. There is plenty of academic evidence using primary sources which supports the use of "invaded", at least indirectly. This should, at the very least, be mentioned in conjunction with the term "settled" in the opening paragraphs.
No need for a fisty-cuffs over the issues- this is not only a political matter, but an academic one involving facts and semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister GP (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY suggests that primary sources should be used "with care". Secondary sources are preferred.
Providing details of those (primary or secondary) sources here might help your case.
Do you have any suggestions for how the opening paragraphs should be worded?
Australia cannot have been invaded in 1788 because Australia did not exist in 1788. What existed were thousands of separate tribes geographically separated from each other. We could say one area was settled by the such and such tribe after it defeated the such and such a tribe or even a certain suburban area was settled largely from immigrants from such and such country or people from the inner city who moved due to cost of living factors (regardless of whether anyone was already there). People settled in this place in 1788 and more people have settled here every year since. Indeed, in 1788 only parts of the Sydney area were settled, let alone the whole of Australia, a country in which there are many areas still currently being settled by new residents. Don't go dragging your blatant political agenda in here please. It is ridiculous. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Mitch Ames,
I'll dig up some references. It's easy to get recent academic references, I wasn't suggesting using primary sources at all. I'm not sure about the wording- at least a mention that this continent was "settled" through what many would describe as "invasion" would be less biased than simply ignoring this problem. As for the idea that "Australia" did not exist as a political entity, sure, granted. However, some high court decision making discussions have hinged on the idea of verbalised and recorded evidence of political boundaries, and the problems indigenous people might face given this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister GP (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see how mention of the "invasion" point of view is relevant for the opening paragraph. Perhaps it has a place in another part of the article. Perhaps. WP:FRINGE comes to mind. --Merbabu (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see what relevance the word "settled" has in the opening paragraphs. Plural. I think it's the second or third paragraph which uses the term without qualifying it. In the mean time a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars might resolve the issue by pointing to the problematic and highly contested nature of the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.107.94 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"Settled" is used because it is overwhelmingly accepted as appropriate. Until proven otherwise (nothing shown despite requests), I will continue to suggest that "invasion" is a fringe point of view. Having a small number of people strongly hold a different opinion does not make this "highly contested". Unless you can show otherwise. Your agreement with these views does not make it "highly contested" either. --Merbabu (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because it is overwhelmingly accepted doesn't mean it's correct! It will take a while to find all the references, but sounds like you're keen for them. I think wikipedia should be inclusive of all credible knowledge, yes?
Firstly, an historiographical comparison between Israel and Australia, by Lorenzo Veracini: ""Ultimately, the "new" Australian history has brought about the denunciation of the genocidal practices that have characterised Aboriginal treatment and policies since European invasion." (Israel and Settler Society , Pluto Press, 2006.
Anthropologist and author Judith Wright writes this of indigenous Australians: "...recovering from the shocks of invasion, dispossession, slaughter..." when discussing the political status of the Australian continent and its inhabitants. We call for a treaty 1985, Fontana, p3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister GP (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
For a critical look at the land ownership status as appraised by Joseph Banks, resulting in "terra nullius", as well as an example of how subsequent claims on land by white people could be a "pretence" or "fiction" even in relation to the crown, as well as a detailed description of the use of census data to validate white occupation of Australia, see "Watts: The Birth of the Census and Racial Government in Victoria 1835-1840" in Australian Historical Studies no. 121 April 2003, Rob Watts, ed. Joy damousi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister GP (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Academia is very much dedicated to political correctness, for example it now often uses "mob" instead of tribe or group as this is the name preferred by the Indigenous Australians. Not all of Australia was "terra nullius". South Australia in it's entirety had laws preventing colonists from dispossessing Aboriginals but it still happened due to manipulation of the interpretation of those laws. Yes, it was a form of "invasion" but not in the sense that the word is commonly used historically. I see no problem with having a mention that the colonization is and was seen by some as an invasion but not in the lead. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Wayne. It's not just academia who have this opinion, by the way. Check out these links:
AlisterGP -- Quit double, triple, quadruple posting, please! If you can't put everything into one post the first time then you realise you can go back and edit the post to add in what you forgot. This seems much better than successively posting a string of posts one after the other. As I've pointed out, what happened fits the meaning of the word 'settled' perfectly, as settled does not include political connotations. It simply means people who were not somewhere previously began living somewhere. This is no place for fringe views and politicised rhetoric when a straightfoward term would do.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Quit? I have to do it like this because I don't have access to editing the page. Everyone else so far commenting apparently does. It doesn't matter what you point out, the page is generally factually deficient on this issue and this should be addressed. I notice in the history section, that the indigenous population "declined" "from disease". Come on, let me at the page or do some reading and fix it yourselves. Also, please focus on content, consensus, and adequate discussion, as outlined in the wiki conflict section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alister GP (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to make multiple posts at all. If you can post here you can edit. SineBot left a request on your talk page today asking you to sign your posts and you haven't done that either, in any of the six subsequent posts that you've made. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Alister GP said: "I have to do it like this because I don't have access to editing the page" You can't edit the article yet because it is semi-protected and you are apparently a very newly registered (two days) user. WP:SEMI explains the semi-protection. This is not a reflection on you personally, nor your proposed changes. However, given that there is obviously disagreement here about your proposed changes, I suggest that even after your account is autoconfirmed or confirmed you not make those changes to the article without consensus here. (Again, don't take it personally - that's just the way Wikipedia works.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Mitch Ames, nothing taken personally. Yes, let's try to get consensus on this, we needn't do anything un-reasonable by all parties. Sorry, didn't know about the signature button. Alister GP (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Compromises? "Colonized" is a word that i think all can agree describes the term more accurately with out being to hard like "Invaded" or all little soft as with "Settled". Sources are easy to come by from a variety of places.
Invaded is debatable as noted above, but I don't think there's any doubt that Australia was settled/colonised, so either of those works for me. CMD (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
While this is a contentious and sensitive issue, I think both 'colonised" and 'invaded' have a place. Certainly indigenous Australians most frequently say invaded, while the rest tend toward settled or colonized. There are few indigenous academics so the academic literature tends to not report their view as much. I suggest we have a paragraph which talks about exactly this issue e.g. talks about "Invasion Day v Australia day". That way both points of view will be covered. There is a LOT of literature to support such a paragraph, as I believe User:Alister_GP has shown extremly well. I also refer editors also to History of Australia - Aboriginal Resistance. I emphatically agree that it is incredibly disingenious to say that Australia as a political entity didn't exist in 1788. I also think that settled absolutely has political connotations given the circumstances of the events. Please User:Saruman-the-white stop making accusations such as "blatant political agenda" and "fringe views and politicised rhetoric", such statements do not presume good intent and add nothing. Morgan Leigh | Talk09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Population
I went to edit the population and discovered it calculated by a bot/script (proper name?), not manually edited, and I don't know how to fix it. The citation reads that it was accessed 23 April 2013, but it seems like the bot/script continually updates the figure. The total count is off by several thousand. It is estimated at 23,148,460 at the time of this edit. The bot needs to be calibrated to the current population estimate and increased on the assumption that there is "an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 20 seconds". The same bot/script is used on Demographics of Australia. AHeneen (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following to the existing copy;
The name Australia was popularised by the explorer Matthew Flinders, who pushed for it to be formally adopted as early as 1804. When preparing his manuscript and charts for his 1814 A Voyage to Terra Australis, he was persuaded by his patron, Sir Joseph Banks, to use the term Terra Australis as this was the name most familiar to the public. 'On his general map of of the continent published in 1814 however he labelled it 'Terra Australis or Australia", which is the first time "Australia" appears on a map. This was in a sense the birth certificate of Australia.'
Please delete the following as the word Australia appeared first on Flinders chart of Australia published in 1814. The below statement may only be true if it reads that the first map printed to label the word Australia after its official adoption was the following. Please see this link as reference to my requests [1]
"The first map on which the word Australia occurs was published in St Petersburg in 1824. It is in Adam Johann von Krusenstern's Atlas de l'Océan Pacifique.[41]"
Partly done: I removed the current text since it was sourced to a letter to the editor, but you need to provide more of a source for the volume of detail in your paragraph. Please reopen the request when you have a source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Environment
In regards to the statement: "The dingo was introduced by Austronesian people who traded with Indigenous Australians around 3000 BCE.[178]". This statement is now considered outdated.
The study mentioned as reference #178 (2004) has been further developed by Dr Wilton and his team. Their newer paper, published Sep 2011, states the dingo arrived between between 4600 and 18300 years ago. That substantially pushes back the arrival of the dingo. Considering the last ice age was about 11,000 years ago, it also opens up the possibility (probability according to Dr Wilton) that dingoes arrived naturally. If you wish to continue stating "was introduced", it should say "was possibly introduced". Afterall, the origins of the Dingo are and probably always will be a mystery.
"The first settlers introduced British food to the continent[349] which much of what is now considered typical Australian food is based on the Sunday roast has become an enduring tradition for many Australians."
Sorry, lost me there. That is not grammatical English, and most British style food is not based on the Sunday Roast. Fish and chips, meat pies, scones, shepherds pie etc. If it isn't cleaned up I'll edit in the near future. --MichaelGG (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's appalling English. The source (349) doesn't exist either. Feel free to clean it up as you desire. (With proper sourcing of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is appalling English, but it doesn't say that British style food is based on the Sunday Roast. It's trying to say something like food such as the traditional Aussie Sunday roast is based on the British style food introduced by the first settlers. It can be hard to understand Bogan but fortunately a recently retired (well sort of) high profile political figure spoke it all the time, so we got used to her speaking it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll hunt up some references. In fact the sentence is possibly inaccurate as the First Fleet (and subsequent convoys) brought masses of supplies, but mostly of the "naval food" variety such as salt pork and hard tack which could make the voyage, and probably wasn't typical of the British Diet at the time. For example grits made from maize meal (which travels) was widely eaten. There's a list somewhere of exactly what they brought; on a recent TV show they illustrated it with a heap of modern shipping containers and it was vast! --MichaelGG (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're reading this too literally. The sentence isn't referring to the actual food supplies from the ships, it's referring to the style of food. Traditional Aussie food was traditionally British style, even if it wasn't the actual food the Poms ate. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Point taken - obviously early settlers, not just First or Second Fleets, would have brought their food preferences with them, not to mention their sheep, cattle, potatoes and vegetables etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelGG (talk • contribs) 07:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
For what its worth - from various sources, First Fleet provisions were intended to be:
Seamen and marines, per week - Bread: 7 pounds. Meat: 4 pounds of beef, 2 pounds of pork. Other: 2 pints of peas, 3 pints of oatmeal, 6 oz of butter, 3/4 of a pound of cheese, half a pint of vinegar and 3.5 pints of rum.
Convicts: 2/3 of the rations of a seaman/marine, but no rum unless prescribed by a surgeon for the very ill.
In reality the Fleet left England with too little food to meet these requirements, and had to take on further supplies inCape Town.
Plans for colonial provisions (ie on arrival in Australia) were for grain, rice, Indian corn, wheat and barley. Also figs, sugar cane, quince, lemons, limes, apple, pear, grapes, oranges and strawberry. And meat from cows, pigs, ducks, chickens, sheep, goats and geese.
In reality the early colonists had to make do with small portions of salted beef and pork plus rice, peas and flour. Their fruit seeds and plants did not take, peas and beans were made to grow but not well, and the meat supply slowly ran out. Colonists supplemented their diets with local produce: a "plant resembling sage," a "native blueberry" and wild spinach. They also netted and ate the large stingrays that led Cook to initially name Botany Bay "Stingray Bay,", but these also ran out and there was limited success in catching other fish. 05:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Indigenous Australians Bias & Prejudice
There seems to be some strong bias and prejudice on the sly relating to Indigenous Australians in the demographics section.
First the data relating to the population of Indigenous Australians cherry picks years to compare population growth. Which comes off as if the population is not growing as healthy as portrayed. The data compared 2011 data to 1976 data. Why? Is that because it looks good if you compare those certain years and not typical yearly comparisons? Or is there a more valid reason? That should be explained.
More importantly, the second paragraph says negative things about the group relating to crime, education, unemployment, and life expectancy. However, you don't see personal negative things like crime, education, unemployment, life expectancy, bad behavior, drunkenness, fighting, racism, or other negative images for non-indigenous white Australians, religious groups, immigrants, certain age groups, sexes (male or female), etc. Negative light was specifically only focused on the natives and excluded any negative data from other groups. Let's please not let the article come off assuming or even partially portraying that all other groups (including white Australians) are perfectly flawless and have no societal problems/ struggles so there is no need to say their problems - only the natives' problems.)
It's even more disturbing that this negative data was placed in a supposed non-biased article about Australia right after discussing the certain struggles Indigenous Australians have faced in their Australia history. As if the article portrays and justifies, "yes they've struggled, but look at this negative data, they deserve it or it's okay to treat them unfairly."
That biased and prejudiced negative paragraph relating to Indigenous Australians needs to be changed. It gives Australia a bad impression to visitors wanting to know more about Australia and encourages ignorant people to treat Indigenous Australians negatively thus creating a cycle effect of making it harder for Indigenous Australians to succeed in a European based culture that is not originally in favor to their own native culture, values and beliefs.
From my observations in Australia - the universal health care doesn't include dental care.
Also, the waiting time in the queues in ER (emergency) may go up to 12 hours in urban areas in Australia, that is quite unusual for most developed countries (and developing as well). Maybe this should be mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.15.77.84 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right that dental care is currently excluded, although it's political issue from time to time, so one day that might change. As for the waiting times, that's a massive political football. We would need to look very carefully at what VERY reliable sources say on the matter to get good facts on that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
10 Basic Facts About Australia:
Australia is the smallest continent on Earth.
Australia is the only continental country.
There are over 20 million living in Australia.
It is divided into six states and 2 territories.
The capital is Canberra.
Official name is Commonwealth of Australia.
Most of Australia is arid land or desert.
Currency is Australian Dollar.
Climate ranges from tropical to temperate; extreme north is tropical; southeast and southwest more mediterranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.223.197 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
People in Japan and China have used this phrase, when I have been there on business. Does anyone know the origin of the term, and what it means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.156 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not so much for general questions about things said in conversation. A quick google search shows all sorts of countries get called the "Alabama of Asia." The origin is self-evident. Euryalus (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Someone is spamming this article under the demographics section to promote their political views in the United States. I'm not familiar enough with the history to show who posted the animated GIF referring to Obamacare, but it should be removed. I can't find it in the source, either, so there must be some obfuscation going on.
Daniel.mcq (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who can edit under semi-protected mode tidy up the following sentence in the cuisine section?
"The first settlers introduced British food to the continent which much of what is now considered typical Australian food is based on the Sunday roast has become an enduring tradition for many Australians"
Suggested correction:
"The first settlers introduced British food to the continent. Much of what is now considered typical Australian food is based on the British Sunday Roast, which has become an enduring tradition for many Australians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.128.129 (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This was previously discussed in July 2013. The discussion is now archived at Talk:Australia/Archive 18#Cuisine. For some reason, nobody has fixed it but your suggestion isn't quite right either. The text isn't saying that typical Australian food is based on the British Sunday Roast, it's attempting to say something like food such as the traditional Aussie Sunday roast is based on the British style food introduced by the first settlers. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
More likely an Aardvark according to Dr Peter Pridmore of La Trobe University, who is surely a reliable source. [2] Anyway, the New York Gallery selling the manuscript would probably be very pleased with all the publicity.Nickm57 (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
> "and settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788"
This implies the entirety of the settlement of Australia was via penal transportation. Could this be changed to "and first settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788"? Thanks. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section 'Religion' reads: Since the arrival of the First Fleet of British ships in 1788, Christianity has grown to be the major religion. Consequently, the Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter are public holidays, the skylines of Australian cities and towns are marked by church and cathedral spires, and the Christian churches have played an integral role in the development of education, health and welfare services in Australia.
The statement that the skylines of Australian cities and towns are marked by church and cathedral spires is completely false. Not only are Cathedrals only present in Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Perth, Melbourne and Adelaide, but the skylines of most of these cities are among the highest in the world (See list of tallest cities: Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth). Cathedrals in these cities are completely overshadowed and impossible to see on a skyline view, with skyscrapers and towers far more prominent. Almost every Australian town includes a church, however, and it may be more prudent to make this remark instead.
80.110.26.244 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem to be a somewhat dated, clichéd view. Even the wording "...has grown to be the major religion" seems a bit odd. It probably stopped growing several decades ago, and was much more the major religion back closer to the days of the First Fleet (which, of course, was almost all Christian) than now. Not sure how to correct it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The argument that "Not only are Cathedrals only present in" ignores part of what the text says. i.e. "cities and towns are marked by church and cathedral spires". (emphasis added) Certainly, cathedrals in most cities are overshadowed by other, much taller buildings but in most towns, the local churches are often the tallest building and there are a lot more towns than cities. Non-Christian places of worship (Buddhist temples, mosques etc) don't generally exist outside the major cities as dominant buildings. Even in the cities, churches do dominate the skyline as one travels around the city - the skyline isn't limited to just what's in the CBD, which is where the tall buildings are generally concentrated. And certainly, there are cities where cathedrals dominate, see the photo of the Newcastle CBD to the right. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The existing sentence "Since the arrival of the First Fleet of British ships in 1788, Christianity has grown to be the major religion." is perfectly reasonable. Prior to the First Fleet, the major religion was "the animist beliefs of Australia's indigenous people" referred to in the previous paragraph. Since/after the arrival of the First Fleet, Christianity has risen from zero (or possibly small number of christians in 1st fleet divided by much larger number of indigenous people already there) to 61%, significantly higher than the 7% of non-Christian religions, so "major religion" is reasonable in that context. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It shows your remarkable lack of understanding of Australian geography that you totally forgot half the cathedrals in Australia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cathedrals_in_Australia And I will agree cathedrals and churchs do dominate or at least very much influence some skylines, even in Hobart, a capital city, the cathedral's and churches are a major feature.JTdaleTalk
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why is there no section acknowledging the contribution made by Australian scientists? Is Australia not proud of it's scientists and scientific achievements?
139.168.133.90 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Presumably because no-one has written such a section, there is certainly no reason not to have such a section. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Different Information
at the start it sais that australia has 7,692,024 square kilometers of land however at the start of Geography and Climate it sais 7,617,930 square kilometres. could someone please fix this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.23.18 (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The area figure in the infobox is the area of Australia as a country, the smaller figure is specified as the area of the landmass—excluding bodies of water such as lakes—that's why they are different. --Canley (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Administrator of Norfolk Island
Under the Australian Territories Section of this article it states that Owen Walsh is the Administrator of Norfolk Island. Walsh was replaced in 2012 by Neil Pope.
I assume that recent immigration might be too complicated and/or contentious to document. But would it be possible to make a list of the immigrant ships and voyages before 1900 ? I was surprised to discover that some relatives had apparently sailed from Britain to Australia in a sailing ship of only 175 tons (Half as big as Captain Cook's ship) in the 1850s.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section Culture->Media, I would like "politics" to be added, as the newspapers in Australia (example: The Age) always mention about the politicians. There is always a lot of talk about them (the politicians) and television also mentions about their policy/factional battle/whatever happens.
I am a very young Australian who reads the papers everyday.
120.149.115.83 (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Australian politics are covered in the article in its "Government" section. The newspapers cover a very wide range of topics, and it goes without saying that politics receives prominent coverage (though generally not in as much detail as sport or celebrity gossip) Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
German map's use of the word "Australia" in 1545
See the short video on the right.
Discussion of Baudin and Matthew Flinders' race to map Australia.
I think this needs to be mentioned. We discuss the history of the word Australia in English (starting in 1625), but this map predated Hakluyt by 80 years.
By the way, the speaker dismisses it as coincidence, but if it doesn't show a rudimentary view of Cape York, the Gulf of Carpentaria and Arnhem Land, I'll be a monkey's uncle. 1545. That's 61 years before the first recognised sighting by the Dutchman Willem Janszoon in 1606 (curiously, also in the Cape/Gulf). Interesting ... -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
> "In neighbouring New Zealand, but less commonly in Australia itself, the noun "Aussie" is also used to refer to the nation, as distinct from its residents.[27] The sporting anthem C'mon Aussie C'mon is an example of local use of Aussie as synonym for Australia."
The source (27) actually says that the word 'Aussie' used to refer to the nation is "infuriating" for Australians. And there is nothing about the sporting anthem to suggest that Aussie is being used to refer to the nation, as opposed to an Australian. Please change to "In neighbouring New Zealand, but never in Australia itself, the noun "Aussie" is also used to refer to the nation, as distinct from its residents.[27]", and remove the reference to C'mon Aussie C'mon entirely. Thanks! 60.242.48.18 (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
^Lee, Julian (27 November 2009). [C'mon Aussie: cricket anthem reprised to get bums on seats "C'mon Aussie: cricket anthem reprised to get bums on seats"]. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 6 January 2014. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
The second paragraph is a great comprehensive summary of Australian history, on the whole. However it doesn't mention what is responsible for an explosion in population growth is the gold rush. Please let's dispel the myth that most first migrant Australians were convicts and set the record straight that most were gold miners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.198.254 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In your first paragraph of this article you refer to neighbouring countries and include New Caledonia. It should be stated clearly that New Caledonia is not a country, as it is in fact an external territory of France with some limited self government as at 2014.
124.150.100.61 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty sharp and nasty response. The OP, in their first ever contribution to Wikipedia, has raised an obvious problem and gone at least part of the way towards suggesting a solution. New Caledonia is included in a list of "countries", right at the beginning of our article. but it isn't a country. This problem needs to be fixed, not just thrown back at a newbie! I've had a go, what do people think? HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the initial response was a little brusque.
Why does a place as insignificant in comparison to Australia as New Caledonia even get a mention in the lead? --Merbabu (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It's closer to Australia than Vanuatu, which is mentioned; and as part of Zealandia, another fragment of Gondwana, it does have a not-so-distant connection to Australia, geologically and biogeographically speaking. I've put it north-east, rather than east of Australia, as that is how it would be perceived by most people in Australia - see Centre points of Australia#Centre of population. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
How about we say, Australia is a country to the west of Vanuatu and New Caledonia? We could also add that China lies to the north of Bhutan. Seriously, can anyone explain why Australia's position relative to Vanuatu or NC is more important than just about every other piece of information in this article?? And please don't say that stuff like this exists in other articles - that's not a good reason. If you are going to revert something that was clearly explained, at least have the decency to provide a good argument against the one provided. --Merbabu (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about the 4th sentence of an article that covers the whole topic that is Australia. Is proximity to NC and a Gondwana land connection - perhaps this (relative) piece of trivia can instead be shifted into the article proper. --Merbabu (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that Zealandia and Gondwana are relevant here. We have a list of countries and New Caledonia isn't a country. At best it's a territory heading towards self governance but at the moment, it's not a country. I agree with Merbabu's removal given this fact. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Gee guys, this IS leading to some bad editing behaviour. First we had what I thought was a less than ideal treatment of a newbie. Now we have Edit warring. How about just a clam discussion, and leave the article alone for a bit? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on - a bold and revert is hardly an edit war, but yes, I would appreciate some decent justification for the revert. --Merbabu (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014 - AUSTRALIA
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"After the discovery of the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606"
This could easily be changed to:
"After the arrival of Dutch explorers in 1606...",
This would acknowledge that up to 1 million people had already "discovered" the continent, but would also acknowledge that history for the continent changed with the arrival of the dutch.
Done There may be a better way to describe it such as "discovery from a European point of view" but I see no problem with your proposed wording either. —KuyaBriBriTalk16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The continent had been discovered by several different cultures. It was unknown to European civilisation until the Dutch found it. To say that they merely "arrived" implies that they already knew it was there. The discovery caused a tremendous interest in scientific circles and had its own effects in later colonisation. I think it important that we note that there were people living there at the time of European discovery, but we shouldn't deliberately downplay the Dutch discovery, implying that they weren't ignorant of its existence. Places, things and concepts may be independently discovered - it's not necessarily a one-time event. --Pete (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Statute of Westminster
From a constitutional law standpoint, it is only the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth), not the Statute of Westminster 1931 (an act of the UK Parliament) that should be listed in the independence section of the sidebar. Indeed, the Statute of Westminster (UK legislation) specifically provides that it will NOT apply to Australia, NZ or Newfoundland unless enacted by the Parliaments of those countries. As such the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 through the UK Parliament had no bearing on Australia's independence (as provided by the legislation itself). There was zero effect until the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) through our parliament 11 years later (backdated to 1939). Thus it is erroneous to include the UK legislation under 'independence' alongside the Constitution and Australia Act (for a parallel, we do not list the Australia Act which was previously passed in the UK, just the 1986 Act passed by the Australian Parliament, or indeed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)!) as this legislation had no such effect on Australia. Only the contents of the Adoption Act 1942 (which differed somewhat) were passed through our Parliament and applied to Australia.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Is Queens Elizabeth not the Monarch of Australia? I am also not talking about the legal system and how Australian court systems no longer appeal to the Privy Council in London, in which this Australia Acts of 1986 implies.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy with The Queen as Sovereign. The Queen has developed a very personal relationship with Australia through regular visits. She has travelled throughout the different states to meet people from all cultures, walks of life and regions of this enormous and fascinating country. As a constitutional monarch, The Queen, by convention, is not involved in the day-to-day business of the Australian Government, but she continues to play important ceremonial and symbolic roles. The Queen's relationship to Australia is unique. In all her duties, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Queen's Royal style and title in Australia is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Thus, the Australia Act of 1986 does not make it a completely independent country. Isn't the Queens still on its paper notes? Is Australia independent like the United States? No, they are a commonwealth of the Monarch of U.K.. Many of these so-called "sources" on this page are from independent sources (.com's etc.), not governmental. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, see Commonwealth realm. The map on this page shows in blue all who are current, and former Commonwealth realms that are shown in red. Australia to no surprise at all, is not of the former Commonwealth realm (like India, United States, etc.) Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hence, it would be an "establishment from the United Kingdom". Self-governing as it was, more power to its government as it may but still not off of the monarch completely. Savvyjack23 (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
1986 - The Australia Act makes Australian law fully independent of the British parliament and legal system. There is no longer any provision for Australian courts to mount final appeals to the Privy Council in London.
This certainly does not imply that Australia is a fully "independent country". This may be a "de facto" belief by some Australians, since Australia is on the other side of the world away from the U.K., but it is simply untrue to say it is fully independent. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Just diving in quickly here as I'm busy with some other stuff but I just had to point out that while the "Queens" [sic] is the monarch, she's not the UK, so being the monarch doesn't mean that countries of which she is the monarch are automatically not independent nations. The Queen is on the front of our $5 plastic note, but none of the other notes.[5] She was on our paper notes but they've been out of circulation for years. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Savvyjack23, the text you have posted above clearly states that the role of the Queen of the United Kingdom is separate from that of the Queen of Australia. Yes, they are the same person, but as AussieLegend says, the Queen is not the UK. --Canley (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I do not see the validity in your argument. She's not the U.K.? She may have less power within government say, but the United Kingdom itself has overseas commonwealths and Australia is one of them. So she is only on the $5 note, what about 90% of the coins used? I've also made referencing to four other places in regards to this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia. Yes, her face is on the $5 and pretty much all coins. Yes, Australia is a Commonwealth realm and member of the Commonwealth of Nations (which may I remind you is not the British Empire and is just an intergovernmental organisation with voluntary membership). None of that is in dispute and none of that is at all relevant to your claim that Australia is not in fact independent of the United Kingdom. The Monarchy of Australia and Monarchy of the UK are separate entities, embodied in the same person. "Some Australians" believe Australia is independent? That would include the Australian government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which says [emphsis mine] "Although Australia is a fully independent parliamentary democracy, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also formally the Queen of Australia." --Canley (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
An independent Australia could act much more effectively in concert with other Western Pacific countries, on the one hand to avoid flashpoints and points of danger, and on the other to promote initiatives that would do much to maintain continuing peace throughout the region. Is Australia, a Republic? A Democracy? No, it is a Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, with a Prime Minster and not a President like in the States. No personal opinions here, just accuracy. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Um, did you even read that opinion piece (by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser)? That quote is referring to independence from military reliance on the United States. Are you saying we are not independent from the United States now? Your devotion to "accuracy" is admirable, but you have demonstrated numerous fundamental misunderstandings of the Australian constitutional situation, the nature of the Crown and the Commonwealth, and now seem be grasping at Googled quotes which are not in the slightest bit relevant. --Canley (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Savvyjack23, if you read Sue_v_Hill#Australian_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom or do some research - this paper jumped out at me - then you'll be better informed. I suppose the easy answer is that independence is a matter of law, rather than popular symbols. Our flag might have the Union Flag in the corner, but so does Hawai'i's and nobody thinks they are any sort of British possession. The Queen of the UK is also the Queen of Australia, but there would be few folk thinking that this makes the UK some sort of Australian possession. The Crown is divisible and that means that though the offices are held by the same person, they are distinct and different.
Fraser's comments were aimed more at the US relationship, I thought. As a matter of practice our alliance is a little too close for some people. Myself included. We could exercise more independence of action, such as not automatically taking the American side in affairs or purchasing so much US weaponry. --Pete (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Savvy Jack. I'm afraid you are miserably misinformed and are only embarrassing yourself. People should not purport to be able to make an edit on something unless they have done the first bit of research, which it is clear that you have not. Indeed, Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. Search 'Queen of Australia' for me. Her capacity as Queen of Australia is entirely separate from her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom. This is the same for Canada or any other independent nation who has Elizabeth II as head of state. As somebody with a law degree who has significant understanding of constitutional law, your proposition is quite laughable. Indeed, the Statute of Westminster severed the ability for the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia, Canada, etc and since then all remaining constitutional links have been severed. There is not one that remains today. This is why Elizabeth II's status as Queen of Australia is entirely separate to her capacity of Queen of the UK or of Canada. There is a separate monarchy of Australia, monarchy of Canada, etc. Indeed, if we desired, Australia could change the succession laws so that the line of succession in Australia is different from that of the UK. For example, if the UK changed the law to include females whilst Australia decided to keep it so that younger males would retain precedence, the monarch of Australia would be a different person to the monarch of the UK. This is because they are two legally separate monarchies. Go search for Monarchy of Australia or Monarchy of Canada. The Commonwealth of Nations is an internationalist organisation like ASEAN or the G20 or the Organisation of American States, etc, etc. No more, no less. As it stands today, Great Britain has no greater authority over us than does France or Japan. Australia has a Prime Minister? So does the UK, Japan, and literally hundreds of other countries. This is a distinction between presidential and parliamentary systems. Don't tell me you are that clueless! It has no bearing on independence. Nor does being a constitutional monarchy. Again, there are many incl UK, Japan, Thailand, Denmark, Netherlands, etc etc. Also, if you even read the headline of that article you posted it says STRATEGIC INDEPENDENCE. Ie a foreign policy that is not so closely aligned with the United States or China. Read the actual article. It doesn't even mention the UK, who we have a more distant relationship with. You are even abysmally ignorant with regard to your own country, which you called a former Commonwealth realm. It was never a Commonwealth realm as that organisation did not even exist in 1776. You must be either a troll or somebody who is very, very young. Do yourself a favour and stop making yourself look like an ignoramus and try to comment on something that you actually know the first thing about next time.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Steady on, Saruman! SavvyJack may be talking out of constitutional ignorance, but so would the vast bulk of the Australian population. Let's play the ball, not the man here, please. --Pete (talk) 06:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Saruman-the-white, there is nothing more laughable then someone who needs to feel like a big man on Wikipedia. You must need to make up for something you are clearly lacking size of. Come to the big Apple and I'll show you what a law degree looks like "mate." I think you are the one who should be saving themselves from the "embarrassment." Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My issue is that you are persistently vexatiously arguing about something which you clearly haven't even bothered to get informed about, citing an article which you obviously hadn't even read the first line of. If you come to argue about something which you understand that is one thing. You, however, have gone in and tried to edit an article when you haven't even bothered to gain even the most elementary knowledge of what you are talking about. How would you like it if I went to the article on the so-called 'Big Apple" and took it upon myself to make edits with regard to its political structure when I know absolutely nothing about it! Also, I find it very hard to believe that this is genuine given some of the comments you have made which reveal ignorance even with regard to the history of your own country which I don't believe is genuine on your part. (See: United States a "former Commonwealth realm", and trying to say that because Australia is not independent because it has a Prime Minister while the US has a President) These statements are clearly not serious given that a 3rd grader would have learnt about systems of government. Thus it appears you may be trying to amuse yourself here. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do we have a climate change section?
This article is at risk of being turned into a soapbox for someone's pet issues.
We should not have a dedicated section for climate change. We must be just about the only country article to have one. The US, UK, Canada, NZ articles don't have such a section. Even the articles of European countries, where unlike Australia the majority of people actually believe in anthropological global warming and where it isn't such a controversial issue as it is here, do not have a dedicated section. There are literally hundreds of topics far more fundamental to Australia that do not have their own subsections on this article, for example "federation", "Gallipoli", "New South Wales", "Parliament", I could go on and on. Correctly, these are summarised or mentioned under their respective headings, eg history, states and territories, politics, just as climate change should be briefly summarised or mentioned under environment. This is a country article, and it shouldn't go into such depth re one particular issue at the expense of many, many others.
Why don't I just go make a subsection out of another issue like "fracing", gay marriage, unemployment, etc? No, these should go under environment, politics, economy, etc. As should climate change.
I agree. We should try to keep this article as concise as possible, with prose wikilinks leading to pages like this. CMD (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
... contains far too much detail. For example, the bottom paragraph about Australia's secularness(?) could be summed up in one sentence. Also too many names, should be demographics only. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The whole section is a confusing mess, and misleading. We have "Nearly three out of four Australians say they are either not at all religious or that religion does not play a central role in their lives", and "In the 2011 census, 61.1% of Australians were counted as Christian..." What is the casual reader to make of that? It needs a total rewrite. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Misleading
I have 2 points:
1. Why the word 'Europeans' is used constantly to describe English occupation and settlement of Australia? If there were some other Europeans migrating to Australia - didn't they follow the English rule anyway? Is the proportion of other Europeans compared to the English - very small? The use of the word 'Europeans' in this article is similar to saying 'during WWII China was occupied by the Asians' (to avoid saying they were Japanese). Very misleading and untrue.
2. Health issue: is there a universal dental coverage in Australia? I don't think so. Are there emergency queues with waiting time over 8 hours? Yes. So how can Australia claim having one of the best health systems? The reality sounds more like a developing or 3rd world country. Please update accordingly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.134.4.61 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Point 1. At the time of colonisation, and for a long time afterwards (for some, even now), the British saw themselves as anything but European. Europe was a place full of foreigners. The colonisers certainly weren't European in the language of the time.
British not English, to be picky to the IP. I'm unaware of any statistics regarding demographic distributions in the early period, but our First Fleet article says there were African, American (presumably white), and French prisoners on board. As for health systems, the IP doesn't sound like they've seen a lot of third world health systems, although I suppose it's a fair point that those with no access to healthcare don't have to wait in queues. CMD (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know too much about point two, but as for point one, they came predominantly from the British Isles. In one sense it is correct to say British, as Ireland was a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1800 (but not before 1788 or after the early 20th century). Today, however, Ireland is not part of Britain, however (and huge numbers came from Ireland - you'd be hard pressed to find a white Australian without Irish ancestry unless their forebears were post-federation immigrants) so British Isles would be the most accurate way to say it. This is somewhat awkward though so I guess they've gone for European. 'English' is inaccurate as England hasn't been a country for 400 years. In 1788 the nation that claimed the Eastern part of Australia was the Kingdom of Great Britiain which is made up of the former countries of England, Scotland and Wales. It later absorbed Ireland and became Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I can recall when I was young seeing a stamped label under some bentwood chairs my grandmother had. It said "'Made by non-European labour'". That did not mean Asian, or Africa, or anything like that. It meant they were made by good British folk, not those evil continentals. I think the answer to this problem is that we should be describing it as "British" settlement. Despite the complexities of what comprises Britain, it's far more accurate than "European". HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are wrong about that. Non-European on Australian furniture meant it was made by white Australians, and not other races (particularly Chinese). I've no evidence to back that up, although I heard if from a relative who is a furniture restorer.--Dmol (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The 2014 HDI is now out. Could someone edit it? The new number is 0.933, and it is still very highly developed and in 2nd place. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoulderite (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Languages contradiction
The article says "Between 250 and 300 Indigenous Australian languages are thought to have existed at the time of first European contact, of which only around 20 are in use today.[270] Many of these are exclusively spoken by older people; only 18 Indigenous languages are still spoken by all age groups." Except around 20 - 18 = 2, so using those numbers would lead one to conclude that few of those are exclusively spoken by older people. Since general patterns of language lead me to accept that many are only spoken by older people, the number in use and the number in use by all age groups should probably come from the same source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Two population questions
First, is it really true that Australia's population has increased from 21.5 million in 2011 to 23.5 million in 2014? That would be a 10% increase in three years.
Second, this line from the article has me scratching my head a bit:
Because Australia's census doesn't ask for racial background, it is unclear how many Australians are descendants of Europeans. Estimates vary from 85% - 92%. Asian Australians make up 12% of the population.
Just as a guess, those numbers came from immigration rather than census data. Before the 1970s, Australians of Asian descent comprised a tiny percentage of the population. If we know the origin of immigrants, then it wouldn't be too difficult to count up everyone arriving of Asian background and make a percentage of that number against the census total. Bit of assumption there; not everybody immigrating from (say) Singapore or India is going to be of purely Asian background. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
More importantly, large numbers of immigrants from our biggest immigration sources, New Zealand and England, are going to be of Asian background. Additionally, any children of that 12% are, by definition, going to be of Asian background. This is why we see figures like 20% of the population having at least one Asian parent. The number of "Asian Australians" depends entirely on how you define "Asian Australian". I've seen reliable figures that >30% of Australians are Asian, which is not surprising if 20% of the population have 50% Asian ancestry. By the time you factor in the likes of Bob Katter, who has one Asian grandparent, 30% Asian Australians would seem like a minimum if Asian Australian is anyone with any Asian ancestry. Of course if Asian Australian is defined by >50% Asian ancestry, or by self-identification or by some other criterion you get a completely different figure. The SMH article never defines "Asian Australian" or notes specifically where it got its figure from aside from somewhere in the 2011 Census. It seems to be referring strictly to immigrants from Asian nations, not to people of Asian race (whatever that means) living in Australia. As such it's misleading to tack this onto a section talking about people of European background, as though this is the equivalent figure for people of Asian ancestry. We need to either find the census figure it refers to and word this articel in the same manner as the census, or make it clear that the term "Asian Australians" was being used in an unclear manner in the source.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, no. Editors also have a duty to make the articles aren't incomprehensible and self-contradictory. Verifiability is one very small part of what "Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia" does.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The relevant RS on population size and growth is the ABS time series Australian Demographic Statistics. The estimated resident population increased from 22.5 million in 2011 to 23.3 million in December 2013. Migration accounted for the majority of the population growth over this period. Regarding the figures on ancestry, the Census data is pretty hard to interpret: people can nominate whatever two ancestries they want, and it's totally subjective: [7] (eg, the 35% of people who claim 'Australian' ancestry would include Indigenous Australians, people from long-established settler backgrounds and recent migrants who identify as 'Australian'). Figures for the countries people were born or where their parents were born can be more useful if you want to get a picture of Australia's ethnic diversity, but are obviously limited in other ways. This ABS article on the various Census figures looks pretty good as a primer on Australia's ethnic population make up. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Why the artificial section division
between "Demographics" and "Culture"? Some sub-sections such as language and religion could be in either place. I propose merging them to one section "Demographics and culture". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no problem. Demographics and culture are two quite different concepts. Demographics is the consideration of the population through numeric make-up. "Broken down by age and sex", as they say. So we see the percentages of Australians of such and such a religious persuasion, ethnic group, location and so on.
Culture is something we discuss in more absolute terms. We don't talk about the numbers so much as the subject itself. To put it another way, we could talk about sports, listing the percentages of league followers, football fans, rules fanatics and so on. But that doesn't describe the games, the events, the atmosphere, the traditions. One is numbers, the other is what people feel or do.
The two things belong in two sections, and they are described appropriately in each. I see no need to merge them. --Pete (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The split between "Arts" and "Media" ia really confusing. So film, television and music aren't forms of art? If the entire history of Australia can be condensed into one section then so can the arts. Merging these two subsections will require the removal of some content, leaving only the most notable. I don't see Alvin Purple surviving. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"The population of 23.1 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated in the eastern states."
This statistic in the lead is now inaccurate, it's approximately 23.58 million. <-- Taken from the same source.
Crystallisation (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I added this image (right) to the sports section but it was reverted by user Mark Marathon because "an image of people actually playing sport is more appropriate". Maybe in some cases, but there are many images of people not actively playing sport that still manage to sum up a nation's sporting culture, which is what the Australian sports section needs. With this in mind, I think this image is superior to the current one for the following reasons:
The image shows a group of Indigenous Australians. Nowhere else in the article is there an image of Indigenous Australians. The only image that is even remotely related to Indigenous Australia is an artwork I added by white artist Sidney Nolan, as it represents a synthesis of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian culture. The current sports image shows what looks like a nondescript cricket match. Nothing about it is uniquely Australian, the match could be taking place almost anywhere in the world.
While an image of indigenous Australians is certainly appropriate, the fact that this image is a twofer doesn't have any relevance to its effectiveness as an illustration of Australian sports. The image shows a nondescript image of some men wearing wasitcoats posing for a portrait. Without reading the description there is nothing to even link the image to sport. Therefore it isn't illustrative of sport in Australia. The whole point of an image is to illustrate the subject. People posing for a portrait is a good illustration for portrait. It's of limited value as an illustration of sports.
Nothing about the photo is any more uniquely Australian than the current image. Unless you are arguing that Australoids are uniquely Australian while Caucasians are not. Both are images of Australian people, thus either both are uniquely Australian, or neither.
So the image fails on two grounds.It's not uniquely Australian and it's not illustrative of sport. It may be related to sport, but a portrait doesn't illustrate sport.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the cricketers in the current image are English. It is basically an image of the English cricket team inflicting Bodyline on one Australian. I concede that the proposed image alone doesn't illustrate sport. Most images need some kind of explanation, including the current one. That is why captions exist. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
1932–33 Ashes: Bill Woodfull evades a bodyline ball at the Gabba It certainly is not an image of contemporary Australian sports. No other article on a nation goes back eighty years to find an image to illustrate the "Sports" section. France has an image of the 2005 Tour de France. The UK has a 2010 image of a football stadium. The USA shows a swimmer from 2008. New Zealand has a 2008 image of an England Test. Germany has an image of the 2014 World Cup-winning football team. Spain has a 2008 tennis player. Norway has a 2009 photo of a skier. South Africa shows the 2007 rugger team. Canadia in their "Culture" section, revealingly has an image of their 2010 ice hockey team. The image of the Russian ream dates from 2011. All of them contemporary. So why, precisely, should Australia be the exception? --Pete (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Nevertheless, you want this article to go against what seems to be a Wikipedia-wide norm. But why, precisely, should Australia be the exception? --Pete (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, why does sport, out of all cultural activities, have to be illustrated with an up-to-date image? The other nation articles are jumping on the latest bandwagon. Past athletes and events are just as worthy. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can't answer the question, that's fine. You have a gut feeling, perhaps. To answer your question, sports doesn't have to be illustrated with a current image. It seems to be the universal case that it is, so there may have been some policy discussion on this. Cultural sections likewise seem to contain contemporary images. The exceptions are sub-sections such as Music and Literature, where we see portraits of great artists or writers. Mozart, Shakespeare, Picasso - individuals with global reputations. Iconic individuals indelibly linked with the national spirit to the extent that they have their own museums and galleries. Their houses are preserved as national treasures, places for pilgrimage. I've visited Hannibal, Missouri to see the childhood home of Mark Twain, for example. Nothing similar seems to apply to your team. They are barely notable. --Pete (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The first Australian cricket team to tour overseas is barely notable? Indigenous Australian participation in sport is barely notable? The MCG is barely notable? Tom Wills is barely notable? The portrait might be the most notable image in Australian sport, despite being less recognisable than, say, Bradman, Australian cricket's Shakespeare. Interestingly enough the Bradman Museum has an exhibit dedicated to the Aboriginal team. I seriously doubt there is a policy against using historic images in sports sections. Sticking with Europe, Greece and Hungary have historic sports images, so the need for complete newness isn't universal, OSE aside. Ice hockey nations might as well use the same template image of a team celebrating, just colour in the uniforms and add the date of their latest victory against [insert main rival]. It's chest beating jingoism. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to offend you, but I think you're reaching a little. Greece has an image of the first modern Olympics. Huge sporting glory right there. Global significance extending to the present day. Your image isn't quite in the same league. Of course, you have your own opinion, and that's fine. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
And, speaking of being offensive, I asked you a question, which you declined to answer. You then asked me a similar question, which I answered, and you then attempted to disparage my opinion. I haven't changed it, so please don't continue in this vein. Thank you.
Opinions are one thing, but we don't write an encyclopaedia on opinions. We need sources. I don't see your team get much of a mention in any polls: [8], [9], [10] etc. etc. --Pete (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the Aboriginal team isn't nearly as significant globally as the first modern Olympics. But this is a section on Australian sports/culture, not global sports/culture. Australian rules football, the Heidelberg School, Paul Kelly—all cultural icons worthy of coverage on this page, but not very notable on a global scale. Your question was why should Australia be the exception to the norm. Because I think an image of the Aboriginal team encapsulates Australian sport to a greater degree than any "up-to-date", free image. If you think a different image, modern or historical, does a better job, then would love to see it. I could be persuaded. I already posted the NMA's "100 defining moments" list in which the Aboriginal team ranks beside the Melbourne Cup and the 1956 Olympics. Pre-Test cricketers have no chance of entering SPHoF. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Why should Australia go against the norm for Wikipedia? You offered your opinion for this article only. But, without exceptional circumstances, sports sections in national articles don't use images more than a few years old, and never as the only image in that section. They all show a current image. There's few external sources that support your view, and - if we were to go the historical route, a long list of far more well supported possibilities. Don Bradman, for example.. --Pete (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a discussion pertaining to the Australia article. You said yourself the sports image doesn't have to be up-to-date. There isn't a guideline against historical images in sports sections. You are recycling WP:OSE arguments. Again, post an image that does a better job at encapsulating Australian sport. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The group in question is the first Aboriginal cricket team - the first in a long line of successful Indigenous athletes. In 1868 they became the first Australian sports team to travel to England, ten years before the first white Australian Test cricket team went overseas. The current image shows Australia playing England, but again this is not obvious from the image alone.
The proposed image shows a group of men posing for a portrait. It is not obvious from the image alone that the men have have any connection whatsoever to sport, much less that they are the first of a long line or any of the other points that make them important. I agree entirely that what is obvious from the image alone is of paramount importance in deciding whether it is illustrative. That makes the decision to exclude this image obvious.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The image was taken in 1866. This demonstrates the prominent role cricket has played in Australian history. The current image was taken in 1933, even though the caption is about Australian cricket's popularity going back to the 19th century.
This seems like a non sequitur. Why does the fact that one photo is 30 years older make it more illustrative of the role cricket has played in history? I could perhaps understand this if one were taken in 1790 and one in 1990. But 30 years is less than a generation. And even if we were to accept that age is important, we have an image of an image of an 1858 intercolonial match that should be used and an image of The Victorian XI, 1859 that could be used.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The current caption reads: "Cricket has been an important part of Australia's sporting culture since the 19th century." I think this fact would be better illustrated by a 19th century image than a 20th century one. There's a 67 year gap between the Aboriginal tour and Bodyline, not 30. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The image was taken at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, the most iconic sports stadium in Australia, serving as the "spiritual home" of Australia's one unique sport - Australian rules football. The current image was taken at The Gabba, Brisbane, not nearly as significant as the MCG.
Firstly, this is at odds with the repeated claims made above that it is important that the significance of the image be obvious from the image alone. Nothing in the image would allow anyone but an ardent historian to link it to the MCG. Secondly, claiming that the Gabba is less significant than the MCG to cricket is contentious at best. Significance is such a subjective term that it would be impossible to reach such a conclusion.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it subjective to say that the MCG hosted Australia's (and the Southern Hemisphere's) first Olympics? Or that the first Test match was played there in 1877? "Significance" is subjective, but then so is culture. Whatever a particular culture holds to be significant, is significant within that culture. The MCG is Australia's most significant stadium. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The white man in the image is Tom Wills, "Australia's first cricketer of significance and pioneer of the sport of Australian rules football".
This once again seems at odds with the repeated claims made above that it is important that the significance of the image be obvious from the image alone. Secondly, to suggest that Tom Wilis is more significant to the history Australian cricket than Harold Larwood or the Bodyline tour is contentious at best. But even if we do accept all this, we have images of an 1858 match showing a cricket match and an 1859 image of The Victorian XI that could be used that both feature Wills.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
While Bodyline cannot be overrated, I think an image of the Aboriginal team with Tom Wills speaks more broadly to Australian sport/culture than Larwood avoiding Bodyline. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The resolution of an image isn't all that important. As for whether people are identifiable, I would lay money that far more people would recognise Larwwood in the current image than would recognise any of the people in the alternative image. None of which has any real bearing on this discussionMark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose using images of dead people to illustrate a live topic. Sports in Australia is what people can watch in real time. On television, at sporting grounds. And then read the results in the paper. I would be happier with using an image of the Fitzroy team to illustrate Australian Rules than using this antediluvian image to represent modern sports. --Pete (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Australian sport is more than just real-time actions and newspaper results. It's a window into who we are as a people. Re image, I don't think there's a modern equivalent that can reveal so much about our society and culture. It's cricket (doesn't have a Barassi Line), it's Indigenous (needed due to aforementioned under-representation), and it's the MCG. It's practically Australia defined. - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say much about Australian sports today. In the History of Cricket in Australia article, sure, but I think our readers are looking about information on today's Australia. An American schoolchild searching for material for a report, for example. It's a great historical image, for sure, but this article doesn't dwell much on history. This isn't to say we can't find a better image to represent sports in Australia, of course. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the image is a very pertinent symbol of reconciliation in Australian sport, which of course continues to this day. It's historical but for all times. This list was released only yesterday I believe. The aboriginal cricket team is one of five sports "moments". Another moment is the first recorded Australian rules football match, which Tom Wills umpired. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A symbol of reconciliation, or a step towards reconciliation. Victorians embraced the team as their own. Some players like Mullagh were invited to join the elite MCC. For the first time, Aborigines were widely seen as equal to Europeans. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read about the 66-67 tour and the public's response. Can you imagine a crowd of 10,000 white colonists supporting the Aboriginal team against the Melbourne Cricket Club? It happened. HappyWaldo (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
If you could show me where the word "reconciliation" was used in contemporary reporting, I'd feel more comfortable that you were presenting some accurate and truthful view of history. As it is, I'm smelling editorialising and synthesis. I'll also question your "Aborigines were widely seen as equal to Europeans" claim. In some limited arena, perhaps, but not in the wider view you are implying. This article on Australia is aimed at presenting a view of modern Australia, apart from the "History" section. We don't use an image of Gallipoli to illustrate the "Foreign relations and military" section, nor an 1860s gold mine to illustrate "Economy". Other articles on nations all seem to follow the same pattern, with few opting to adorn (say) the "Transport" section with a picture of a horse and buggy. I think we need a good reason to kick against what is a clear pattern. --15:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I never claimed that the word "reconciliation" was used contemporaneously, only that the tour is now seen as one of Australia's first steps towards reconciliation. For example: "The efforts of leading cricketer Tom Wills to involve Aboriginal players with the game in 1866 was in itself an important early gesture of reconciliation..." Cricket Australia Chief Executive James Sutherland. There is another clear pattern in culture sections: portraits of long-dead authors, artists and composers. Sport is part of culture, and athletes and events from past periods are frequently named. Why does sport, out of all cultural activities, have to be illustrated with an up-to-date image? - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You said, "I suggest you read about the 66-67 tour". I was following your suggestion. Now you want to talk about modern views. Fine. Sports seems to be illustrated with modern images in every article about a modern nation I've checked. Why should Australia be different? --Pete (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Reconciliation is a word that is too easily used and often thrown about these days. It wasn't used until the 1980s or 90s and when it was first used it confused a lot of people. The efforts of Tom Wills were not early gestures of reconciliation, they were simply the norm for the day. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, read about the tour. You will find in contemporary reports similar sentiments to those expressed around modern reconciliation, and a desire to mend the past. That is all. I think we have gone way off course here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. The image of the Indigenous team is an important one in both Australian sports and cultural history. They were also the first non-English cricket team to travel abroad (all previous overseas tours having all been made by English teams - to the United States, Canada and Australia), so the Indigenous team is also historically notable on an international scale in cricket history as well. Figaro (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Because both images are relevant, I have returned the image of the historical Indigenous team to the page, while also keeping the image of the cricket game in progress. Hopefully this should resolve any issues with regard to the two images. Figaro (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Restoration isn't appropriate. The image was added to the article, its addition was reverted and a discussion was started per WP:BRD. While disputed content is under discussion, the status quo reigns per WP:STATUSQUO. Articles are not supposed to be image farms and most sections in the article have a single image. We really don't need two for sport, especially when they are of the same sport. If we were to have a second image, it should be of another sport that is significant in Australia. Of course, if that were to happen we'd have another argument. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The image is a portrait of men wearing waistcoats. While the men are unarguably of great importance to the history of Australian sport, the image doesn't illustrate Australian sport. Illustrative utility is really the only thing we should be considering for the inclusion of images. Without reading the caption, there is no way for anybody looking at the image to even know that it even relates to sport. As such it clearly fails as an illustration. If we think the men in the photo are worthy of inclusion in the sports section of this article, we should write about them or link to them. If we want older images of sport, we have an image an image of an 1858 intercolonial match that should be used. Nothing in Wikipedia policy suggests that its a good idea to use non-illustrative images just because the image has links to important events or figures. This is akin to using an image of the factory that built Bradman's bat on the grounds that it has links to an important sporting event, despite not being in any way illustrative of it.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps so. Two points however about the content of the images - (1) I wonder if this engraving is in fact depicting the match played at MCG in late Dec 1866 and may have been published in early 1867. (2) The group photo which includes Tom Wills does NOT depict the team which toured England in 1868. Half the people shown in the photo did not go to England. I think it should more properly be known as the 1866-67 team during a tour of Eastern Australia.RossRSmith (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
You are correct re date. I thought the MCG match extended into early 1867 but it turns out that was just the date of publication. The 66-67 team and the 68 team which toured England are essentially the same. Charles Lawrence took over as captain-coach during the NSW leg of the 66-67 tour and took them to England the following year. Some members died and had to be replaced. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is this image any better than the current image? If we just want an old image, then we have an 1858 image that is even older. But I don't believe that an old sketch of a local match is more illustrative than a photograph of probably the most memorable ashes series in history. Once again, if we feel the article needs indigenous Australian images (and I feel it does), then by all means add them. But we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn a twofer into another section at the expense of illustrating that section. Can someone explain why this image is an improvement over the current one, or why the current one needs to be removed?Mark Marathon (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
As an illustration of a cricket match, I think the proposed image does a better job as it shows batsmen running between the wickets as opposed to one batsman crouching. I guess this comes down to which "defining moment" we would rather use to represent the important role cricket has played in Australian culture since the 1800s: the English cricket team using Bodyline at the Gabba in the 1932-33 Ashes series (which Australia lost), or the first team to represent Australia overseas—a cricket team comprised of Aborigines—playing on the Melbourne Cricket Ground in 1866. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
We don't use "defining moments" to illustrate any other section of the article - apart from History, of course - nor can I see any similar article doing likewise. We can certainly use a more up-to-date image, though, and I suggest we move a little further ahead in time, rather than haring off into the past. --Pete (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that the image used on the 'Australia' article is the same cricket image which is used on the Sport in Australia page - while images of the Indigenous Australian cricket team are not represented on either page. Figaro (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
A compromise can, perhaps, be reached by creating a special Australian cricket page and having as many Australian cricket images on the page as wanted, or thought necessary, to illustrate the sport in connection with Australia. Just my two cents worth. Figaro (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago, Mark Marathon removed citations used to support text in the "Geography and climate sections", claiming "None of these references make such a claim. eg, one notes large areas of heath and rainforest, another vast wetlands" in his edit summary. The affected content is:
^"Rangelands – Overview". Australian Natural Resources Atlas. Australian Government. 27 June 2009. Archived from the original on 30 April 2010. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
I looked at the citations and found, as I indicated in an edit summary explaining why I'd restored those citations, that the first citation supports the existence of savanna, which is a grassland ecosystem, and forests, which fall under the woodlands category and the second and third citations both supports grasslands and woodlands.[11] Since the citations clearly support the claims there is no reason why they should be removed. Today, Mark Marathon removed the citations again, this time claiming "While references support existence of savnana etc, do not imply that is the only land type".[12] He has clearly acknowledged that the citations do support the claim so there is no reason why the citations should be removed. If he has a problem with an implication that these are the only types existing in the area, an implication that I don't see, then the correct course of action is to expand the content appropriately (with sources), not to delete valid citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You apparently don't understand the difference between "X contains Y" and "X consists of Y". That is a huge difference. But since you seem to think that they are the same, are you agreeable if I change the text to "The landscapes of the Top End and the Gulf Country, with their tropical climate—consist of forest wetlands, and mangrove vegetation"? After all, these citations support the existence of all those ecosystems too, and that is your sole justification for the claim. So you surely can not object? Is that correct? Or do you now perhaps see the (to me fairly obvious) difference between "The region contains forest wetlands, and mangrove" and "The regions consists of forest wetlands, and mangrove"? The references themselves even go so far as to state that "eucalypt FORESTS extend across MOST of the landscape", yet forests are not even one of the vegetation types mentioned. Yet somehow we've reached the position that the area does not consist of forests. And no, forests do not "fall under the woodlands category". Before we attempt to introduce OR into article it's worth at least knowing about the subject. When speaking of Australian ecology, woodlands are savannas, forests are not woodlands. Hence the different words. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you had a problem with the content, then you could easily have modified it but, as I've explained on your talk page, removing valid citations, but not the content that they supported, and replacing the citations with a {{fact}} tag so it looks like the claim was never sourced at all, is tantamount to vandalism. There is simply no excuse for removing the citations. Modifying the text as Canley has suggested is something that could have easily avoided all this. If you read the sources you'll see that each refers to a diferent part of the region. As I've mentioned above, "forests" fall under the more general woodland category, which better describes the type of forest in much of the area. I'm not sure if you've travelled the area extensively. Regarding OR, removing the citations without providing more authoritative sources that contradict the citations is OR itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should read some of the appropriate Wikipedia policies. If a reference fails a check, it should be removed. That is a requirement of editors, not OR. What you are doing by constantly reverting an edit without discussing it is edit warring. In future I will simply report you for such behaviour without hesitating. Oh, and FWIW I am a rangelands ecologist with over 20 years experience working in the regions we are discussing. To say that I have travelled the area extensively would be an understatement. Since you seem to want to get into some sort of contest, I've published on the region extensively (hint, check my photo uploads over at commons for the past decade). Let me give you some expert advice: your ideas on what a forest is in this area is absolutely incorrectand constitutes original research. It can not be included in this article. Have fun.Mark Marathon (talk)
The references didn't fail, and that's easily verifiable. Please don't accuse me of reverting without discussing. You've done that twice today while I opened this discussion. You can claim anything you want about your experience, Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. As for what my "ideas on what a forest is in this area", I referred to the woodland and forest articles, since they are sourced so no, it's not OR. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Your personal experience is nothing more than OR, in fact Mark. You had no valid reason for your really quite strange behaviour. If you disliked the content, edit it. Removing the citations made no sense and doesn't even achieve your supposed goal anyway. JTdaleTalk~08:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not the one who introduced my experience. It is AussieLegend who seems to think that the degree to which we have each travelled in the area is important. I find it rather amusing that now that he realises he's going to lose that little competition, it suddenly becomes unimportant. As far as the content goes, I did edit it. Edits which another editor reverted 3 times without making any attempt at discussing, in blatant violation of WP:BRD. ;)Mark Marathon (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually you did introduce your experience. I merely questioned whether you had travelled the area, but I didn't expect your claimed life story in response. As for reverting, you seem to misunderstand the process we follow. You made a BOLD edit, which I reverted with explanations in the edit summary. At that point, instead of simply reverting as you did, YOU should have initiated discussion on the talk page, per WP:BRD. And let's get the facts right here. I reverted twice, once on 18 September, with an appropriate explanation in the edit summary,[13] and again today, after you had reverted the first time and again I left an appropriate edit summary.[14] I then started this discussion,[15] hoping that you would participate. You did not. Instead you reverted again[16] and had the hide to leave a warning on my talk page,[17] but even then you didn't bother trying to discuss. You waited until another editor reverted you and yet another supported my position here before you joined the discussion. You know all this because I told you this on your talk page.[18] You didn't try to discuss that either. You just deleted it.[19] --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This entire article is whitewashed about on "australia" came to be - the murder, displacement and theft of the natives. There needs to be a entire paragraph about this in the history section and at least a line in the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.104.191 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you actually have a point here. The article notes that there were Aboriginals in Australia, then notes a decline in population due to disease. But it doesn't really talk at all about the nature of the interaction between Europeans and Aboriginals. That seems like a fairly significant omission and we really need at least couple of sentences on the interaction. However we need to keep a few points in mind. Firstly the interactions were varied. It wasn't all "murder, displacement and theft", many groups willingly became fringe dwellers around European settlements, most groups were decimated by disease and became socially dysfunctional before European contact and so forth. We already have an article on the controversy surrounding the amount of "murder, displacement and theft" and another article on the history of Australia that goes into this in more depth. A broad article on the country isn't the place to get into a debate on this. We need to be a lot more dispassionate than proclaiming a "whitewash" of "murder, displacement and theft".
I suggest we add a few sentences from the Australian history article. Something like "The impact of Europeans was profoundly disruptive to Aboriginal life. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey, in Australia during the colonial period: "In a thousand isolated places there were occasional shootings and spearings. Even worse, smallpox, measles, influenza and other new diseases swept from one Aboriginal camp to another ... The main conqueror of Aborigines was to be disease and its ally, demoralisation". Though the extent of violence is debated, there was considerable conflict on the frontier. Many events illustrate violence and resistance as Aborigines sought to protect their lands from invasion and as settlers and pastoralists attempted to establish their presence. Frontier encounters in Australia were not universally negative. Positive accounts of Aboriginal customs and encounters are also recorded in the journals of early European explorers, who often relied on Aboriginal guides and assistance". Mark Marathon (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can this be said in this wikipedia article?
Can this be said in this wikipedia article?
Research published by The Daily Telegraph in 2012 shows that 51 per cent of respondents in favour of saying no to all migrants - a 10 per cent jump since 2005. [1]
According to the newspaper article in the reference, that research was a survey of 2,000 people.--Abcdudtc (talk)
________________
It is interesting but its such a small survey....thus a bit undue weight for this article....that said Immigration to Australia could take the info. What is more interesting is the 200,000 plus number...reaching the level Canada has. -- Moxy (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"thus a bit undue weight for this article", but I don't think it's undue weight because most likely those 2,000 people were chosen to be representative of the population. Additionally, one academic responded to it ("Monash University migration expert Bob Birrell said the results showed public opinion about immigration had moved into new territory.") and also the federal opposition said that "the anti-immigration sentiment was due to rising public anger about the number of asylum seekers attempting to enter the country.". I will add it to Immigration to Australia in the next days. Abcdudtc (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
________________
What's the value of a 2 1/2 year old survey of public opinion? There are lots of better references on Australian attitudes to migration than stories in the tabloid Daily Telegraph as well (a number of academics specialise on this issue). Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"What's the value of a 2 1/2 year old survey of public opinion?" Well, the value would be the change: a 10 per cent jump since 2005. Well, I will keep looking for other references as well. Abcdudtc (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Some economists assert that high immigration and the propensity of new arrivals to cluster in the capital cities is exacerbating the nation's housing affordability problem.[1][2]
Some academics argued in a 2013 report that immigration was hurting the job prospects of young Australians.[3] Also, according to the Graduate Careers Survey,[4] full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011.[5] The professional associations of some of these occupations have expressed their criticism of the immigration policy.[6][7]
The user Nick-D removed it saying: "remove cherry picked material - some people argue in favour of these views (with evidence good and bad), others argue the opposite (with evidence good and bad)"
The idea is to write a text that presents a Neutral Point of View, so what do you suggest to be added to it to have a Neutral Point of View?
The whole concept here is untenable - while there's certainly scope for some brief material on the results of immigration into Australia, it should be carefully written and draw on the many high quality sources available (which include any number of expert papers and reports), and place the issue in historical context. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I thought about the text and your comments and it seems that the text is not well redacted. But what I would say is that it seems that there is nothing against immigration can be said in this article (you see my other suggestion [1] was also not accepted for this article). I have always understood that Wikipedia was about telling "things" that are happening and anti-immigration sentiment is a "thing" that is happening, is seen in many sources that show that (not just this[2] but also many professional associations are saying that there is an oversupply of professionals [3]), and nothing can be said about it, maybe you do not like it, that's fine, but the whole idea of wikipedia was saying things that are happening whether one likes them or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, [20] says the Greens are the "most successful" minor party and [21] says they are a "main party". "Main" does not contradict "minor" so I don't see what the contradiction or problem is. Colonial Overlord (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Your first link needs to be fixed. main and minor do indeed contradict each other. Main is "of chief or principal importance" while minor is "of little significance or importance". You can't be both. @Andreas11213 and Mark Marathon:, both of whom may wish to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies about the link, I left out the "l". The opposite of "minor party" is "major party". The latter usually refers to the two largest parties that contest elections with the realistic aim of winning majority government, while the former refers to all other parties. "Main party" by contrast simply refers to the parties that play the most significant role in the political system. At least that's how the terms are usually used: the Greens and the Nationals are never described as major parties but frequently as main parties. Incidentally, even if the sources do contradict each other what do you propose be done about it? Colonial Overlord (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say at a bare minimum a link to List of political parties in Australia could be included (i.e., "…and several minor parties, have…"). Per List of Australian federal elections#Senate, the DLP, the Democrats, and the Greens have all had five or more senators at one stage, which seems like a nice cut-off. So, perhaps "…and several minor parties (currently the Australian Greens, and historically the Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Democrats), have achieved representation…"). For mine, we're getting close to WP:BLUESKY here with the referencing. Any Australian with the tiniest bit of political knowledge could tell you what the biggest of the small parties are. It's pretty stupid to quibble over the wording of it – we don't need to go into the subtleties of political science, we just need to say "Australia has two parties, but not just two, here are some of the smaller ones, here's a link to a list of them if you want more info". IgnorantArmies(talk)15:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The issue I had was with the claim that the Greens were the only notable minor party to achieve representation. That seemed doubtful to me, and the figures cited above show that it is untrue. Certainly a succession of minors parties has held >5 seats over the past 60 years before self-destructing and being replaced by a new protest party. I don't think it's a bad thing to reference any claim made on this subject. While it might be obvious to "any Australian with the tiniest bit of political knowledge", Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, so the number of Australians with the tiniest bit of political knowledge in our readership is about one in a million. I also don't think this information is as widespread as you think. Ask someone under forty what the DLP is, even someone who is politically informed, and you are almost certainly going to get a blank look. Remember, that all happened before today's first-time grandparents were allowed to ride to school on their own. I also think that to maintain encyclopaedic style, we need to be clearer than "have achieved representation". The PUP and the Motoring Enthusiasts have "achieved representation". If we mean that several minor parties have managed to hold more than 5 seats in the senate, then that is what we should be saying.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it seems pretty obvious which is why I was shocked that the article has apparently stood for years without mentioning the Greens as though they are utterly insignificant. I certainly don't think we should be mentioning historically significant minor parties unless we're also going to mention historically significant major parties, like UAP, Nationalists etc. In any case I think its pretty clear that the Greens are more successful/notable than those previous minor parties, being the only minor party to have participated in a minority government agreement, the only one to have held ministries at the state and territory level, the only one to have won and held a federal lower house seat or to have won more than one lower house seat anywhere in the country (with the exception of One Nation which imploded after six months). Additionally we have a source that the Greens are the most successful minor party so I don't see the issue in saying that. Colonial Overlord (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
There are several issues with what you just wrote. The article hasn't "stood for years without mentioning the Greens as though they are utterly insignificant". The article has always noted that "several minor parties, have achieved representation in Australian parliaments". The Greens are one of those minor parties, and there is no evidence that they are more notable than any of the others. They are more successful by the measures that you list, but less successful by other measures. Moreover many of the measures of success that you list, especially participating in a minority government, isn't something that has been true for years, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the article has stood for years without noting this. The problem with titles like "significant" and "notable" is that they are entirely subjective. If we start singling out certain parties then we need to state exactly why we think they are significant. If we start doing that, then we can't say that the Greens are more significant the DLP or Democrats without cherry picking the criteria to reach that conclusion. For example, the Democrats held multiple seats for 25 years, the Greens haven't yet managed 15. The DLP was indisputably instrumental in changing the course of several elections, the Greens not so much and so forth. So arguing that the Greens are especially notable will need to be referenced to avoid POV issues. Your belief that we shouldn't list past parties doesn't make much sense to me because the section is discussing parties that have achieved representation, past tense. You position might have some merit if were talking about events pre-war. But the Greens themselves have only held multiple senate seats for ~15 years, most of that time overlapped with the Democrats, and the Democrats only fell 10 years ago. IOW you are trying to argue that 15 years with multiple senators is recent enough and long enough to be significant, while simultaneously arguing that 10 years ago is so long that it shouldn't be discussed. That seems like special pleading. The point of the status quo wording is to highlight that, at least post-war, Australia has two parties, but not just two (as IgnorantArmies so succinctly put it). If the Greens were the first party to break the two-party monopoly they might deserve special mention, bu they aren't. They are just the latest in a line. Singling them out for special mention defeats the whole point of this section, which is to highlight that Australia has a long history of being a quasi-two-party system unlike many other democracies. The Greens aren't some special case in that regard, just the protest party du juor. If you think the special features of the Greens is notable then by all means ad t to the Australian Greens article, or alternatively start another article on minor parties in Australia. But that information doesn't need mentioning in the politics section on the article about nation of Australia. It's too focused to warrant inclusion in such a broad article.Mark Marathon (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Well by "stood for years" I didn't mean that long, I only meant since around 2011 when the Greens really started to become significant; I agree that they were pretty much irrelevant before that. I didn't realise the government section was taking a historical perspective; if that's the case then I agree the Greens don't warrant being mentioned, as they are too recent. I read the section as a description of the current political situation, which IMO can't really be understood without the Greens: virtually every news article about a proposed government policy gives the reactions of both Labor and the Greens equal time, the last election was largely fought over a Greens policy (the carbon tax) etc. I also think that in political science the ability to win lower house seats and to hold executive power are what tends to distinguish major and minor parties, which the democrats, dlp etc could never do, plus there's a reference for the Greens being the most successful. But as I said if the section has a historical focus its not so important to include them, though a referenced statement that they're the most successful could still be appropriate. Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 despite it increases for graduates three years after graduation.
According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 but instead it increases for graduates three years after graduation.
The word "instead" implies that the two might be mutually exclusive, but they are probably not. This would be better:
According to the Graduate Careers Survey, full-time employment for newly qualified professionals from various occupations has declined since 2011 but it increases for graduates three years after graduation.
I question the value of this material in such a high-level article. It would be better to note that unemployment, including youth unemployment, has increased over recent years rather than getting into the weeds by discussing employment for university graduates (a group who generally do pretty well compared to other people their age as a result of their skills) Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I currently have no opinion about whether the material should be included in the article, only that (if it is included) it should be grammatically and factually correct. It needs to be corrected or removed, but I don't care which. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
"I question the value of this material in such a high-level article.", "rather than getting into the weeds by discussing employment for university graduates", yes that sounds reasonable. But even taking that into consideration, I still think there is value in this material, because the professional occupations to which this happens are many and because of the reactions to it, for example the Australian Dental Associations requesting an end to the work rights of international students. [1] I guess it could be reduced to a few words. I will think more about it.Abcdudtc (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That might be relevant in an article on current issues, but this is a very high level article about the nation of Australia. I wouldn't read too much into the reactions of professional associations: their role is to protect the interests of their members, and not to take a broader view, and they have a natural inclination towards keeping the supply of workers in the professions they represent low (in order to protect members' jobs and boost their wages). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You say "I wouldn't read too much into the reactions of professional associations: their role is to protect the interests of their members", does that mean that the right thing to do is not listen to what they say? such is what it would make the government perfectly happy, the government only wants people to hear what it says and be wary of the opinions of others. There's none so blind as he who will not see. I do not agree with that, I think we should read what they say and see what FACTS they say, for example, they say that the Graduate Careers Survey shows that graduates have difficulty finding employment and that is true, it can be seen for example in this picture : https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/10342275/5802050/50e2b0e6-a045-11e4-9ad2-075c9bfa1c5a.png (You see the sudden fall in employment in 2011 and has remained in decline) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please capitalise the word 'indigenous' in the link to the article regarding Indigenous Australians in the second paragraph of this article. It is conventional and a sign of respect to capitalise the words Indigenous and Aboriginal when referring to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.
See:
- "The 'I' in 'Indigenous' is capitalised when referring specifically to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The lower case 'i' for 'indigenous' is only used when referring to people originating in more than one region or country such as the Pacific region, Asiatic region, Canada or New Zealand."[1]
- "Always capitalise ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aboriginal’ when you’re referring to Australian Aboriginals, but not when you are referring generally to the original inhabitants of other continents."[2]
I'd also like to note that the first sentence of the second paragraph, which suggests that Indigenous Australians have inhabited Australia for at least 40 000 years prior to British settlement (which IS referenced, but when reading the reference the date suggested is 50 000 years) is based on outdated data. Due to ongoing dating of artifacts and DNA research over the last twenty years, this number has been revised up by 20 000 years (meaning it is now generally accepted knowledge that Aboriginals have inhabited Australia for at least 60 000 years, not 40 000). I grant that this is a contentious issue, but it is pretty much now widely accepted that 60 000 years is a conservative estimate. At the very least you could correct this statement to "40-60 000 years".
See:
- "Archaeological investigations in the northwest of Australia suggest that Indigenous people may have occupied Australia for at least 60,000 years."[3]
- "Australia's Aboriginal people, the original inhabitants of the Australian continent, arrived at least 60,000 years ago."[4]
Not done - Wikipedia has its own style guide regarding capitalisation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and capitalisation of "indigenous" is not compliant with that guide. Regarding the 40,000-60,000 year figures, note that http://australianmuseum.net.au/Indigenous-Australia-Cultural-Heritage only says "may have". This is not an absolute. dfat.gov.au is not an archeological site and provides no source, so the 60,000 year claim there is not authoritative. The "40,000+" figure is widely accepted but there is no definitive evidence for either 50,000 or 60,000 years. Until such time as we have stronger sources for either, "at least 40 000 years" is the most neutral way of indicating the time period. Note that the source that you claim says 50,000 talks about a genetic date from a sample recovered 100 years ago. It further states "Genetic dates are based on a mixture of statistics and best guesses" followed by "but the split times calculated by the Danish team are compatible with the more reliable archaeological dates, which record the earliest known human presence in Australia at 44,000 years ago." --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that both "Aboriginal" and "Indigenous" when referring to the early human inhabitants of Australia are part of a proper noun, so "Indigenous Australians" and "Australian Aboriginals" should both be capitalized as such under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Myk (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Social liberalism
The user Andreas11213 keeps restoring "social liberalism" to the section about Victoria and other states in place of "progressive". I am utterly lost. What has social liberalism got to do with this? The section says certain states are "comparatively conservative"; surely then the remaining states are "comparatively progressive" not "socially liberal". Social liberalism can be both conservative (when contrasted with social democracy) and progressive (when contrasted with classical liberalism). Moreover, as far as I can see none of the references cited even mention social liberalism. So what is going on here? Colonial Overlord (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not Andreas11213 that "keeps restoring" it. That is what it originally said. it is you who "keep changing" it when there is obviously no consensus. "Progressivism" is a loaded term which depends on what the speaker finds to be progressive - which could be many things. Here is the intro sentence from the wiki "Progressivism": "Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition." I don't know about you, but I don't think there are many political parties (certainly in Australia) on the left or right who don't think they are trying to advance economic development, science and technology, social organisation and the human condition. It is subjective claptrap. It is also not an academic term. The terms used by political scientists for the ideology espoused by mainstream left of centre parties in Australia today are "social liberalism" and "social democracy" (the latter is further to the left than the former). "Progressivism" is not a rigorous term and is not used by political scientists in Australia to describe any major ideology present in this country.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. If you look at the sources cited for that claim, most say "progressive", none say "socially liberal" so that's the word we should use. I don't agree with what you say at all: the word progressive is consistently used as the opposite of conservative, meaning left of centre. That is its widely accepted political meaning. Social liberalism, on the other hand, does not equate to left wing. Even the most conservative mainstream politician is a social liberal if they support any kind of social safety net whatsoever. Colonial Overlord (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Consistently used to mean that by a very clear subset of people. Your average blue collar worker in a working class suburb for example, who generally votes Labor, would never describe themselves as "progressive". In fact, they'd likely call a person so describing themselves a "wanker". Aside from that such people would have some very un "progressive" views on certain topics. Greens-voting 19 year olds studying arts/journalism and living in Surrey Hills/Fitzroy/West End would be your best bet for people who would self describe as progressive with a straight face. If you read the article for social liberalism, you will find that it is not so that anybody supporting the barest safety net is immediately a social liberal. In fact, even most classical liberals, minarchist libertarians, etc support basic safety nets. Further, if you read the article on "progressivism" you will find that it was a particular American political movement in the early 20th century which did not occur in Australia. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if all your points are true you haven't addressed the most important thing I said: the sources cited use the word progressive ("Victoria not likely to lose its mantle as the state most progressive", "the progressive southern states of Victoria, South Australia and "Tasmania) or "left-leaning" with no mention of "social liberalism" in any of them. Unless these articles are written by 19 year old arts students, it seems the term is more widespread than you make out. If you asked people on the street what the opposite of conservative is, the answers you'd get would be "progressive", "left-wing", "socialist", "social democratic" but probably not "social liberalism". The latter term doesn't even refer to the entire left, only a very moderate part of it: the Greens are not liberals of any kind and neither are the more left wing elements of Labor. So its clear that social liberalism is inappropriate ( not to mention that "socially liberal" usually means liberal on social issues like euthanasia, not the ideology of social liberalism). If you object to "progressive" could we say "left-wing" or "left of centre"? Colonial Overlord (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Left wing or left of centre sure. That is a more unambiguous term.
Sport and recreation
Should the section be "Sport" or "Sport and recreation"? Relevant diffs: [22][23][24].
It seems to me that most of the contents of the section is sport (including skiing); there's very little about other forms of recreation. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
As it was, the section was primarily about sport, with nothing about recreation, which is why I moved the content back to the image caption. I still think that the content should be in the caption but HappyWaldo's subsequent edits to the section have added recreational content (skiing is primarily recreational in Australia) and I think it needs to be expanded even further along those lines, including other forms of recreation to balance the content even more. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember somebody bringing up the issue of there being no content in Recreation in Australia. It's beyond just being an oversight. Sadly, one of the most common forms of recreation is sitting in traffic jams, then standing in long lines to watch somebody else play sport but there are lots of other things that we do. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Some ideas: add sentence on the climate being conducive to outdoor recreation and Australia's reputation as a sporty nation (the opening stat could be updated); remove list of "internationally well-known and successful sportspeople" (perhaps a few names can be worked into the prose); mention the historical and cultural significance of cricket as a kind of de facto national sport and Australia's primary summer sport; the divide between the winter football codes of aus rules and league/union, with a nod to the rising popularity of soccer. The last paragraph is pretty decent. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Chinese Population
There is many more Chinese in Australia that stated 4%. If you go to Sydney - there are almost only Chinese. Same Perth. Need to double check your statistics with actual numbers as what is shown now does not make sense.
I believe it lists the "Asian" (of course mostly Chinese) population as 12%. You may find that if you go to for example, the CBDs of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne or (Perth?), around 60-70% of people you see are Asian, but then in the suburbs it turns into a minority. If I had to guess, more like 20% Asian but this is what the official figures say (bare in mind they are nearly 5 years old, and won't be replaced until a year after the next census) and it also takes into account rural areas and small cities.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Image conflict
Image oneImage two (proposed replacement)
Does anyone else think that image two best represents the "beach being an integral part of the Australian identity", because it depicts beach goers, sun baking, swimming etc. It's a typical summer scene. In short, I think it's a clearer and more lively depiction of summer/beach life within Australia. The first image sort of looks like the beach is a bit of an uninhabited, uninviting void until it's enlarged. The people are really not as visible as they are in the first image I am proposing. I thought this would be clear to people, but one editor doesn't seem to agree and prefers image one... What does everyone else think? Ashton 29 (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I prefer image 1. It's more elegant in composition, with a sense of spaciousness - not uninviting at all. I find image 2's composition messy, crowded, and not very inviting (foreshortening gives an impression of standing room only?). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a photographer but image 2 doesn't look professional. Featured articles deserve better. The line about the beach/Australian identity (which I added years ago) is more to do with culture than demographics, so I'm not sure if it really belongs here. Regardless it's not the point worthy of illustration. Image 1 captures Australia's great demographic fact: that it is an immense, sparsely populated land, and the majority of its inhabitants reside in cities which cling to the coastline. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with HappyWaldo: both are fine photos which do a good job of illustrating this topic, but option 2 is a bit cluttered and the colours look slightly oversaturated. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that image 2 isn't as professional as image 1 but, while image 1 is a great representation of how Gold Coast architecture extends right up to the beach, it draws focus away from "the beach being an integral part of the Australian identity". The people in the photo seem less interested in swimming and other more typical beach activities, and more interested in going for a walk on what isn't a very good beach day. I don't see an issue with "an impression of standing room only" because that's pretty much integral with the beach. I think image 2 better illustrates what we're trying to present. I actually think this image of a more iconic beach is better than image 1. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Bondi is more iconic (I'm not sure the image you propose is an improvement), but Sydney is already represented in the infobox at the bottom of the demographics section (and in the religion and education sections). The Gold Coast brings greater diversity and its skyline nails the coastal/urban aspect of Australian life. Like I said above, Australian beach culture (and the recreational activities it encompasses) should be covered in the culture section. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't agree that the Gold Coast "skyline nails the coastal/urban aspect of Australian life". The Gold Coast skyline, with tall buildings almost right on the beach, is not at all typical of the rest of Australia. Bondi is far more typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant visually it's perhaps the most pronounced example. There's no mistaking that it depicts a significant amount of people living in a coastal area. - HappyWaldo (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg, on the other hand, clearly depicts a significant amount of people on the beach. I believe the point of the image was to show the beach (not high-rise buildings on a coastal area) as an integral part of the Australian identity. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
But beach culture is irrelevant to this section, and the Australia article, by dint of its broadness, should show a wide range of places, not just Sydney/the capitals. The Gold Coast perfectly illustrates the point worth illustrating here: Australia's population is highly urbanised and largely coastal. Why Image 1? Because it's better. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, the Gold Coast high-rises so close to the beach are not at all typical of Australia and image 1 focuses far too much on the buildings. Image 2 focuses less on the buildings and more on the people's relationship with the beach. File:Bondi Beach 4.jpg better demonstrates the sort of architecture we see throughout the rest of the country, as well as demonstrating the the people's relationship. Even File:Barbeach.JPG does a better job than image 1. If you want to demonstrate how our cities hug the coast and not include the people, File:Newcastle's East End.jpg does that. If it's a choice between just the two images shown here, image 2 is a much better, all-round image than image 1. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"File:Bondi Beach 4.jpg better demonstrates the sort of architecture we see throughout the rest of the country, as well as demonstrating the the people's relationship." Too much Sydney. "Even File:Barbeach.JPG does a better job than image 1." That's a crappy image. "If you want to demonstrate how our cities hug the coast and not include the people, File:Newcastle's East End.jpg does that" Not as stunning visually. Also I don't not want people in the image, but it's incidental. This is the portion of the caption that needs illustrating: "Nearly three quarters of Australians live in metropolitan cities and coastal areas." The Gold Coast skyline is emphatically metropolitan, the expansive beach with rolling waves is emphatically coastal. It's the Ned Kelly's helmet of urban/coastal Australia (reference to another image dispute, see edit history). Conversely, the sprinkling of people on the beach in image 1 captures something of Australia's roominess (also covered in demographics section... admittedly that's a pretty far reach, but worth a try). - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't necessarily choose the best quality image, or the most diverse image, or the most stunning, we choose the image that best fits the purpose. That an image may be from Sydney doesn't exclude it just because there are already several Sydney images. If the image is the best for the job then use it regardless of location. As for moving the statement to the sport section, that seems a bit of a dummy-spit. Most people go to the beach for recreation, not sport. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The sports section needs an overhaul anyway, with recreation integrated. "we choose the image that best fits the purpose" Agreed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Image one only because....image 2 depicts one or more identifiable persons. The right of an individual to control the use of their depiction is called personality rights. To re-use this work you may need those depicted to waive their personality rights (also called granting consent) more info here . -- Moxy (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
the subject's consent is not usually needed for publishing a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place.. Also the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual.. The caption for File:Five-string bass.jpg, which is used in that guideline, is No consent was required for this shot as it was taken in a public place. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AussieLegend. The Bondi Beach image he refers to is an excellent example of a typical Australian beach and architecture, as well as aptly demonstrating the close relationship of Australian people with the beach. The Gold Coast images (both 1 and 2) just show a heavily over-populated tourism area with a very large number of high-rise buildings. To show just a Gold Coast image, to represent Australian beaches in general, gives international readers of this article the wrong impression. Just my two cents worth. Figaro (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"The Gold Coast images (both 1 and 2) just show a heavily over-populated tourism area" Bondi? "To show just a Gold Coast image, to represent Australian beaches in general, gives international readers of this article the wrong impression." The aim is not to "represent Australian beaches in general" but to illustrate "cosmopolitan" and "coastal" Australia. International readers who are switched on and peruse more than the top of the demographics section will see that Australians live in a diverse range of places. The "typical" Australian beach/city scene doesn't really exist, there's too much variety. There isn't anything like Bondi in Perth. Melbourne beach scenes are again completely different etc. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, I haven't been to Tasmania since the '70s, but my experience of all of the other places in Australia that I have been since then is that, even if we accept HappyWaldo's argument that "The 'typical' Australian beach/city scene doesn't really exist", there are still a lot of similarities between the "beach/city scenes" around the country, but the scene at the Gold Coast, or at least that which we see in image 1 & 2 is completely different to all of the others, including Perth, so it doesn't represent the vast majority of the country. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But just because Bondi is the most internationally recognisable beach, doesn't mean it's the beach that needs to be illustrated. The Gold Coast beaches are a better representation, I think that's pretty clear. The context also needs to be considered, for example, the caption says "A vast majority of Australian's live in coastal regions". This is why the inclusion or view of the skyline was integral to the photo. It depicts the beach vs. urban juxtaposition. As far as which image is better goes, the points that people raised are valid and identical to my own:
A) Image one is more about a skyline or a city and less about a beach/association with beach identity.
B) Image two depicts both in equal proportion. There is life, there is participation in beach culture and there is the city to represent the coastal urbanisation.
"The Gold Coast beaches are a better representation, I think that's pretty clear" - No, it's not clear. Why are Gold Coast beaches a better representation? Neither of the images represent a typical Australian "beach vs. urban juxtaposition". In most of Australia we live near the beach, not right on it. Population densities drop as you approach the beach, they don't increase exponentially as the images seem to indicate. How many places other than the Gold Coast have high-rise buildings so close to the water? --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your images, how many Australian cities have apartments and homes right on the beach, as per Bondi. Adelaide isn't really like this, nor are many Melbourne coastal suburbs. There's no representation that encompasses every single respective city and beach layout, it's unique to each city. That image merely had an advantage over every other one, because it showed the conflux of urban living on a beach in clear representation. It doesn't entirely matter if the high rises are "right on the beach". In the image I'm proposing (number two), the skyline is in fact quite a good distance away from the beach.. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot more have housing similar to Bondi than the Gold Coast. The second image is really a misrepresention. The buildings are still on the beach, they're just further away from that beach. That said, I do prefer the second image to the first, I've said that, but I don't think either truly represent the coastal environments that we see in coastal cities and towns. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I maintain there isn't a typical Australian beach vs. urban juxtaposition, just varying degrees of development. The Gold Coast is unique, but I think that's its strength. It's a model of coastal urbanisation. Also to your last question, the Gold Coast has company with redevelopment projects like Docklands and the Perth waterfront, and the projected growth of smaller cities along the coast. Come to think of it the Gold Coast isn't that unique. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've provided links above to several images showing what is a typical beach vs. urban juxtaposition. This is evident in most coastal towns and cities. Typically there may be some high-rise developments with building heights and densities thinning out towards the beach. Often there is a road separating the buildings from the road, and often parks or other grasslands between the road and the beach. File:Bondi Beach 4.jpg and File:Barbeach.JPG are examples of what I've seen in, to name a few places, the Qld Sunshine Coast, most coastal towns in NSW including but not limited to Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Gosford, Sydney & Wollongong, settlements along the road from from Melbourne down to HMAS Cerberus, Adelaide, Darwin and there are similarities around Fremantle (I haven't spent much time in WA). High-rise buildings onnthe beach are very much a Gold Coast signature, just as the Sydney Opera House on the waterfront is very representative of only Sydney. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh? Why would Antarctica be listed at all? It is a continent. By that logic, maybe Australia should be listed as the 11th largest because Eurasia, Africa, South America and North America are also larger. But no, that would be stupid, because they are all continents.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Except for the fact that Australia is the 6th largest country by area, after Russia, Canada, China, US and Brazil. The list you refer to does not give Antarctica a rank, just adds it to list where it would be if it was a country.Joebenson9 (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Introduction
I suggest to change "After the European discovery of the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia's eastern half was claimed by Great Britain in 1770" for "After European arrival to the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia's eastern half was annexed by Great Britain in 1770".
I just reverted a series of edits by User:Ashton 29 in which they'd made substantive changes to the article marked falsely as being minor, and without any edit summaries explaining what they were doing - this is poor conduct for any article, and especially for a high profile featured article. Moreover, the material wasn't very good. The paragraph on alcohol-related health problems in Australia was entirely wrong headed - it argued that there's some kind of health crisis based on news reports, but the official data actually shows that Australians are drinking less than at any time in the last 50 years [25]. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll add that, if his edits to the cuisine section were to stand, a meringue-based dessert for which "formal research indicates New Zealand as the source" would receive more coverage than the gold rushes, the Eureka Rebellion, and Federation combined. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Independence or Establishment?
Should the date of Australia's formation be listed as "independence" as is current, or "establishment"? Australia never explicitly declared independence from the United Kingdom. The process was a gradual transfer of governance from the United Kingdom to the parliament of Australia over a number of years. This is more a matter of consistency since the article for Canada, which went through a very similar process in terms of transfer of governance, lists the formation of the country as "establishment" rather than "independence". Technically both terms are correct, since independence was the result of the parliamentary acts, but I would like to raise the question as to whether the more appropriate term is "independence" or "establishment" in the case of countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada that never made a formal declaration of independence from the United Kingdom. For example, the United States and the Republic of Ireland have distinct dates of the declaration and recognition of independence, whereas the countries in question made no such declaration and the dates are more fuzzy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.25.235 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You ask a good question but I'd say there is a more convincing reason still to use 'establishment'. 'Australia' did not gain independence from Britain on 1 January 1901, because Australia did not exist as an entity before that date. What existed before then was six self-governing colonies under the British empire. As such, for a unitary country like New Zealand, you could say that a similar event constituted 'independence' but clearly for Australia it was a formation. Indeed, 'Australia' was never a British colony. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, et al were. Australia is the federal entity that was created by them, whereby they agreed to transfer some of their powers to a federal government under a constitution. By the same logic, strictly speaking the article for Ireland should say independence but the article for the United States should not as there was no such entity as the United States which existed prior to its formation that could have gained independence. There were instead 13 crown colonies. If say Delaware had fought its own war of independence and won, you would say 'Delaware became independent on xxxx day'. You can't say 'the United States became independent on 4 July 1776, because on the 3rd of July, there existed no 'United States' to become independent. The 'United States' was an entity which was created by the pre-existing colonies. Thus it is indeed an 'establishment' or 'formation' rather than 'independence'.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"Independence" in the infobox does not refer to a single date which is why three documents with four dates are listed. "Australia" was established on 1 January 1901 and independence was gained in stages with the process starting on that day. It was followed by the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, which was signed into effect on 9 October 1942. It formally adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931, backdating it to be effective 3 September 1939 (the start of WWII). The third stage of independence was adoption of the Australia Act on 3 March 1986. Independence wasn't gained gradually so stating "Independence (1 January 1901 - 3 March 1986)" is misleading and incorrect but stating "(1 January 1901, 3 September 1939, 9 October 1942 and 3 March 1986)" would be confusing. While it's true that Australia wasn't a British colony before 1901, it wasn't independent of British rule on 1 January 1901, so it wasn't simply an establisment. More correctly it was "establisment and the beginning of independence". Regarding the US, the United States Declaration of Independence uses the capitalisation and emphasis "the thirteen united States of America". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
^ Actually this is a very good summary and looking at it that way, you have certainly brought me around to the point of view that that is the way to do it.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some consensus that there should be a distinction between when Australia was established and when it became independent. I would move to list 1st January 1901 as the date of establishment from the United Kingdom, and 9th October 1942 as the date of independence from the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.25.235 (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not correct though. "Australia" was established on 1 January 1901 but the country was also given some independence on that date. During WWII there were things for which Australia was not independent from the UK, but which we became independent from on on 9 October 1942. However, the independence was backdated to 3 September 1939. Even after 9 October 1942 there were still things for which Australia was not fully independent. We became fully independent on 3 March 1986 but it would be incorrect to state that as the date of independence because we had various levels of independence before then. There is no single date on which you can say Australia gained independence. All you can do is mark the major milestones, as is already the case. --12:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried to find a legend on another page with no luck, but see see Hypsometric tints: "A typical scheme progresses from dark greens for lower elevations up through yellows/browns, and on to grays and white at the highest elevations. Hypsometric tinting of maps and globes is often accompanied by a similar method of bathymetric tinting to convey depth of oceans; lighter shades of blue represent shallower water such as the continental shelf and darker shades deeper regions". Rwood128 (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
CorinneSD Do you not think that my addition is sufficient (it could be expanded)? But I see that you put in a request to the Lab and that is a great idea. Rwood128 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 I hope you didn't interpret my request at the map lab as criticism of your edit. I think it's fine. I just think a legend with the actual altitudes would be more informative. CorinneSD (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, initially I just wondered if you had seen it. Then I realised that you had contacted the experts! I was surprised not to find a legend anywhere. Rwood128 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
National language
I strongly recommend you to consider a comprehensive review whether Auslan (Australian Sign Language) should be added onto the National Language section for Australia Wikipedia page. The core justification for this potential change is that Auslan is, in fact, a distinct National (signed) language only used here in Australia among English. According to UCL, there are more than 130 identified (deaf) Sign Languages around the world with each bearing its own grammar and signed vocabularies that are distinct upon comparison to English (or the local spoken language). Auslan is a natural language that developed organically over the time since the colonisation and settlement of Australia in 18th and 19th centuries with pre-colonisation links to BSL.
The Australian Government (Federal) officially recognised Auslan as a language used here in Australia in 1987. In both State and Federal Parliaments, there have been legislative changes to further recognise Auslan with the most recent one being in 2012 where the Queensland Government (State) recognised Auslan as a language of instruction for either Deaf and/or hearing primary and high school students. The Australian Youth of Year 2015 is Drisana Levitzke-Gray, who is profoundly Deaf and use Auslan as her primary language of communication, will be instrument in future legislative changes to further recognise and embrace Auslan as Australia's second national language.
In order to accommodate this change by including both English and Auslan as Australia's national languages, it is also necessary for you to add (s) into "National Language" ("National Language(s)" because there are two languages mentioned as Australia's national language.
Not done as of 2 minutes ago the BBC is reporting "Australian PM Tony Abbott is facing a challenge to his leadership from senior cabinet minister Malcolm Turnbull." not that there has yet been a leadership election, nor that Abbott has resigned. - Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I have just removed a line of twaddle about the "supreme executive authority" of the Commonwealth. Clearly a personal opinion derived from an uninformed interpretation of s61. The "executive power" mentioned is no more than the remnants of the royal prerogative not already assigned, and the power to do what is needed for the functioning of the Commonwealth. These are relatively minor powers and limited in both scope and exercise. See here for an explanation, and of course Professor Winterton's book on the executive power scotches this myth of "supreme executive authority". Describing the State governors and the Governor-General as viceroys is also nonsense. Viceroys possess the authority to exercise all powers of the monarch in their assigned realm, not a limited subset. --Pete (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point, but my understanding is that a full exercise of the royal prerogative is required and the Constitution specifically removes several areas of that prerogative from the domain of the States. Diplomatic representation, for example. --Pete (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change
"Australia (/ɒˈstreɪliə/, /ə-/, colloquially /-jə/),[10][11] officially the Commonwealth of Australia,[12] is an Oceanian country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands. It is the world's sixth-largest country by total area. Neighbouring countries include Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor to the north; the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east; and New Zealand to the south-east.
For at least 40,000 years[13] before the first British settlement in the late 18th century,[14][15] Australia was inhabited by indigenous Australians,[16] who spoke languages grouped into roughly 250 language groups.[17][18] After the European discovery of the continent by Dutch explorers in 1606, Australia's eastern half was claimed by Great Britain in 1770 and initially settled through penal transportation to the colony of New South Wales from 26 January 1788. The population grew steadily in subsequent decades; the continent was explored and an additional five self-governing crown colonies were established. On 1 January 1901, the six colonies federated, forming the Commonwealth of Australia. Since Federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system that functions as a federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy comprising six states and several territories. The population of 23.6 million[5] is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated in the eastern states and on the coast.[19]
Australia is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the world, with the world's 12th-largest economy. In 2014 Australia had the world's fifth-highest per capita income.[20] Australia's military expenditure is the world's 13th-largest. With the second-highest human development index globally, Australia ranks highly in many international comparisons of national performance, such as quality of life, health, education, economic freedom, and the protection of civil liberties and political rights.[21] Australia is a member of the United Nations, G20, Commonwealth of Nations, ANZUS, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the Pacific Islands Forum."
to
"Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy composed of six states, three federal territories and seven external territories. The Australian mainland consists of five of the six federated states (with the sixth state, Tasmania, being located on an island in close proximity to the mainland) and the federal territories. In addition, there are six island territories and the Australian Antarctic Territory, which compose the external territories. At 7.692 million km2 the country is the world’s six largest by total area. Australia is the largest country without land borders, the largest country wholly in the Southern Hemisphere and the only country to govern an entire continent. Australia’s size gives it a wide variety of landscapes including forest, woodland, wetland, grassland, rainforest and desert, combined with mountain ranges in the south-east, south-west and east. The northern part of the country has a tropical climate, the south-west corner has a mediterranean climate and much of the south-east (including Tasmania) is temperate. Australia is considered extremely biodiverse and is a recognised megadiverse country. The Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef and biggest single structure made by living organisms, lies a short distance off the north-east coast and extends for over 2000 kilometres. It is one of the world’s most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of immigration from many countries.
Aboriginal Australians are believed to have first arrived on the Australian mainland by sea from Maritime Southeast Asia between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The artistic, musical and spiritual traditions they established are amongst the longest surviving traditions in human history. European colonisation began in 1788 with the arrival of the First Fleet of British ships at Botany Bay to establish a penal colony. In the century that followed, the British established other colonies on the continent, and European explorers ventured into its interior. Gold rushes and agricultural industries brought prosperity. Autonomous Parliamentary democracies began to be established throughout the six British colonies from the mid-19th century. The colonies voted by referendum to unite in a federation in 1901,and modern Australia came into being. Since Federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system. The population of 23.9 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated in the eastern states and on the coast.
Many Australians regard the defeat of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZACs) at Gallipoli as the birth of the nation - its first major military action. Australia achieved independent Sovereign Nation status after World War I under the Statute of Westminster and the Australia Act 1986 removed any remaining links between the British Parliament and the Australian states. There is continuing debate in Australia as to whether the country should become a republic.
Australia is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the world, with the world's 12th-largest economy. In 2014 Australia had the world's fifth-highest per capita income. Australia's military expenditure is the world's 13th-largest. With the second-highest human development index globally, Australia ranks highly in many international comparisons of national performance, such as quality of life, health, education, economic freedom, and the protection of civil liberties and political rights. Australia is a member of the United Nations, G20, Commonwealth of Nations, ANZUS, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the Pacific Islands Forum."
because I believe it to be much more informative and more similar to the layout of other countries pages.
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Chip: I thought someone would ask. Well, if not acceptable here, maybe Tourism in Australia or Transport in Australia. Why? When enlarged from thumb it seems to me a clear presentation of the trans-continental, inter-state connections, in a form that is easy to see and have in mind as a mental picture on which the info in the other maps can be, as it were, superimposed at will. But no good if outofdate.Qexigator (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's suitable for this article. It's called "Australia regions map", but doesn't actually show any regions. It seems more tourism oriented, although it shows only 4 tourist destinations. The road network is also out of date. Its main use seems to be on wikivoyage, which is probably where it should stay. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Kingdom of Great Britain should be noted as "Kingdom of Great Britain"
Great Britain itself is really just an island, so when "Great Britain" is mentioned in the article in reference to the "Kingdom of...", it should say the full link to the page Kingdom of Great Britain instead of simply "Great Britain" w/the link to the "Kingdom of..." page the first time, and the second time it ought to also say "Kingdom of Great Britain" (possibly w/a second link to the page?). Otherwise, it's kind of misleading unless you're well informed on British imperial history and/or standard info on the Commonwealth realms. Do you think the change would work, AussieLegend?
-Robot psychiatrist (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
No, common names should apply here. Great Britain typically means the political entity of England, Scotland, Wales, (and the islands). No one refers to it as the Kingdom of Great Britain except possibly in very formal writing or legalese. --Dmol (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
No, "Great Britain" reflects common usage, the link is there for anyone who doesn't understand the history. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Dmol I think you misunderstand something here. Kingdom of Great Britain is not the formal name. The formal name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. When we talk about the British coming in 1788, we talk about the Kingdom of Great Britain as that was the name of the country at the time. Then later on it became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before finally taking on its current name of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. In fact, if you click on the 'great britain' reference it links to the article about the Kingdom of Great Britain (as opposed to today's UK). Similarly if you go to the US article, it says the US received its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain as the United Kingdom was not yet in existence at that time to get independence from! I might also be in favour of lengthening 'Great Britain' (link to Kingdom of Great Britain) which is the current situation to spelling out Kingdom of Great Britain as well as just linking to it to make this clear.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The lead sentence of Kingdom of Great Britain starts with "The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain". If Great Britain is the official name then that's what we should use when referring to it, so [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] is correct. If we used the unofficial name then "kingdom" should not be capitalised. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough in that case I say we leave references to the old [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and the newer entities as either [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] or [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|United Kingdom]] --Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
History expansion
Does anyone else think this could be fleshed out a bit more? Some topics worth mentioning: Batavia mutineers, the first Europeans to take up permanent residence in Australia; Rum Rebellion, Australia's only military coup; the total number of convicts transported; difficulties of inland exploration (eg Burke and Wills expedition) and settlement; economic and demographic transformation that resulted from gold rushes; emergence of an Australian nationalism in the lead-up to Federation; Papua; effect of Great Depression; expansion of railway networks. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I would be wary of expansion given the guidance of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Of course this would be down to specific examples, and I would ask what each helps provide the reader with regards to a quick understanding of Australian history. Commenting on each of your specific topics: Batavia and the Rum Rebellion are interesting, but I don't think either merit coverage at this level (Batavia is not even well covered on our main History of Australia article, itself around 200% larger than recommended article length). Convict numbers are interesting, but I'm not sure a total is very useful, rather the numbers in very early settlements perhaps would be more enlightening. A rewording of the current gold rush sentence to provide the wider context would be useful, especially if it gave context to the Eureka Rebellion which at the moment reads as very out of place. A note about inland exploration would also fit in well there. I would prefer to leave pacific discussion of the development of nationalism out in favour of the current text's providing a timeline of events that demonstrate a development of nationalism through time. Papua I don't think merits mention here, nor Australia's other territories. As for a short mention of economic history, I'd think that would be useful, and prefer it to the current focus on political development such as mentioning the 1999 referendum (if it succeeded that'd be another matter) or the final sentence which effectively states that Australia maintains old relationships while forging new ones, which seems self-evident and unnotable. CMD (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the history section does not meet WP:IMGLOC due to images sandwiching text. I felt that the aboriginal art and the last post images were the most important, and that the other two represented a similar portion of history, and so were more expendable, but due to disagreement I'd like to know if other editors have opinions on the matter. CMD (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks good to me. The Captain Cook portrait is standard upright so text sandwiching isn't too bad. The addition of some of the things I proposed would further reduce sandwiching. Also I think it's crucial that both European discovery/exploration and convictism are illustrated. - HappyWaldo (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be better if the history was not written by the white Australians - but by the Aboriginals. It seems they are not mentioned much though it states they have been there for 40,000 years... I wonder why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.152.6 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
there is an error with this page. it quotes the game squatter and its aim is to buy all the sheep stations. the aim is to buy sheep, you cant buy other stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.196.145 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Heavens, how long since someone has gone through it? There are lots of language issues, and worse, it's written from a rather stuck-up, old-fashioned consitutional view. Who is responsible for that? Tony(talk) 05:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The focus looks fine to me - it's a reasonable high level summary of Australia's system of government, which is suitable for this top level article. It would be nice to see a para or so on the role and structure of state and local governments, but that's easily doable. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
What is a 'stuck-up, old-fashioned constitutional view'? The government is structured based on how it has been set up by the constitution. As for 'stuck-up' .... I'm not sure what to say... This is a bizarre comment to say the least.--Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:AWNB
There is a discussion at WP:AWNB regarding election of candidates. Since the issue under discussion is similar to discussions that we have had here regarding the election of the Prime Minister, editors may wish to participate in that discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think the first line of the language section which currently reads:
Although Australia has no official language, English has always been entrenched as the de facto national language.[2]
Should be changed because it is clearly Euro-centric; I would suggest:
Although Australia has no official language, English, being entrenched since the colonial era, is the de facto national language.[2]
Australia as a political unit able to have a national language only existed long after the beginning of the colonial era. CMD (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Lead
A few issues:
"languages ... language".
"... the continent was explored and an additional five self-governing crown colonies were established." This alone is the odd one out among a succession of time-anchored claims.
"The population of 24 million[5] is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated in the eastern states and on the coast." Could it be made neater? "The population of 24 million[5] is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated on the eastern seaboard."?
"Australia is a developed country and one of the wealthiest in the world, with the world's 12th-largest economy. In 2014 Australia had the world's fifth-highest per capita income.[20] Australia's military expenditure is the world's 13th-largest. With the second-highest human development index globally, Australia ranks highly in ..."
"world ... world's ... world's"
"largest ... highest ... largest ... highly". So first, it's rather chest-beating, don't you think, given what international bodies have been saying recently in official reports about the steady erosion of human rights, and systematic torture by the Australian government. I'm not advocating that these facts be emblazoned in the lead, but I find it pretty slanted and smelling a little of the culturally insecure rah rah that embarrasses us when some Australians go on tour overseas. Does this bragging need to be modified numerically in the light of the reduction in the currency's value? Why is military spending given the privilege of a mention in the lead?
Support getting rid of/editing what has been identified - too many large articles about countries are too large and most have crap and unnecessary unencyclopdiac things in them
I would hazard a guess, if an external uninvolved review of all major 'country' articles on wikipedia was conducted and were analysed (for the top 30 countries by population or economy or whatever) - that the crap creep is in all of them JarrahTree05:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request to Date format has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Australian time format is not dd-mm-yyyy as currently written. Accepted formats are dd/mm/yyyy or similar to ISO8601 as described in the AS ISO 8601-2007 standard (that is YYYY-MM-DD).
Page 171, Style Manual for Authors Editors and Printers (6th Ed.), Commonwealth of Australia, 2002, Wiley, ISBN0-7016-3648-3 accepts either of these formats as being acceptable, but not dd-mm-yyyy.
AS ISO 8601-2007 would suggest that if any, the official date format of Australia is YYYY-MM-DD as outlined in that standard.
Nah. Australia flexibly accepts nearly anything. dd-mm-yyyy vs dd/mm/yyyy is a matter of personal style. The official AS ISO 8601-2007 standard (YYYY-MM-DD) is notable for its rarity. However, American mm/dd/yyyy is not seen, though mmm d, yyyy is seen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Can it sing from the same song-sheet? In the lead, it's "for about 50,000 years" (ref. New York Times?). In "Prehistory": "Human habitation of the Australian continent is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago". Which is it, does anyone know? Tony(talk) 05:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
"Government" section
I feel that the angle of this section is unecessarily legalistic for the non-expert reader. I remember in the first subject in my (never-completed) law course, Legal institutions, being struck by the extent to which the Australian consitution is written in code—a code that needs to be translated into the reality of governance as generally understood.
For example, nowhere does the consitution mention "prime minister" or "cabinet", and it's only with an amendment late last century that the concept of political party has been mentioned.
If you asked most people what the "executive council" is, they'd stare at you blankly.
The clear impression is that the governor-general runs the whole show (picture included next to the PM's as well, just in case we doubted it). We learn of the (extra-ordinary) dismissal by Kerr in 1975 up-front, but are not told that this was not the normal way things happen.
The opening proposition that the Queen's role is "distinct from her position as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms" is nicely worded but left hanging, unexplained; so I wonder why it's necessary to have what appears to be a legalistic detail in the main text if giving readers a consitutional lesson about it on the spot would result in too much clutter. Can't it be relegated (and explained) in a footnote, or in the offspring article "Government of Australia"?
Most readers, whether Australian schoolkids or foreigners, are almost certainly seeking to understand a complex, elaborate structure as it works in practice, put simply and in an order that reflects what both policitians and voters would regard as the priority facts. I think it should be reframed—not entirely, but enough to make it more meaningful for normal people, not consitutional lawyers. Tony(talk) 11:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I presume, then, that no one objects if I have a go at editing this section along these lines (in the next few days)? Tony(talk) 09:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the first para is legalistic and doesn't really reflect reality, but the rest seems OK though not exactly sparkling prose at the moment. The section would benefit from a bit more about how governments are formed and operate in practice. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: as you have not requested a change. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
NI is now left out of the list of territories directly administered by the Commonwealth of Australia. NI is still a territory, separate and distinct to NSW. I appreciate that the manner in which it is administered changed on 1 July 2016 so that it now does not have substantive self governance. I don't see how that would change the way it is listed on the main piece. Any thoughts? Anegada (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about shark culling throughout Australia (Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales) and within minutes it was reverted, with various unfounded accusations such as WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. For example, how is the killing of thousands of sharks and other wildlife (such as dolphins) in Queensland "not related to the main subject" of environmentalism? This is an environmental issue just like any other, and there are many sources to back up the fact that these procedures have a detrimental effect on the environment. If WP:UNDUE is argued, why not get rid of some of the paragraph rather then outright reverting the whole thing? If WP:POV is argued, why not edit out the parts of the alleged POV rather then getting rid of the whole thing?
When comparing one paragraph about drum lines to three paragraphs about climate change, one could argue that climate change is WP:UNDUE. So WP:UNDUE is a matter of perspective.
Again, I would like to return this paragraph to the article in one form or another, perhaps in a shortened form, but I fear that it will be instantly reverted again. LumaP15 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This isn't an issue which is sufficiently prominent that it needs to be covered at all in this top-level article. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday, Wrestlingring added content to the lead of the article.[27] This content is disputed by Chipmunkdavis but supported by Skyring. In an effort to head off an escalation of the edit-war that has ensued, I have reverted the article to the status quo and warned both editors that they need to discuss the matter here instead of edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AussieLegend. This edit was part of a series of edits Wrestlingring has made where they edit constitutional events based on their own opinion of the events importance. Like it the other edits, it is an oversimplification here, and should not be presented in the lead as such. CMD (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The Statute of Westminster and Australia Act are crucial legislative steps in Australian independence. I am surprised that anybody could both dispute their dates of passage and be ignorant of their effect. Sue vs Hill includes the High Court's views on their effect to render the UK a foreign power. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
While you shouldn't demean those who haven't learnt as much about a particular topic as you have, no-one here has done either of those things, so all for the better. CMD (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologise. Your edit summaries gave the opposite effect. What, then, is your opposition to the wording? --Pete (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I've noted some reasons in the summaries and above. You are free to engage with what I have written rather than resort to instant slights. CMD (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that should be in the lead: it's rather legalistic, simplistic, poorly worded, and unnecessary. Australian historians generally describe a gradual path to cutting the final ties to the UK after 1901 (with the two parliamentary acts being milestones in this), and the notion that Australia somehow wasn't really "independent" prior to 1942 and not a "full ... sovereign independent state" until 1986 being advanced in the text doesn't reflect most historians' views. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
If we leave out the SoW and AA, then the lede effectively ends the story in 1901, which is not right. I'll grant that we had some independence before 1942 - we had a seat at Versailles, for example - and that the path to independence was gradual, but path there was. We cannot ignore the 20th Century, which Australia began as a collection of British colonies, and ended with the High Court stating that the UK was a foreign power. --Pete (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to cover that in the lead: it's (rightly) in the Nationhood section, but isn't sufficently significant in the context of the wide range of issues the article covers. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
We've a similar situation in Canada. Did that country become independent in 1867, 1931 or 1982. I'm guessing this has been the case for most of the other Commonwealth realms & republics as well. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Good point, GD! On that note, in the Canada lede, we see:
In 1931, Canada achieved near total independence from the United Kingdom with the Statute of Westminster 1931, and full sovereignty was attained when the Canada Act 1982 removed the last remaining ties of legal dependence on the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, AussieLegend. I agree with other Nick, as above. Putting the Federal Government’s own web resources to one side, I have not found any literature that would validate this notion of Australia not being an independent state until 1942 and 1986 - in the way the series of qualifiers proposed for the lede would suggest. These dates and events may be relevant for an article on Australian constitutional history. I have been reading Dean Jaensch & Max Teichmann (1979) The MacMillan Dictionary of Australian Politics P66-67; Gwynneth Singleton et al (2003) Australian Political Institutions Chapter 2, esp P 30; David Hill (2015) Australia and the Monarchy, P104-5; PJ Boyce et al (1980) Dictionary of Australian Politics, P70.Nickm57 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The insertion by Westlingring is most undesirable, and in any case should have been discussed here first. Many constitution and governance experts would say that Australia is still not fully independent (head of state is a foreigner), and that independence has been coming in stages (1901, 1932, 1986, and yet to come). Probably the abolition of appeals to the privy council would count ... that was during the Whitlam govt, I think. But the wording in the article should be worked out very carefully to avoid POV. Tony(talk) 13:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
After a review of Westlingring recent edits ...the majority of the edits have been reverted do to lack of sources , understanding of the topic and odd POV's edits. -- Moxy (talk)
"Many constitution and governance experts would say that Australia is still not fully independent…" Maybe they would. But we're stuck, due to our sourcing requirements, with what has actually been said. Do we have any RS statements saying this? My opinion is that Australia's independence is important enough for the lede, as it is for Canada. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2017
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Significance of the images. Under the Politics section I have added a multiple image box of three photos representing the three branches of government, in the form of Parliament House, the Prime Minister and the Governor-General, and the High Court of Australia. (Inspiration for this comes from the government section in the United States article; but you will see the judicial branch represented in images in many other countries articles - for good reason.) The division of government in this way is fundamental civics and an essential aspect of Australia's political system. I don't think this should be controversial, but since someone reverted to delete the High Court image yesterday on the basis that "Australians wouldn't recognise the High Court", I have added a section here if there is an issue, so it can be resolved. I would add that, in my view, ignorance of a fundamental limb of government by some people is not a reason not to represent the third branch in an image here. — LawArticles (talk)05:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
There used to be an image of Kirribilli House beneath that of Parliament House but a consensus was reached that an image of the latter was enough, and so Kirribilli House was removed. I'm having difficulty finding the discussion in the archives, perhaps other editors involved can help. Also I stand by my original comment that the High Court of Australia building is unrecognisable to most Australians. It doesn't carry the iconic status associated with almost every other image here. I think the minimalist approach of the Australia article is (or was) a model for other country pages to follow. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Response to objections: Dealing with the two points that have been raised in objection to the imagebox:
Significance and use - The three branches of government is a fundamental part of Australia's system of governance. Anyone familiar with Australia's governmental system would know this. Whether or not average Australians recognise the High Court building is not material; Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. An image representing each branch is therefore appropriate, and it also allows for a useful quick visual illustration of the substance of the text concerning governmental structure. (No doubt that is why many other country articles contain images of each of their branches under their respective Government or Politics sections-for example, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, and Italy.)
Number of images - As for the number of images, having them together in the same image box reduces clutter.
"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". What this means is obviously up to interpretation, and sometimes this standard is not reached, but it's important to remember. The three branches are important, but I disagree that a juxtaposition of three buildings (regardless of aesthetic appeal) aids understanding of the article's subject matter, nor does it clarify anything in the text. I agree with HappyWaldo that less is more. CMD (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2017
This edit request to Australia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Here is the government of Australia's position on discovery (the accepted historical facts. Note: there is not a word about the Portugese. It was discovered by the Dutch.
The first records of European mariners sailing into 'Australian' waters occurs around 1606, and includes their observations of the land known as Terra Australis Incognita (unknown southern land). The first ship and crew to chart the Australian coast and meet with Aboriginal people was the Duyfken captained by Dutchman, Willem Janszoon.
Between 1606 and 1770, an estimated 54 European ships from a range of nations made contact. Many of these were merchant ships from the Dutch East Indies Company and included the ships of Abel Tasman. Tasman charted parts of the north, west and south coasts of Australia which was then known as New Holland.
In 1770, Englishman Lieutenant James Cook charted the Australian east coast in his ship HM Barque Endeavour. Cook claimed the east coast under instruction from King George III of England on 22 August 1770 at Possession Island, naming eastern Australia 'New South Wales'. The coast of Australia, featuring Tasmania as a separate island, was mapped in detail by the English mariners and navigators Bass and Flinders, and the French mariner, Baudin.
Yes - these references to retired journalist Peter Trickett's Beyond Capricorn appear from time to time on Wikipedia, and unfortunately his work is continually presented as though it's something new. It's not, it was written in 2007. There is almost universal consensus amongst academics that the Dutch were the first Europeans to sight Australia. And quite a lot has been written since Trickett by Robert J. King, Gayle K. Brunelle and others on the Dieppe Maps in particular. Nickm57 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Partly done: I removed the current text since it was sourced to a letter to the editor, but you need to provide more of a source for the volume of detail in your paragraph. Please reopen the request when you have a source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Done
Not done Opinions appear to be divided. Please continue to discuss this with the users who have engaged you here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: Presumably because no-one has written such a section, there is certainly no reason not to have such a section.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 15:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Topher385 (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)