![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Someone should add in that Australia is ranked the third most desirable country to live in a United Nations report. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikunit ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Nationals Party is a major party. They are a minor party, who form government with a major party. I haven't changed this. Mickpower 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article. I see only one facet upon which Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) do not have an "authoritative leg up." Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). (Also see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....this article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .
origanly the indian ocean was called Arseotopia ocean but got change in year 1742 by captain john yorknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ally-nightmare ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add an internal link to oceania, or something else that australia is a member of is our region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANZUS ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipeda is an online encyclopedia that must have an absolutely huge number of contested territory disputes within much smaller areas. So I propose that we do not under any circumstances accept one view over the other (short of good primary sources to determine one view over the other) - but make sure both versions are in a centralised separate article where both sides of the claims are adequately sourced from primary source materials not second (ie CIA fact book and atlases are not primary sources but potentially unreliable secondary sources) - which means bass straight, tasmania no longer have arguments about whether they are in the indian ocean - either on their article space or talk space - but simply see also/redirects to an article specifically that outlines the historical dimensions of the ocean that lies between terra sutralis and the south pole. Anything else would lessen the value of wikipedia in my view - tacky modifications to smaller local articles that are not to do with either internationaly or nationally designated spaces (oceans or otherwise)by treaty or law - simply reduces the quality of the articles.
So anyone Australia and the Southern Ocean - a good thorough cited outline of the issues? Not forgetting the problem of accepting secondary sources and dated material Satu Suro 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I'm going to give an opinion, because Australia is my country.
I am offended by the inclusion of the photo of the Japanese solidier about to behead an Australian soldier. It happened. It did indeed! So have a lot of other absolutely ghastly things and brutal things in the history of the world. The photo appears to convey courageous resignation of behalf of the Australian solidier. Other than that, it says nothing about Austrlians, except to remind us alll that we do like to cling to our prejudices, don't we? And this effectively feeds them, doesn't it?
I want it removed.
NOTE: This is not about censorship. This is about suitability. Things need to suit the context and the requirements of the user. There are many images of Australia and Australians that are more pertinient than this. Amandajm 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Also on the choice of Photos, the Photos of Australia are still not very attractive, especially compared to the photos chosen for articles on our major cities. Our tourism industry gain $117 Million dollars a year more at least if this article was more attractive, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.142.62 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606 <
If I understand correctly an ancient roman latin text carved into stone has recently been found on northern australian shore. It says XY on his ship QZ has suffered shipwreck there. They were enroute from Red Sea port to India, a usual journey done yearly at the height of Roman Empire to trade chinese goods. They were swept away by unusual monsoon winds and ended up in Australia after some months. Of course they could never return, so it may not count as a discovery, but it is still amazing how far mankind has gotten even in antiquity! 91.83.20.91 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit comment noted that "Australia has islands in the Southern Ocean no matter what your conception of it". Which islands are they? I saw Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but they are at about 53 degrees south. A quick scan of the list at List of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands didn't reveal any islands claimed by Australia. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that according to the numbers listed, Australia gained over 1.2 million people from 2006 to 2007, an increase of over 6 percent in one year! That seems very rapid, possibly inaccurate. By comparison the United States only gained two million in the same period.
The Demography of Australia page list different numbers than those listed here. Angry Aspie 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed pre-1900 data that the source at http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm admits does not include Aborigines; it looks like 1896 is the first year which does include the aboriginal population, though the text implies its 1901.
If another editor prefers to include that data and copy the note, that would be fine by me, though I think it's rather silly to reproduce a population claim of 2,100 for an island with a population of some 300,000.
RandomP 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Has been removed as it is simply false. The majority of Australians are NOT of British or Irish origin.
Well false or not did it require removing in the way you did? I feel it's always better to edit something false so as to make it true rather than to delete it outright. The majority of Australians might not be of British or Irish origin but those of British or Irish origin certainly make up the biggest ethnic demographic. Why cant you write that instead? Ryan Albrey ( talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Table 1. Top Four Ancestry responses for the 2006 and 2001 Censuses Ancestry
Ancestry | 2006 | 2001 |
---|---|---|
Australian [1] | 7 371 823 | 6 739 594 |
English | 6 283 647 | 6 358 880 |
Irish | 1 803 736 | 1 919 727 |
Scottish | 1 501 200 | 540 046 |
ZwickauDeluxe ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The following information may be of interest:
Since 2000 Australia has made substantial gains in median household income. Australia, along with New Zealand, were not affected by the the early 2000s recession that impacted upon most other advanced countries. The combination of high growth in Australia, along with negative growth in United States [1], has allowed Australia to close the income gap. As of 2006, Australia's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United states.
Period | 2006 Median household income (PPP US$) | Average household size | Real growth (%) | Growth performance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 2000-2006 | $48,200 [3] | 2.6 people [4] | - 2.0 [1] | Disappointing |
New Zealand | 2000-2007 | $39,937 [2] | 2.7 people [5] | +24.2 [3] [4] | Good |
Australia | 2001-2006 | $38,420 [5] | 2.6 people [6] | +13.2 [6] [7] | Good |
For more information about median household income in Australia follow the link.
Cheers
Badenoch 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly Australia has posted impressive economic growth over the past 5+ years. But the figures you've quoted are not very useful:
1. A per capita figure (GDP, PPP) would be a more accurate measure of economic performance.
2. The 2006 US figure is an estimate, which you failed to note.
3. Any time frame that is so short while including the 9/11 attacks (and aftermath) in the US represents a skewed picture of economic performance. As such, I don't think it's an appropriate comparison. Perhaps a comparison of Australia with West European economies (GB, France, Germany) would be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 ( talk) 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel that these figures may not be correct. According to an article I read recently, the average salary in Australia is now around AUS$48,000 per annum. It would be very rare indeed to find someone on a salary as low as $38,000 per annum unless they were unskilled and working in a very low paying job, worked in a factory or had a part-time position. Most employees in Australia are well educated with white collar positions. What sets us apart is that the cost of living here is still very good. Everybody complains that Sydney is expensive but in comparison to exorbitant cities, like Paris, London, Dublin and New York, it is not overly priced and still maintains its fantastic quality of life. Low paying positions monopolised by unskilled peoples (who are often migrants with little or no English) are offset by Government pensions and rebates which assist those people classified within the lower socioeconomic scales. In regard to quality of life, there are an infinite range of factors to take into consideration other than the amount people are paid. The costs of housing, food, clothing, education, health and the generosity of its government in relation to welfare and its ability to deal with crime, are just some considerations. KathyBoots; 4.47 pm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KathyBoots (
talk •
contribs)
05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.
Here is the link:
What is the official language of Australia? English - Yes - But which English, British or American...? I'd expect British, but they write words like "Labor" without the "u"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.159.2 ( talk) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Australian English PookeyMaster ( talk) 11:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the "English" spoken in Australia is absolutely unique. The term "strine" was used to describe the nation's quirky idiom. This is reinforced by the hundreds of "translation" books published to provide the English-speaking tourists from the US, Canada and the UK a reference source from which to understand the local transliteration. The Australian penchant for abbreviations such as "cossie" for costumes, "mossie" for mosquito or "brekky: for breakfast, is firmly entrenched, however, it is unfortunate that the wonderful, entertaining Aussie phrases are slowly dying out. With the increasing Americanisation of our local television, it is rather regrettable that the colourful slang used by the First World War generation of Australians (as well as the parents of the Baby Boomers) is slowly being phased out and overwhelmed by the Americanised global slang of the Y Generation. KathyBoots; 4:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, most Australians I know, including myself, definitely spell it colour, labour, favourite, etc. I believe the 'labor' you're referring to is to do with some political party spelling that was based off the American system for some quirky reason. It is NOT the common spelling of labour. - A random 210.215.140.180 ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As of 10 pm the 24th of November, 2007, John Howard is replaced as Prime Minister by Kevin Rudd. Unless Howard manages to get another 30 seats and about 8 of the certain labor seats are recounted, it will not be possible for him to be PM for the next Term. I wrote this so someone could update the article seeing as its locked PookeyMaster ( talk) 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we run into this problem in Canada as well whenever an election results in a change of government. The Canadian contingent has found that the most effective solution available to us is to list both the outgoing and incoming leaders in the relevant infoboxes and navboxes during the transition period — but the incoming leader is noted as "Prime Minister-designate" (or "Premier-designate"), since we obviously have the same problem with "-elect". We do still occasionally have editors who'll revert that one way or the other, but it becomes much less frequent and more manageable. Bearcat ( talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've written up a draft policy or guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome, regarding how to minimize this type of edit warring. I'd like to invite any interested editors to come offer some input. Bearcat ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who read this in the future, there's been quite an amount of debate about "Prime Minister-elect" vs. "Prime Minister-designate" at
Talk:Prime Minister of Australia, and "PM-elect" is the clear consensus. There's also a new article
Prime Minister-elect. --
JackofOz
14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to the apparently incessant revert warring, I have fully protected this article temporarily, so the involved parties can sort out on this talk page the 'incumbent' question/who to list as current PM. - Mark 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would of edited it myself, but since it's protected for whatever reason, I can't. Kevin Rudd just won the election, hence Prime Minister "John Howard" would change to Prime Minister "Kevin Rudd". 58.168.127.168 ( talk) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
When you click on the dates next to the population figures it links to the united states census, which isn't relevant. I'd change this myself but the page is protected.-- Towerdefence ( talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a substantial amount of edit-waring and confusion over the correct denotation of the prime minister of Australia, both on this page and also most of the other pages with reference to the position. It seems to be largely fuelled by unregistered new editors enthusiastically coming along and attempting to update the pages with reference to the recent elections (i.e. changing the current prime minister from Mr Howard to Mr Rudd). As it appears to me that there is a fairly sound consensus to stick with current wikipedia precedent - to wait until the prime minister delegate is officially instated before updating wikipedia - I suggest that this page and all others of similar nature should be either
Comments? (To be honest I have just gotten back from a 6 month break from editing wikipedia. This is why I'm not actually tagging/protecting the articles myself.) Jason McConnell-Leech ( talk) 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the Australia article seems to be the only article on one of the Commonwealth realms that doesn't include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Can this be added to bring this article into line with all other articles on Commonwealth realms? Signsolid 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why should it have limited, if any bearing on this article? Australia is a Commonwealth realm just like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize etc... yet all these have the Royal Anthem mentioned in their info boxes because all of them are Commonwealth realms, just as Australia is. I think it's quite obvious to all that saying what happens on other articles bears little on this article is really an excuse for anti-monarchists to remove mention of the Royal Anthem from the info box and so in some deluded way think they are seriously making people think Australia is a republic or as close to it as they possibly can. Australia is a monarchy whether it's liked or not and I remind editors whom it may concern that Wikipedia is strictly for stating the facts only, not making the world seem how you might like it to be. Signsolid 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't decided who is right or wrong, but can you both use the article's edit summary boxes to summarise what you did in the edit, rather use the edit summary to discuss the content? Otherwise it's hard to follow the article's History page to see what changes have been made. Discussion is better here in the talk page, as it lets others join in. Thanks, Lester 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no other discussion on the subject and only one editor seems to be rejecting including the Royal Anthem. It would appear most editors on Wikipedia favour including the Royal Anthem as they have on the articles on Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Bahamas etc... These no real excuse not to include the Royal Anthem as it is an official anthem of Australia and all other articles on Commonwealth realms have included it. It's not for editors to pick and choose what's official about a country or not and there only seems to be one editor rejecting the official Royal Anthem here. Signsolid 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me add one more voice that disagrees with Signsolid. This article is not for Australians, be they Republicans or Monarchists, to push their own ideological agenda. It is to provide information about Australia to Wikipedia users, the majority of which are unlikely to be Australians. To suggest to those that would have no way of knowing any better, that GSTQ is as important to Australians as Advance Australia Fair would be misleading in the extreme. Official this and official that be damned. Ryan Albrey 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly Signsolid has not read past debates on this page. The lack of comments is probably because most editors are bored with this topic being continually raised against the page consensus. Whatever the "official" status of the anthem, the reality is it is so rarely used as to place it in the infobox would be misleading as to its status and a clear case of giving it undue weight. -- Michael Johnson 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
request -- Sigmundur ( talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Australia is a
Federal monarchy, not a
Constitutional Monarchy. Quote from the
Sydney Morning Herald:
The Crown is not an Australian institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir, Afternoon Light. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution.
Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy. We have a monarch at the moment, but it's not constitutionally demanded.
Lester
00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution"
This is totally incorrect. The office of monarch is defined in the Australian Constitution. The Australian Parliament and people regulate the governance of Australia and no other authority. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quite correct! The Australian Parliament can also alter the Act of Succession in relation to the Australian Crown should it wish to do so. In fact the abdication of Edward VIII was not legal in Australia until the passing of necessary legislation by the Australian Parliament. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked at Federal monarchy article, and frankly it looks like original research. In 35 years of involvement in the Australian political process I have never heard anybody describe Australia as a "federal monarchy" before this article. Can anyone provide any source that supports the use of this term, and indicate that it is more than the product of the fertile imagination of some Wikipedian? -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect ' federal monarchy' is a Wikipedian invention. The article has an original research tag, and provides not one reference for use of the term. It has been introduced into Monarchy of Australia and I've raised the issue at the talk page.-- Gazzster ( talk) 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
King Wiston has changed constitutional monarchy to Federal constitutional monarchy several times now. I looked at the Federal constitutional monarchy article which states "A federal monarchy is a federation of monarchies under one single monarch, retaining a federal structure, and the status of the monarchs of the constituent states." It seems to relate to a group of states with different monarchs. Australia has a group of states but they've all had the same monarch so I don't see how this relates to Australia. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Australia is of course a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state! All elements are mentioned quite clearly in the Australian constitution. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Australia is ...... why not use its actual Constitutional status as defined by its own Law ?
The preamble to the Australia Acts 1986 clearly states that the purpose of the Act is to bring Australias Constitutional arrangements into conformity with Australias status as a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .'
Australia is ...... a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .
It is also a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy which are descriptions of its operating procedures . It is a Commonwealth realm which means no more than it happens to be one of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations that acknowledges a particular person as its ( titular ) Head of State . Australia is very often described as the ' Land Down Under ' and the ' Wide Brown Land ' .
But the international status of Australia is ' Sovereign , Independent and Federal Nation.
If you doubt the above check the Australia Acts - UK & CTH and the request and consent Acts of all the States of the Commonwealth - NSW , QLD ,WA ,SA , VIC and Tasmania .
Lejon ( talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"The removal of children from their families, which some historians and Indigenous Australians have argued could be considered to constitute genocide by some definitions,[13] may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population. Such interpretations of Aboriginal history are disputed by some commentators as being exaggerated or fabricated for political or ideological reasons.[14]"
I think this section is a bit bizarre. It sounds like two people arguing more than a coherent statement on both the historical facts and contemporary opinions on the stolen generation. Given the touchy nature of this topic I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Bold is really the best approach.
At this point something like -
"The removal of children from their families (known in Australia as the Stolen Generation) may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population, However questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[13][14]
might be a little better
Part of me thinks this might be a little bias towards the side of the debate that "plays down" the stolen generation but I think it's a start.-- Jabberwalkee ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a comment about "the stolen generation". Much is spoken and written about this topic but it should be noted that DURING THE TIME such children were removed from their families, the churches or institutions removing these children firmly believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing the right thing. Many of the aboriginal children were seen to be living in abject squalor and poverty. Unfortunately, such institutions were making judgements on conditions of life based on their own cultures and standards. They saw these young children from a western perpective: living in terrible conditions, without education, no chance of a good future (through THEIR eyes). Whilst the actual deed of removing the aboriginal children from their families could be argued to be misguided, the actual INTENTIONS of those people responsible for their removal was one of concern and benevolence. The removal of aboriginal children was not done in malice or vengeance, the motives were typical of the times, ie patriachal intervention through misguided concern. Its also important to mention that Aboriginal children were not the only ones removed, there were thousands of white English children removed to Australia during the war and suffered the same fate and hardships (along with unfortunate incidences of abuse in awful institutions) that some aboriginal children suffered. Even in these enlightened times, there was, only last year, recent controversy about the removal of aboriginal children from communities where alcoholism, petrol-sniffing and sexual abuse was endemic. The suggestion was made by a very concerned female aboriginal elder! In my opinion, aboriginals are extremely talented, artistic and clever and it is regrettable that, on the whole, they don't look FORWARD and relinquish the past. The current generation of white Australians cannot be responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. Move on and go FORWARD - you (aboriginal communities) have so much to offer the world! You have some fantastic role models who show your youth the enormous capacity of aboriginal achievements. Don't dwell on past deeds and misunderstandings; it only embitters life and life is too short to waste time on needless regrets. Don't mourn what you cannot change. Spend all your energies on the aboriginal youth of today. By harping about past hardships, it fosters any feelings of worthlessness, despair and anguish they may feel! Instead, talk about POSITIVE things. Talk about the FUTURE! Give them hope for a great future and provide them with all the encouragement, education and love they deserve. KathyBoots; 5.19 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kathy Boots, I wasn't aware that the 1970's was over 100 years ago but apparently I stand corrected. Soundabuser ( talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I find the suggestion that it was genocide as offensive and disrespectful to actual victims of genocide such as Holocaust survivors. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.161.69.31 (
talk)
03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article missing so many Infoboxes? What about the Commonwealth, WTO, OECD, APEC and such? + Hexagon1 ( t) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Australia have socialized medicine like England or france? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.9.131 ( talk) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Going on from what Aucitypops has;,make that every 1st world country, except, of course in the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.79.84 ( talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the terrible slagging the Australian national health system gets in the media, recent studies have shown (what I have always believed) that we have one of the best and fairest health systems in the world. Unlike America (where only the very wealthy can afford any length of stay in hospital), the Australian citizen has the right to the best level of medical treatment in the world whether or not they can afford it. "Socialisation" may be an American term used by its politicians, but our system (along with the outstanding systems in France and England) are the envy of the world. A country's standard of living is judged by the egalitarian systems of health and education and by the way it treats its women, children and the poor. The only level lacking in terms of our health system is the Federal Government's complete inadequacy of funding towards medical research. This country is a world leader in medical research and we are losing a lot of our medical geniuses overseas. KathyBoots; 4.32 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if it is often a political term, the word "Socialism" does apply to a universal healthcare system. Don't jump on people for using a certain term, which by definition is correct. 69.245.80.218 ( talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Before we get into an edit war lets hash it out here first. We need to gain a consensus.
Here is what I found:
On a personal note: I always used to prefer the use of spaced en dashes, but whenever I was reading a book or newspaper (published in Australia or the UK) those publications seemed to have a preference for spaced em dashes. Could we use spaced en dashes rather than the "unsightly" unspaced em dashes? – Axman ( ☏) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash...
````I friggin' love this place. thank you to everyone that contributed to this article.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.38.128 ( talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there some places where the serial comma is required and other places where it's not?
Where the serial comma is separating groups within a series. – Marco 79 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE USE AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH THROUGHOUT, i.e., use centre not center, neighbour not neighbor, and maximise the use of -is- rather than -iz-. Other style: the serial comma is established in this article as default usage; and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash (see WP:MOS). Maintain consistency of style, suppressing personal preferences.
The Oxford Style Manual, 2002, Chapter 5, section 5.3 Comma:
For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain [the serial comma] consistently, [...] but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. [...] Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer. (pp. 121–122)
(reset indent) My first thought is that your response was somewhat of an over-reaction. My point was that use of the serial comma is being taught the same way now as it was 40 years ago so there is a consistency, despite your insistence to the contrary. I have as little confidence in your anecdotes as you apparently have in mine. Now, where does that get us? As for your quote, I'd like to see the whole section to get an idea of the context. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Most British and Australian style guides also discourage use of the serial comma in simple lists, allowing it only "when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase" (Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers).
As this seems to have stalled, the only Australian reference we have suggests use of serial/oxford commas is not the preferred style. Any Australian references that contradict this? Otherwise I suggest this article be fixed. NathanLee ( talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool question! Wikipedia is an international undertaiking. So in the English-speaking site, what variant of English should prevail? Australian?American? South African? Jamaican? Irish? Scottish? Working class Melbournian? Do we write homogenise or homogenize; program or programme; tomato sauce or ketchup; jam or jelly? Surely the question has been dealt with before.-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Hervey Bay image is going to be put back as it is the gateway to Fraser Island and The Fastest growing city in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The demographics section states that "64% of Australians call themselves Christian: 26% identifying themselves as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican". It is not clear to me if 26% of all Australians call themselves Catholic, or if, of the 64% of Australian Christians 26% call themselves Catholic (so that only 16.6% of all Australians are Catholic). Someone who knows where this stat came from should clearify. Thanks, Dkriegls ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to change the Government Type in this article's Infobox to " Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The current description is " Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy". Reasons:
-- thirty-seven ( talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.201.184 ( talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
AFAIR, Australia's motto is "Advance Australia" isn't this right, and shouldn't it go under "Anthem" on the right side ? Thanks. DaveDodgy ( talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Australia has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of Australia, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius ( talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind ( India, Brazil, Belize etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on Australia with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ ( talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank heavens I found this dialogue on the Talk:Australia page. I couldn't for the life of me understand why, when i looked at the map where Australia is in relation to the world's continents and major political boundaries, why an extraordinarily important place like Kosovo, which holds such vital visual relevance to Australia's position within the Pacific and globally, wasn't included in bold in the map. At least now i can rest assured that someone is going to steps to remedy this ghastly oversight, for heavens sake what is the matter with you Australians? HelloMojo ( talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, as I am new to this editing stuff, but I just wanted to bring to attention the vandalism under the related topics table on the Australia page. I'd happily have removed it myself but as I say I am new to this. Lemonmeringuepie ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of who ever that Queensland's education ages are not listed. Queenlands education starts at the age of 6 (grade 1) and finishes at the age of 17 (grade 12), with the option of leaving at age 15 (grade 10). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.89.69 ( talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish to know the names and addresses of Austrialian newspapers, particularly those mainly concerned about religion.
Manuel Borda email address <redacted> 78.133.49.7 ( talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
ta soeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.31.89 ( talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alle Schulen in Australien sind kagge :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.40.26 ( talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Administrator
(1) I changed and insert some images to improve the article of Australia. I noticed some images were reversed back, which seems a bit disingenuous to replace it with a poorer quality, less pretty photo that illustrates less credibility. Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:Ruckwork.jpg obviously give viewers of the free encyclopedia a better and clearer quality images and express the description of the images accordingly.
(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.
(3) Image:Ayers Rock-view from 50k.jpg reflects Australia natural beauty and wonders. Ayers Rock is typically one of Australia’s icons. Image:MelbCBD.jpg represents the second largest city in Australia. I see these images fundamentally support the article’s narration of Australia and do not believe this is too much images, which will destruct the readers. I am the author of some of these images but don't want to tread on people's toes and appear self-serving.
In the meantime, I insert these images again to enhance the article and any comments are welcome.
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Images in the article of Australia
(1) The said comment; “ Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG does not show the urban nature better”, cannot be substantiated by the fact. Please specify where Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not related directly to the article and does not show the urban nature better comparing to the Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg.
(2) It seems unnecessary and unimportant discussion might be brought here. Which photo and whose photo is not important. Please just click the images to find out the answers (the image author) to the question.
(3) It may be a bit bias if a comment on whether an image is informative or relevance to the article only based on a single context in the narration of the image.
(3.1) Ayers Rock is located in Northern Territory, which is mentioned in the article of Australia and also illustrated by the Australia map within the article. (3.2) Uluru is the name of the Ayers Rock from Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal culture is of a significant influence in Australia, especially in Arts. (3.3) Furthermore, the topic of Aborigines forms as an important part in the article of Australia. There are more implied expressions of the image, but the above points are sufficient to clarify the discussion.
(4) There is no argument that we don’t need images for every city and an article is not a gallery, but Melbourne is the 2nd largest city in Australia (e.g. some top large manufacturing industries and corporate headquarters are allocated in Melbourne). Again, please specify where Image:MelbCBD.jpg does not meet the main criteria and what is the main criteria? -- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is going no where, simply repeating itself. Donaldtong, my advice is not to push overally hard for your own images - some people might think you are not being completely objective. If the case for their inclusion was clear, then you wouldn't need to write so much in attempt to convince people. Each of your posts are very long and people don't read such long posts. regards --
Merbabu (
talk)
13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jeffery is no longer Australia's GG. Quentin Bryce is the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.181 ( talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Australias obesity epidemic is not mentioned.Is this not a case of biased reporting because of worry over damaging a widely held view that Aussies are sporty? Chastity678 ( talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
While reading this article I saw something about a "gaol". I was going to fix it but could not for the life of me figure out what they meant. Does anyone know what a "gaol" is intended to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 ( talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Someone should add in that Australia is ranked the third most desirable country to live in a United Nations report. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikunit ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the Nationals Party is a major party. They are a minor party, who form government with a major party. I haven't changed this. Mickpower 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article. I see only one facet upon which Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) do not have an "authoritative leg up." Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO). (Also see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....this article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .
origanly the indian ocean was called Arseotopia ocean but got change in year 1742 by captain john yorknay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ally-nightmare ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add an internal link to oceania, or something else that australia is a member of is our region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANZUS ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipeda is an online encyclopedia that must have an absolutely huge number of contested territory disputes within much smaller areas. So I propose that we do not under any circumstances accept one view over the other (short of good primary sources to determine one view over the other) - but make sure both versions are in a centralised separate article where both sides of the claims are adequately sourced from primary source materials not second (ie CIA fact book and atlases are not primary sources but potentially unreliable secondary sources) - which means bass straight, tasmania no longer have arguments about whether they are in the indian ocean - either on their article space or talk space - but simply see also/redirects to an article specifically that outlines the historical dimensions of the ocean that lies between terra sutralis and the south pole. Anything else would lessen the value of wikipedia in my view - tacky modifications to smaller local articles that are not to do with either internationaly or nationally designated spaces (oceans or otherwise)by treaty or law - simply reduces the quality of the articles.
So anyone Australia and the Southern Ocean - a good thorough cited outline of the issues? Not forgetting the problem of accepting secondary sources and dated material Satu Suro 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I'm going to give an opinion, because Australia is my country.
I am offended by the inclusion of the photo of the Japanese solidier about to behead an Australian soldier. It happened. It did indeed! So have a lot of other absolutely ghastly things and brutal things in the history of the world. The photo appears to convey courageous resignation of behalf of the Australian solidier. Other than that, it says nothing about Austrlians, except to remind us alll that we do like to cling to our prejudices, don't we? And this effectively feeds them, doesn't it?
I want it removed.
NOTE: This is not about censorship. This is about suitability. Things need to suit the context and the requirements of the user. There are many images of Australia and Australians that are more pertinient than this. Amandajm 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Also on the choice of Photos, the Photos of Australia are still not very attractive, especially compared to the photos chosen for articles on our major cities. Our tourism industry gain $117 Million dollars a year more at least if this article was more attractive, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.142.62 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606 <
If I understand correctly an ancient roman latin text carved into stone has recently been found on northern australian shore. It says XY on his ship QZ has suffered shipwreck there. They were enroute from Red Sea port to India, a usual journey done yearly at the height of Roman Empire to trade chinese goods. They were swept away by unusual monsoon winds and ended up in Australia after some months. Of course they could never return, so it may not count as a discovery, but it is still amazing how far mankind has gotten even in antiquity! 91.83.20.91 19:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A recent edit comment noted that "Australia has islands in the Southern Ocean no matter what your conception of it". Which islands are they? I saw Heard Island and McDonald Islands, but they are at about 53 degrees south. A quick scan of the list at List of Antarctic and sub-Antarctic islands didn't reveal any islands claimed by Australia. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that according to the numbers listed, Australia gained over 1.2 million people from 2006 to 2007, an increase of over 6 percent in one year! That seems very rapid, possibly inaccurate. By comparison the United States only gained two million in the same period.
The Demography of Australia page list different numbers than those listed here. Angry Aspie 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed pre-1900 data that the source at http://populstat.info/Oceania/australc.htm admits does not include Aborigines; it looks like 1896 is the first year which does include the aboriginal population, though the text implies its 1901.
If another editor prefers to include that data and copy the note, that would be fine by me, though I think it's rather silly to reproduce a population claim of 2,100 for an island with a population of some 300,000.
RandomP 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Has been removed as it is simply false. The majority of Australians are NOT of British or Irish origin.
Well false or not did it require removing in the way you did? I feel it's always better to edit something false so as to make it true rather than to delete it outright. The majority of Australians might not be of British or Irish origin but those of British or Irish origin certainly make up the biggest ethnic demographic. Why cant you write that instead? Ryan Albrey ( talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Table 1. Top Four Ancestry responses for the 2006 and 2001 Censuses Ancestry
Ancestry | 2006 | 2001 |
---|---|---|
Australian [1] | 7 371 823 | 6 739 594 |
English | 6 283 647 | 6 358 880 |
Irish | 1 803 736 | 1 919 727 |
Scottish | 1 501 200 | 540 046 |
ZwickauDeluxe ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The following information may be of interest:
Since 2000 Australia has made substantial gains in median household income. Australia, along with New Zealand, were not affected by the the early 2000s recession that impacted upon most other advanced countries. The combination of high growth in Australia, along with negative growth in United States [1], has allowed Australia to close the income gap. As of 2006, Australia's median household income (PPP) was only 20% less than in the United states.
Period | 2006 Median household income (PPP US$) | Average household size | Real growth (%) | Growth performance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA | 2000-2006 | $48,200 [3] | 2.6 people [4] | - 2.0 [1] | Disappointing |
New Zealand | 2000-2007 | $39,937 [2] | 2.7 people [5] | +24.2 [3] [4] | Good |
Australia | 2001-2006 | $38,420 [5] | 2.6 people [6] | +13.2 [6] [7] | Good |
For more information about median household income in Australia follow the link.
Cheers
Badenoch 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly Australia has posted impressive economic growth over the past 5+ years. But the figures you've quoted are not very useful:
1. A per capita figure (GDP, PPP) would be a more accurate measure of economic performance.
2. The 2006 US figure is an estimate, which you failed to note.
3. Any time frame that is so short while including the 9/11 attacks (and aftermath) in the US represents a skewed picture of economic performance. As such, I don't think it's an appropriate comparison. Perhaps a comparison of Australia with West European economies (GB, France, Germany) would be more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.120.129 ( talk) 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel that these figures may not be correct. According to an article I read recently, the average salary in Australia is now around AUS$48,000 per annum. It would be very rare indeed to find someone on a salary as low as $38,000 per annum unless they were unskilled and working in a very low paying job, worked in a factory or had a part-time position. Most employees in Australia are well educated with white collar positions. What sets us apart is that the cost of living here is still very good. Everybody complains that Sydney is expensive but in comparison to exorbitant cities, like Paris, London, Dublin and New York, it is not overly priced and still maintains its fantastic quality of life. Low paying positions monopolised by unskilled peoples (who are often migrants with little or no English) are offset by Government pensions and rebates which assist those people classified within the lower socioeconomic scales. In regard to quality of life, there are an infinite range of factors to take into consideration other than the amount people are paid. The costs of housing, food, clothing, education, health and the generosity of its government in relation to welfare and its ability to deal with crime, are just some considerations. KathyBoots; 4.47 pm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
KathyBoots (
talk •
contribs)
05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that this link should be added to the external links section. It will provide this article will personal opinions and stories specifically relating to the subject. This will add a more personnel outlet if the viewer feels inclined to follow the link.
Here is the link:
What is the official language of Australia? English - Yes - But which English, British or American...? I'd expect British, but they write words like "Labor" without the "u"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.159.2 ( talk) 00:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Australian English PookeyMaster ( talk) 11:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the "English" spoken in Australia is absolutely unique. The term "strine" was used to describe the nation's quirky idiom. This is reinforced by the hundreds of "translation" books published to provide the English-speaking tourists from the US, Canada and the UK a reference source from which to understand the local transliteration. The Australian penchant for abbreviations such as "cossie" for costumes, "mossie" for mosquito or "brekky: for breakfast, is firmly entrenched, however, it is unfortunate that the wonderful, entertaining Aussie phrases are slowly dying out. With the increasing Americanisation of our local television, it is rather regrettable that the colourful slang used by the First World War generation of Australians (as well as the parents of the Baby Boomers) is slowly being phased out and overwhelmed by the Americanised global slang of the Y Generation. KathyBoots; 4:07 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, most Australians I know, including myself, definitely spell it colour, labour, favourite, etc. I believe the 'labor' you're referring to is to do with some political party spelling that was based off the American system for some quirky reason. It is NOT the common spelling of labour. - A random 210.215.140.180 ( talk) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As of 10 pm the 24th of November, 2007, John Howard is replaced as Prime Minister by Kevin Rudd. Unless Howard manages to get another 30 seats and about 8 of the certain labor seats are recounted, it will not be possible for him to be PM for the next Term. I wrote this so someone could update the article seeing as its locked PookeyMaster ( talk) 11:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we run into this problem in Canada as well whenever an election results in a change of government. The Canadian contingent has found that the most effective solution available to us is to list both the outgoing and incoming leaders in the relevant infoboxes and navboxes during the transition period — but the incoming leader is noted as "Prime Minister-designate" (or "Premier-designate"), since we obviously have the same problem with "-elect". We do still occasionally have editors who'll revert that one way or the other, but it becomes much less frequent and more manageable. Bearcat ( talk) 16:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've written up a draft policy or guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Post-election edit war syndrome, regarding how to minimize this type of edit warring. I'd like to invite any interested editors to come offer some input. Bearcat ( talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who read this in the future, there's been quite an amount of debate about "Prime Minister-elect" vs. "Prime Minister-designate" at
Talk:Prime Minister of Australia, and "PM-elect" is the clear consensus. There's also a new article
Prime Minister-elect. --
JackofOz
14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to the apparently incessant revert warring, I have fully protected this article temporarily, so the involved parties can sort out on this talk page the 'incumbent' question/who to list as current PM. - Mark 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would of edited it myself, but since it's protected for whatever reason, I can't. Kevin Rudd just won the election, hence Prime Minister "John Howard" would change to Prime Minister "Kevin Rudd". 58.168.127.168 ( talk) 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
When you click on the dates next to the population figures it links to the united states census, which isn't relevant. I'd change this myself but the page is protected.-- Towerdefence ( talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a substantial amount of edit-waring and confusion over the correct denotation of the prime minister of Australia, both on this page and also most of the other pages with reference to the position. It seems to be largely fuelled by unregistered new editors enthusiastically coming along and attempting to update the pages with reference to the recent elections (i.e. changing the current prime minister from Mr Howard to Mr Rudd). As it appears to me that there is a fairly sound consensus to stick with current wikipedia precedent - to wait until the prime minister delegate is officially instated before updating wikipedia - I suggest that this page and all others of similar nature should be either
Comments? (To be honest I have just gotten back from a 6 month break from editing wikipedia. This is why I'm not actually tagging/protecting the articles myself.) Jason McConnell-Leech ( talk) 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the Australia article seems to be the only article on one of the Commonwealth realms that doesn't include the Royal Anthem in its info box. Can this be added to bring this article into line with all other articles on Commonwealth realms? Signsolid 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why should it have limited, if any bearing on this article? Australia is a Commonwealth realm just like Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize etc... yet all these have the Royal Anthem mentioned in their info boxes because all of them are Commonwealth realms, just as Australia is. I think it's quite obvious to all that saying what happens on other articles bears little on this article is really an excuse for anti-monarchists to remove mention of the Royal Anthem from the info box and so in some deluded way think they are seriously making people think Australia is a republic or as close to it as they possibly can. Australia is a monarchy whether it's liked or not and I remind editors whom it may concern that Wikipedia is strictly for stating the facts only, not making the world seem how you might like it to be. Signsolid 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't decided who is right or wrong, but can you both use the article's edit summary boxes to summarise what you did in the edit, rather use the edit summary to discuss the content? Otherwise it's hard to follow the article's History page to see what changes have been made. Discussion is better here in the talk page, as it lets others join in. Thanks, Lester 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no other discussion on the subject and only one editor seems to be rejecting including the Royal Anthem. It would appear most editors on Wikipedia favour including the Royal Anthem as they have on the articles on Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Belize, Bahamas etc... These no real excuse not to include the Royal Anthem as it is an official anthem of Australia and all other articles on Commonwealth realms have included it. It's not for editors to pick and choose what's official about a country or not and there only seems to be one editor rejecting the official Royal Anthem here. Signsolid 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me add one more voice that disagrees with Signsolid. This article is not for Australians, be they Republicans or Monarchists, to push their own ideological agenda. It is to provide information about Australia to Wikipedia users, the majority of which are unlikely to be Australians. To suggest to those that would have no way of knowing any better, that GSTQ is as important to Australians as Advance Australia Fair would be misleading in the extreme. Official this and official that be damned. Ryan Albrey 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly Signsolid has not read past debates on this page. The lack of comments is probably because most editors are bored with this topic being continually raised against the page consensus. Whatever the "official" status of the anthem, the reality is it is so rarely used as to place it in the infobox would be misleading as to its status and a clear case of giving it undue weight. -- Michael Johnson 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
request -- Sigmundur ( talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Australia is a
Federal monarchy, not a
Constitutional Monarchy. Quote from the
Sydney Morning Herald:
The Crown is not an Australian institution, as even Sir Robert Menzies acknowledged in his memoir, Afternoon Light. Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution.
Because the constitution does not state we are a monarchy, then we are a Federal Monarchy. We have a monarch at the moment, but it's not constitutionally demanded.
Lester
00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"Under present constitutional arrangements we have as our head of state whoever is the head of state of the United Kingdom. If Britain itself were to become a republic, its president would be our head of state, unless and until we amend our constitution"
This is totally incorrect. The office of monarch is defined in the Australian Constitution. The Australian Parliament and people regulate the governance of Australia and no other authority. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You are quite correct! The Australian Parliament can also alter the Act of Succession in relation to the Australian Crown should it wish to do so. In fact the abdication of Edward VIII was not legal in Australia until the passing of necessary legislation by the Australian Parliament. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just looked at Federal monarchy article, and frankly it looks like original research. In 35 years of involvement in the Australian political process I have never heard anybody describe Australia as a "federal monarchy" before this article. Can anyone provide any source that supports the use of this term, and indicate that it is more than the product of the fertile imagination of some Wikipedian? -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect ' federal monarchy' is a Wikipedian invention. The article has an original research tag, and provides not one reference for use of the term. It has been introduced into Monarchy of Australia and I've raised the issue at the talk page.-- Gazzster ( talk) 09:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
King Wiston has changed constitutional monarchy to Federal constitutional monarchy several times now. I looked at the Federal constitutional monarchy article which states "A federal monarchy is a federation of monarchies under one single monarch, retaining a federal structure, and the status of the monarchs of the constituent states." It seems to relate to a group of states with different monarchs. Australia has a group of states but they've all had the same monarch so I don't see how this relates to Australia. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Australia is of course a federal constitutional monarchical parliamentary state! All elements are mentioned quite clearly in the Australian constitution. Finneganw 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Australia is ...... why not use its actual Constitutional status as defined by its own Law ?
The preamble to the Australia Acts 1986 clearly states that the purpose of the Act is to bring Australias Constitutional arrangements into conformity with Australias status as a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .'
Australia is ...... a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation .
It is also a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy which are descriptions of its operating procedures . It is a Commonwealth realm which means no more than it happens to be one of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations that acknowledges a particular person as its ( titular ) Head of State . Australia is very often described as the ' Land Down Under ' and the ' Wide Brown Land ' .
But the international status of Australia is ' Sovereign , Independent and Federal Nation.
If you doubt the above check the Australia Acts - UK & CTH and the request and consent Acts of all the States of the Commonwealth - NSW , QLD ,WA ,SA , VIC and Tasmania .
Lejon ( talk) 10:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"The removal of children from their families, which some historians and Indigenous Australians have argued could be considered to constitute genocide by some definitions,[13] may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population. Such interpretations of Aboriginal history are disputed by some commentators as being exaggerated or fabricated for political or ideological reasons.[14]"
I think this section is a bit bizarre. It sounds like two people arguing more than a coherent statement on both the historical facts and contemporary opinions on the stolen generation. Given the touchy nature of this topic I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Bold is really the best approach.
At this point something like -
"The removal of children from their families (known in Australia as the Stolen Generation) may have contributed to the decline in the indigenous population, However questions regarding whether the Stolen Generation actually occurred or to what scale it occurred, remain controversial topics within Australian political discourse.[13][14]
might be a little better
Part of me thinks this might be a little bias towards the side of the debate that "plays down" the stolen generation but I think it's a start.-- Jabberwalkee ( talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a comment about "the stolen generation". Much is spoken and written about this topic but it should be noted that DURING THE TIME such children were removed from their families, the churches or institutions removing these children firmly believed (rightly or wrongly) that they were doing the right thing. Many of the aboriginal children were seen to be living in abject squalor and poverty. Unfortunately, such institutions were making judgements on conditions of life based on their own cultures and standards. They saw these young children from a western perpective: living in terrible conditions, without education, no chance of a good future (through THEIR eyes). Whilst the actual deed of removing the aboriginal children from their families could be argued to be misguided, the actual INTENTIONS of those people responsible for their removal was one of concern and benevolence. The removal of aboriginal children was not done in malice or vengeance, the motives were typical of the times, ie patriachal intervention through misguided concern. Its also important to mention that Aboriginal children were not the only ones removed, there were thousands of white English children removed to Australia during the war and suffered the same fate and hardships (along with unfortunate incidences of abuse in awful institutions) that some aboriginal children suffered. Even in these enlightened times, there was, only last year, recent controversy about the removal of aboriginal children from communities where alcoholism, petrol-sniffing and sexual abuse was endemic. The suggestion was made by a very concerned female aboriginal elder! In my opinion, aboriginals are extremely talented, artistic and clever and it is regrettable that, on the whole, they don't look FORWARD and relinquish the past. The current generation of white Australians cannot be responsible for what happened over 100 years ago. Move on and go FORWARD - you (aboriginal communities) have so much to offer the world! You have some fantastic role models who show your youth the enormous capacity of aboriginal achievements. Don't dwell on past deeds and misunderstandings; it only embitters life and life is too short to waste time on needless regrets. Don't mourn what you cannot change. Spend all your energies on the aboriginal youth of today. By harping about past hardships, it fosters any feelings of worthlessness, despair and anguish they may feel! Instead, talk about POSITIVE things. Talk about the FUTURE! Give them hope for a great future and provide them with all the encouragement, education and love they deserve. KathyBoots; 5.19 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Kathy Boots, I wasn't aware that the 1970's was over 100 years ago but apparently I stand corrected. Soundabuser ( talk) 07:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I find the suggestion that it was genocide as offensive and disrespectful to actual victims of genocide such as Holocaust survivors. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.161.69.31 (
talk)
03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this article missing so many Infoboxes? What about the Commonwealth, WTO, OECD, APEC and such? + Hexagon1 ( t) 11:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Australia have socialized medicine like England or france? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.9.131 ( talk) 03:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Going on from what Aucitypops has;,make that every 1st world country, except, of course in the states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.79.84 ( talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite the terrible slagging the Australian national health system gets in the media, recent studies have shown (what I have always believed) that we have one of the best and fairest health systems in the world. Unlike America (where only the very wealthy can afford any length of stay in hospital), the Australian citizen has the right to the best level of medical treatment in the world whether or not they can afford it. "Socialisation" may be an American term used by its politicians, but our system (along with the outstanding systems in France and England) are the envy of the world. A country's standard of living is judged by the egalitarian systems of health and education and by the way it treats its women, children and the poor. The only level lacking in terms of our health system is the Federal Government's complete inadequacy of funding towards medical research. This country is a world leader in medical research and we are losing a lot of our medical geniuses overseas. KathyBoots; 4.32 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if it is often a political term, the word "Socialism" does apply to a universal healthcare system. Don't jump on people for using a certain term, which by definition is correct. 69.245.80.218 ( talk) 08:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Before we get into an edit war lets hash it out here first. We need to gain a consensus.
Here is what I found:
On a personal note: I always used to prefer the use of spaced en dashes, but whenever I was reading a book or newspaper (published in Australia or the UK) those publications seemed to have a preference for spaced em dashes. Could we use spaced en dashes rather than the "unsightly" unspaced em dashes? – Axman ( ☏) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash...
````I friggin' love this place. thank you to everyone that contributed to this article.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.38.128 ( talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Aren't there some places where the serial comma is required and other places where it's not?
Where the serial comma is separating groups within a series. – Marco 79 00:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE USE AUSTRALIAN ENGLISH THROUGHOUT, i.e., use centre not center, neighbour not neighbor, and maximise the use of -is- rather than -iz-. Other style: the serial comma is established in this article as default usage; and the dash style is unspaced em dash (in accord with current AGPS Style Manual), not spaced em dash or spaced en dash (see WP:MOS). Maintain consistency of style, suppressing personal preferences.
The Oxford Style Manual, 2002, Chapter 5, section 5.3 Comma:
For a century it has been part of OUP style to retain [the serial comma] consistently, [...] but it is commonly used by many other publishers both here and abroad, and forms a routine part of style in US and Canadian English. [...] Given that the final comma is sometimes necessary to prevent ambiguity, it is logical to impose it uniformly, so as to obviate the need to pause and gauge each enumeration on the likelihood of its being misunderstood – especially since that likelihood is often more obvious to the reader than the writer. (pp. 121–122)
(reset indent) My first thought is that your response was somewhat of an over-reaction. My point was that use of the serial comma is being taught the same way now as it was 40 years ago so there is a consistency, despite your insistence to the contrary. I have as little confidence in your anecdotes as you apparently have in mine. Now, where does that get us? As for your quote, I'd like to see the whole section to get an idea of the context. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Most British and Australian style guides also discourage use of the serial comma in simple lists, allowing it only "when its omission might either give rise to ambiguity or cause the last word or phrase to be construed with a preposition in the preceding phrase" (Australian Government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers).
As this seems to have stalled, the only Australian reference we have suggests use of serial/oxford commas is not the preferred style. Any Australian references that contradict this? Otherwise I suggest this article be fixed. NathanLee ( talk) 09:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool question! Wikipedia is an international undertaiking. So in the English-speaking site, what variant of English should prevail? Australian?American? South African? Jamaican? Irish? Scottish? Working class Melbournian? Do we write homogenise or homogenize; program or programme; tomato sauce or ketchup; jam or jelly? Surely the question has been dealt with before.-- Gazzster ( talk) 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Hervey Bay image is going to be put back as it is the gateway to Fraser Island and The Fastest growing city in Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.Wadsworth ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The demographics section states that "64% of Australians call themselves Christian: 26% identifying themselves as Roman Catholic and 19% as Anglican". It is not clear to me if 26% of all Australians call themselves Catholic, or if, of the 64% of Australian Christians 26% call themselves Catholic (so that only 16.6% of all Australians are Catholic). Someone who knows where this stat came from should clearify. Thanks, Dkriegls ( talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to change the Government Type in this article's Infobox to " Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy". The current description is " Parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy". Reasons:
-- thirty-seven ( talk) 16:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.201.184 ( talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
AFAIR, Australia's motto is "Advance Australia" isn't this right, and shouldn't it go under "Anthem" on the right side ? Thanks. DaveDodgy ( talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Australia has accepted Kosovo independence. Could you please change the map of Australia, including the independent Kosovo? Bardhylius ( talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind ( India, Brazil, Belize etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on Australia with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ ( talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank heavens I found this dialogue on the Talk:Australia page. I couldn't for the life of me understand why, when i looked at the map where Australia is in relation to the world's continents and major political boundaries, why an extraordinarily important place like Kosovo, which holds such vital visual relevance to Australia's position within the Pacific and globally, wasn't included in bold in the map. At least now i can rest assured that someone is going to steps to remedy this ghastly oversight, for heavens sake what is the matter with you Australians? HelloMojo ( talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is in the wrong place, as I am new to this editing stuff, but I just wanted to bring to attention the vandalism under the related topics table on the Australia page. I'd happily have removed it myself but as I say I am new to this. Lemonmeringuepie ( talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to bring to the attention of who ever that Queensland's education ages are not listed. Queenlands education starts at the age of 6 (grade 1) and finishes at the age of 17 (grade 12), with the option of leaving at age 15 (grade 10). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.89.69 ( talk) 11:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I wish to know the names and addresses of Austrialian newspapers, particularly those mainly concerned about religion.
Manuel Borda email address <redacted> 78.133.49.7 ( talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
ta soeur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.160.31.89 ( talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alle Schulen in Australien sind kagge :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.96.40.26 ( talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Administrator
(1) I changed and insert some images to improve the article of Australia. I noticed some images were reversed back, which seems a bit disingenuous to replace it with a poorer quality, less pretty photo that illustrates less credibility. Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG and Image:Ruckwork.jpg obviously give viewers of the free encyclopedia a better and clearer quality images and express the description of the images accordingly.
(2) Wikipedia – How to improve image quality indicates that Whenever images are included in Wikipedia, it makes a big difference if they look good. When they do, an article appears more professional and is more pleasant to read. When they look amateurish, the article looks amateurish.
(3) Image:Ayers Rock-view from 50k.jpg reflects Australia natural beauty and wonders. Ayers Rock is typically one of Australia’s icons. Image:MelbCBD.jpg represents the second largest city in Australia. I see these images fundamentally support the article’s narration of Australia and do not believe this is too much images, which will destruct the readers. I am the author of some of these images but don't want to tread on people's toes and appear self-serving.
In the meantime, I insert these images again to enhance the article and any comments are welcome.
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 12:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Images in the article of Australia
(1) The said comment; “ Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG does not show the urban nature better”, cannot be substantiated by the fact. Please specify where Image:Sydney Harbour Bridge from the air.JPG is not related directly to the article and does not show the urban nature better comparing to the Image:PortJackson 2004 SeanMcClean.jpg.
(2) It seems unnecessary and unimportant discussion might be brought here. Which photo and whose photo is not important. Please just click the images to find out the answers (the image author) to the question.
(3) It may be a bit bias if a comment on whether an image is informative or relevance to the article only based on a single context in the narration of the image.
(3.1) Ayers Rock is located in Northern Territory, which is mentioned in the article of Australia and also illustrated by the Australia map within the article. (3.2) Uluru is the name of the Ayers Rock from Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal culture is of a significant influence in Australia, especially in Arts. (3.3) Furthermore, the topic of Aborigines forms as an important part in the article of Australia. There are more implied expressions of the image, but the above points are sufficient to clarify the discussion.
(4) There is no argument that we don’t need images for every city and an article is not a gallery, but Melbourne is the 2nd largest city in Australia (e.g. some top large manufacturing industries and corporate headquarters are allocated in Melbourne). Again, please specify where Image:MelbCBD.jpg does not meet the main criteria and what is the main criteria? -- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
-- Donaldtong ( talk) 13:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is going no where, simply repeating itself. Donaldtong, my advice is not to push overally hard for your own images - some people might think you are not being completely objective. If the case for their inclusion was clear, then you wouldn't need to write so much in attempt to convince people. Each of your posts are very long and people don't read such long posts. regards --
Merbabu (
talk)
13:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael Jeffery is no longer Australia's GG. Quentin Bryce is the new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.181 ( talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Australias obesity epidemic is not mentioned.Is this not a case of biased reporting because of worry over damaging a widely held view that Aussies are sporty? Chastity678 ( talk) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
While reading this article I saw something about a "gaol". I was going to fix it but could not for the life of me figure out what they meant. Does anyone know what a "gaol" is intended to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 ( talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)