![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I changed an opening sentence in the Demographics section from: "The Australian Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; there is no state religion" to "The Australian Constitution guarantees a limited form of the separation of church and state; there is no state religion." (Emphasis obviously not in original.)
This was challenged: "why do you say it is limited? the terms are absolute."
Separation of church and state is only partly about:
The term can have a limited meaning, which is covered by the two items above. It can also have a broader meaning, such as is found in the US, where for example if legislatures have opening prayers they cannot be limited to a certain faith (as compared to Australia, where the Lord's Prayer is the only one used to open the sessions of the federal houses of parliament). It can also have the broadest meaning, perhaps shown by countries like France where the separation extends to the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools.
Here are just a few examples of how governments in Australia engage with churches in ways that contravene the strictest notions of the separation of church and state:
Etc etc. etc.
Furthermore, the vast majority of jurists agrees that the separation clause in the Constitution is not interpreted as being a "high wall". It is a restriction only on compelling membership of a church. It was largely a result of Catholics (then a small minority compared to Anglicans) being concerned that they would be compelled to belong to the C of E. It is not about forcing the government to bow out of religious and spiritual matters, as the strict form of separation entails. A good example of that recognition was the High Court's DoGS case in the 1980s, which found with only one dissenting opinion that the clause is about preventing the creation of a state church, not about any other restriction.
Australia's is hence only a limited form of separation, so my edit was wholly and totally correct - and indeed more correct than leaving the term unqualified. As such I'm reverting to my edit, since it is demonstrably beneficial to the accuracy of the article. El T 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
church / state relationships are irrelevant to freedom of religion. freedom of religion is freedom to exercise religious belief without interferance from the state.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Xtra 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If you read the DOGS case you would notice that the judges said that the Commonwealth could only fund religious schools if done on a non-discriminatory basis. Xtra 05:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
And about the lord's prayer - it is not compulsory, and it would be more discriminatory for the parliament to not allow its recitation, as that would inhibit the freedom of religion of the vast majority of parliamentarians. (also the lord's prayer is not religion specific) Xtra 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
A more obvious question about this whole business is why on earth a discussion of rights in the Constitution is being discussed in the "Demographics" section. I'm moving that bit into "Politics" and adding some more material. El T 06:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That right to trial by jury is an interesting one. I learnt about it in constitutional law. I am not sure if there is an article on it, but one would be interesting as there has continually been a majority and minority view. The majority of the high court have said that an indictable offence is only what the Cth says is indictable, whereas the minority has said that takes the teeth out of the right and it is deeper than that. Xtra 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a summary article. Please discuss these issues in daughter articles.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
(Please don't forget to sign) As this is a feature article, I felt it necessary to revert to the last stable version. Some of what you now find in demographics are remnants of a previous much larger section which included sub-headings for "Education" and so on. That section was whittled down to its present form in the process of becoming a feature. Compare with other country articles and I'm sure you'll find similarities. And I think it's fine to mention in passing the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state when delineating religious adherence. Remember this is only a summary or overview article. We'd welcome more coverage on the separation of church and state in Australia. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Australia in fact does have a reference to non-seperation of church and state..even though the constitution may have cleverly removed "Defender of the Faith" from the queen's title, is she still the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" both in Britain and Australia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.161.16 ( talk • contribs) 06:49 14 Dec 2005 (UTC).
do they speak english or what? that article i couldn't find out.
[edit]
According to http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Australia
this should be in the article or make it more visible if it's not already in there!
focking firefox stupid search bar, I see it now, move along.
Having had dealings with Joe Lo Bianco, I would trust his information. He wrote the National Policy on Languages while engaged as a Ministerial Consultant to the Hawke government. Still no response from PM&C, so I vote we say what Joe said and cite his speech. JackofOz 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- ("a carton of tinnies" (case of canned beer)???) "Tinnies" isn't Oz slang. It's from tourism advertising campaign (featuring Paul Hogan) aired in the USA. You got the others correct.
According to the form I got when I applied for my citizenship (DIMIA 1027i), the 3rd point under "Who is eligible" states: "You are able to speak and understand basic English;". I think that pretty much mean that, at the very least, english is considered the official language for immigration purpose. -- Marc pasquin 16:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that English is our official national language, as the appropriate conventions of British Parliament were inserted into our legal system, before Federation. -- Master Spiky 10:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
During my studies of linguistics at Monash (a univerity in Melbourne, Australia) we learnt that Australia does not have an official language (that is, although it's obvious that English is the language of choice, nowhere is it written that English (or any other language) is the official language of Australia).
Nothing on IR? Why's that? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I recently was at a concert with australian contemporary music. One piece was utterly interesting and moving. It tells of the story of settlers and the hardships they had to endure. I forgot the name of the music. Anyone remember? I remember that crickets were played by violins. Anyone have a clue? They should put something like that in the culture part. It's simply a masterpiece, I am german, and I think that if there's anyone who can write more on australian contemporary music, it would be great. - 200.56.172.126
Nowadays, you're less likely to find the beer-swelling, pot-bellied, lazy Aussie drongo in every household. In actual fact, most Australians can be compared to chardonnay-sipping, culture loving intellects that are greatly against public displays of patriotism (greatly opposed to the USA).
Lol! Seriously...Sadly, I myself lack knowledge of Cont. Aus. Classical Composers, Ross Edwards, eh..I think that's probably the reason most people tend to avoid it..opting for the more well-known and superior European composers. -- Master Spiky 10:28, 30 May 2006
Why is this link here? I am dumbfounded why a link like this would stay but other links are deemed commercial and deleted?
What is the relevance of this? Wouldn't it be better to have actual Legendary Australian musicians in this article who have wrote about the Australia Way of Life?
When I think of Australia, I think of Cold Chisel, Khe Sahn.. Not Manic Street Preachers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AustralianTraveller ( talk • contribs) .
I removed this from the article;
The word "Australia" in Australian English is pronounced /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.ljə/, /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.liː.ə/ or /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.jə/.
If I knew how, i'd format the phonetics correctly - but i don't! - could someone smarter than I fix it? Thanks! Petesmiles 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Ooops - a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, I thought that these phonetics were an attempt to display the phonetic font that I'm used to seeing, such as [3] [I corrected the URI — FtC 14.11.05] - as a lay reader, i erroneously thought that these phonetics were a kind of typo. - i do find them hard to understand, but they're obviously technically correct - sorry!, my fault. The only reason I haven't put them back in myself is because I do find them a little incomprehensible, and wonder if anyone else agrees? - Petesmiles 07:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
isn't it possible to record examples of the various pronunciations and have these available? - Felix, would you have any such resources? - maybe that would be a further improvement? Petesmiles 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
In the 1980s, the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, started the process of modernising the Australian economy by floating the Australian dollar in 1983, and deregulating the financial system.[9] Since 1996, the Howard government has continued the process of micro-economic reform, including the partial deregulation of the labour market and the privatisation of state-owned businesses, most notably in the telecommunications industry.[10] Substantial reform of the indirect tax system was achieved in July 2000 with the introduction of a 10% Goods and Services Tax, which has slightly reduced the heavy reliance on personal and company income tax that still characterises Australia's tax system.
This paragraph needs to be pulled apart. I've never voted liberal in my life and even I can see the npov in this! It highlights the achievements of the labor party, omits the 'recession that australia had to have' the unemployment levels and interest rates born by Paul Keating's labor government and fails to acknowledge the achievements of the liberal government.
I'm not the right person to do it but this certainly needs to be rewritten! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Factoid Killer ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
Don't re-wriet - the para is about the deregulation of the Aust economy, and does a good job in the few words it has available. But do change 'modernisation' to 'deregulation' - modernisation is a pretty meaningless word.
PiCo
11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Re-insterted the reference to 2 major territories, which seemed important to me. A small question - apart from Jervis Bay territory, which other regions fall into this category? - pretty sure Lord Howe (for example) is just part of NSW, but wondering about other tiny islands etc. - will research myself and update here, unless someone beats me to it...... Petesmiles 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Aboriginal welfare is not genocide. Attempts to portray it as such are politically motivated. In international law the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide" defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" - so the question of INTENT is critical. At part (e) the Convention says that "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" would be genocide where the INTENT to destroy a racial or ethnic group was operative. The transfer of children that took place in Australia was for purposes of benign child welfare - only about 10% of children where removed, many were voluntarily given up to care agencies, most were of mixed race, and in many cases, there were clear dangers to the health and welfare of the child. As mentioned above, one of the first "Stolen Generation" compensation cases to go to court found that the "stolen child" was in fact rescued after being stuffed down a hole and left to die. So genocide is rescuing children from death or neglect and giving them food, shelter, education, medicine and care? The intent was care, help and protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.127.160 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2005.
cj - sorry, I posted in wrong spot - the talk archive - I deleted that misplaced post and put it here --- also, I am now signed in. I had lost my wik user name and password but now and back in business --- better than a bare IP number (even if it is static as in my case)!
To address the issue: cj, the point is "intent to destroy" just as it says plainly in international law. I do not believe you will find any evidence of "intent to destroy" with respect to Australian practices of child removal. Hardly any full blood Aboriginal children were removed. It was mixed race children and even then they were only removed in the context of a threat to their welfare or survival.
It is wrong to revise history in this way and smear the names of many compassionate people of good will who tried their best to help children they perceived to be in danger. How can we, 50 or 100 years later, judge the delicate situations they faced? If the same circumstances existed today, the same child welfare interventions would be carried out. -- Marcusvox 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
cj - The facts I allude to (and others of this nature) may be found in Wik's own sources and others. But I don't think it is up to me to "prove" that the genocide reference is inappropriate. If you want this highly politicised assertion to stand, you must demonstrate that it meets the requirements specified in international law and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide", which is the authority cited. That authority specifically says that genocide involves the "intent to destroy" - you need to show that that Australia as a nation and state was inspired by an intent to destroy the Aboriginal race. I do not think you will find any evidence of such malice, except perhaps for isolated incidents and acts of individuals. The fact that Aboriginal society declined as a result of disease and the ascendancy of European culture does not amount to genocide ... not in law and not in fact. -- Marcusvox 09:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"... the word genocide has fallen victim to 'a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist'. ... the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming 'dangerously commonplace' ... Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, agrees. 'Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood'" ... Exactly. -- Marcusvox 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are simple: it must be verifiable, it must not be original research, and we must include other views on the same topic so that a neutral point of view is reached. And no Marcus, we don't have to represent every crackpot viewpoint, but if one can name "prominent adherents", then the viewpoint can be included. [5] There are prominent adherents on both sides of this issue, and so both sides ought to be presented in the article. Whether it is truthful to say that genocide happened is irrelavent. Whether we as editors believe what people say is also irrelavent. -- bainer ( talk) 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Several issues: In the past we had a link from today's understanding to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I think that was helpful. The wording of the convention does not at all imply any malice towards individuals, only an intent to destroy a group. The sentence saying that some people consider the claims a fabrication is fair enough, but it does seem to be spending too much time on the issue in the context of the article. Most claims about genocide are controversial - does it need to be spelt out that this one is? The "decline of the indigenous population" statement is interesting, as it is true if "indigenous population" is meant to mean a community, but not so true in the modern sense that anyone with any indigenous ancestry is indigenous, and encouraged to identify as such. JPD 11:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)~I've made some changes. Personally I can't see why the forced removal of children is even being discussed as one of the main causes of indigenous population decline. IMO it is disingenuous bordering on the dishonest. Very few children who were removed died as a result of the move. Only a few thousand children were ever forcibly removed, something like 90% of those after the Aboriginal population had started to rebound. It was simply never a significant contributor to population decline and can not be justifiably included in a list of the main causes of population decline. I haven't actually deleted the entry, but I have edited it so that it no longer appears that any serious anthropolgist or historian considers this a major cause of population decline.
Personally I think that the reference should be deleted altogther, not because it is controverserial but because it is so trivial to the subject being discussed. It simply was never a major cause of population decline. By all means start another "historical controversies" section or something, but it really doesn't warrnt listing as a major cause of population decline. If someone can find a refernce to a respected anthropologist or historian who lists the removal of chilren as one of the main causes of population decline then all well and good. Until then we shouldn't make such a claim.
Other changes:
1) Forced resettlement rather than migration.
2) Cultural breakdown was important. Unfamiliar diet, discarding social traditions and taboos that allowed for survival
3) Resettlement not directly linked to death (usually), rather it was the result of unfamiliar and hence unhygienic living conditions combining with infectious diseases like cholera.
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The 2005–06 budget provides A$2.5bn for development assistance;[7] as a percentage of GDP, this contribution is less than that of the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Haven't most countries fallen short of the goals? Andjam 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that it should be noted that this is far from unusual. -- RaiderAspect 10:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a special reason why this article has its own infobox, which just uses {{
Infobox Country}} in turn, anyway? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers!
ナイトスタリオン
✉
09:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've taken a different direction which should serve the interests of those users who oppose {{
Infobox Country}} due to its inherent lots-of-code nature and of those users who're trying to standardize country articles —
SEWilco (who created the flag template) is currently looking into implementing something similar for the country infoboxes, i.e. you'll only see something like {{infobox country|Australia}} at the top of the article, and the infobox can be editted separately while still being standardized and not over-using meta-templatization. State your thoughts at
Template talk:Infobox Country, please. Thanks!
ナイトスタリオン
✉
23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
If you read the 'history' section too on quickly, you'd miss out discovering that Australia ever had a convict shipped to it. I think there needs to be a fuller account of the reasons for the British foudning of a colony, and the nature of early colonial (pre-gold rush) society. PiCo 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
that would be like leaving out the declaration of independence in the page on the USA or the mayflower. Australia only came about because of Britain setting up a penal colony in New South Wales.-- Evski 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English suggests:
Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
and
Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
[For example] Article on Uluru (Ayers Rock): Australian English usage and spelling
Andjam 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
i changed "has been" to "is believed to have been inhabited for over 40,000 years" as almost every year new scientific reports suggest Australia has been inhabitated by humans for 40, 50, 60, 20, thousand years. the number just keeps changing. also by all christian accounts, the world has only existed for 5000 years, so 40,000 years of habitation would somewhat contradict this. no im not a religious fanatic but lets keep the article neutral and full of facts. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Evski ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 December 2005 Z+11
"Although Australian voters rejected a move to become a republic in 1999 by a 55% majority,[5] Australia's links to its British past are increasingly tenuous. "
hmmm, "increasingly tenuous"..... how so? anyone have ideas on this.
i live in australia, and keep up to date with domestic and foreign affairs and havent noticed any tenuous links with britain. theres so many british immigrants, most australians dine on traditionally british meals, theres plenty of political and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries....
-- Evski 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a dynamic shift from the UK to the US, but Australia's own identity is swiftly being established. I can saftly say that the majority of australians want to shead the inaccurate image of us all being bush-bashers that speak like drongo's and drink beer all day with koala's and kangaroo's in our back yard...and this image isnt being help along with the god-awful 'Steve Irwin'... Overall, i guess the way australian culture is now, there isnt really a great need to bear the union jack on our flag...
If you know of any famous Lebanese Australians, they are being listed on the Lebanese Australian page. FYI MPS 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference to indigienous first peoples arriving "by land bridges and short sea passages" from India - there were never land bridges between Australia and India, and the sea passages are far from short. This relates to geography, not ethnology - if someone wants to put back the reference to Aboriginal Australians having the latter kind of connection with India, they're welcome, but it should be drafted in a way that makes the difference clear.
Also noticed this: "The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland..." So far as I'm aware the TI people never inhabited any of the mainland. But maybe someone with detailed knowledge can check this. PiCo 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Torres Strait Islanders occupied the islands, the adjacent coastlines on the Australian and New Guinea mainlands and much of Cape York at the time of European settlement. They were slowly expanding their range southward. This was the traditional method of invasion, beginning with the people who made it all the way to what is now Tasmania and became separated from later waves.
During Ice Ages, Bass Strait became passable, as did much of the narrow passages separating islands all the way to the mainland, with the exception of one deep ocean trench which required a not-insignificant sea crossing.
Given that mankind evolved in Africa and the first Australians essentially walked here (in a trek which must have taken thousands of years) it is hard to see how they could have avoided passing through what is now India. -- Surgeonsmate 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I recenly switched the article to footnote3 since footnote4 is no longer recommended for use. A 203. anon keeps restoring the old referencing system for no apparent reason, I'd appreciate it if people could watch out for these edits.-- nixie 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very good and very accurate article. ED jan o6
The article states the coastline length to be 25,760km; Geoscience Australia ( http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/coastlin.htm) states the mainland coastline to be 35,877km, island coastlines to add to 23,859km and the total coastline to be 59,736km. This seems a fairly basic fact for a previously featured article to get wrong, so I thought I'd check here before changing it. On what basis was the 25,760km figure chosen? -- Blinken 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of work on the White Australia Policy and have been trying to see if anyone has done something on the transportation of convict labour to Australia. Perhaps I'm just tired and can't find it. But if anyone does have some info on this it would be good to know rather than start something fresh. Harrypotter 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Please to not compare modern day australia to the ancient 'white australia policy' which has almost definatly completly turned around. a major image os australia is their multicultural society
Okay, now I know it's not perfect, but personally I think it's pretty darn good ;-). If you'll ignore the occasional edited-in corrections, and don't mind hearing a 15-year-old rant on about Australia, then everything should be good. The opening five minutes isn't very good, but I think it gets better after you get used to my voice and I start using a bit of expression.
One more thing. You will probably notice music towards the last ten minutes. This is because my mum decided to crank up the damn stereo right in the middle of my damn recording. Let me stress that this is by no means a professional job. ;_;
When I made this, I put a big emphasis on making my words loud and clear, and made as few mistakes as I could. Whenever I made a particularly obvious mistake, I went back and re-did the paragraph. This took me from about 2pm-10pm to do, so please be nice :-(.
Oh, and you might notice a bit of a wierd accent at the opening. I have no idea how this happened. It dies away after only a few minutes, so please bear with it :-). Babij 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The article says our neighbours are Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and New Zealand. What determines which countries are considered neighbours and which not? Is it distance alone? A lot of Western Australians would consider Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma (Myanmar) just as much neighbours as New Zealand. Is it about being able to get there in a straight line without going through any other countries? If so, then places like India, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Madagascar, many east African countries, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Tuvalu, Kiribati, USA (Hawaii) and many western South American nations would all qualify. In the Australian experience, neighbours are often 200 km away or more, not just 'over the back fence'. Why don't we extend this principle to our overseas neighbours? JackofOz 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I made a really crappy map with the Generic Mapping Tools and drew some really crappy circles on it around Australia. That would show that our nearest neighbours in any direction are NZ, Fiji, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, PNG, Indonesia East Timor, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Antarctica. A slightly smaller circle would leave out Malaysia, the Philippines, Fiji and NZ. I'll upload the map if anyone wants it. -- bainer ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I've been looking at the map for a few days and still can't decide what I think its implications are. Sometimes the simplest concepts require the longest amount of pondering. JackofOz 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thought it should be mentioned that New Caledonia is a French dependency, not a country, since it starts by saying "neighbouring countries include..." -- Astrokey44| talk 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
hey what is up i ma going to go to australia in a few days ii wanted to ask if any one of you know any spots
well you'll definatly want to go to queensland and tour the reef. Cairns is a good place to get some snorkling and scuba-diving done. Sydney is good if you want some basic history, australia has changing dramatically over the last 200 years, its quite remarkable. South Australa is a good place to go, the fruit yards and philip island is nice. ballartt, bendigo and eucuka are interesting towns regarding their involvment in the gold rush. appart from that, there isnt much else...
--There's wikitravel for this -- 84.249.252.211 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The current introductory paragraph states: "The current population of around 20.4 million is concentrated mainly in the large coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin.". I don't think any of the population is concentrated in Darwin - as most larger country towns even have a higher population. There is very little of the population concentrated in the NT - I think Darwin should be omitted. Davez621 14:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph censored:
Provide a source and find an appropriate location. Quite simple. Xtra 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the spoken article icon at the very top right of the article, links down to external links and not references, which is where the actual information, and links to the spoken articles are? If anyone can fix it, that'd be great, I just don't know how it's controlled... Brendanfox 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some of the early history, particularly the way Irish Catholics were treated, during the convict period. The history of Jack Duggan would be an excellent way to illustrate this.--
I have removed the two photos. On the width window I usually use, they overpower the article next to each other. They both appear on the Government of Australia article, and are unneccessary here. I think consensus is to leave them off. Please comment here before re-adding them. -- Scott Davis Talk 10:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Australis is a latinization of Spanish the word for South "Austrio". The Latin word for South is Meridionalis. So, it ows its name to the Spanish language and its condition of being a Souther continent, not to Latin because otherwise it would be called Meridionalia.-- tequendamia 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
I've made a couple of minor alterations to the flora and fauna section.
I've specified that it is only the woody vegetation that tends to be evergreen. Australian herbaceous vegetation tends to be primarily annual/ephemeral in common with arid zone flora elsehwre in the world.
I've also modified a comment which implied that all acacias and eucalypts are adpated to fire and drought. There are species in both groups that are adapted to neither, notably the rainforest and vine scrub acacia species.
I've also modified an ambiguous comment that might suggest that more species have become extinct following European arrival than vanished in the preceeding 40, 000 years. If we are going to allude to the so-called 'overkill' hypothesis at all then we should take care not to imply that the total extinction level was lower under Aborignal managemnet than European.
From the third paragraph of this article:
Since federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system and remains a Commonwealth Realm.
From the liberal democracy article:
Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.
I'm not too sure about whether that description fits Australia. Australia currently has no equivalent to a bill of rights, and while there is a little bit of talk about possibly creating one, rights and freedoms of Australians are currently being sacrificed in various pieces of new legislation. We don't actually have anything that protects free speech, although we do have sedition laws. I'm not really sure what Australia should be called (just a democracy, perhaps?) but I think it's an accepted fact that the Australian constitution doesn't really place much emphasis on the protection of rights and freedoms.
Thoughts? Suggestions? - James Foster 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If Australia is not a liberal democracy, then I am the King of Mars. Xtra 06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Australia is one of the great liberal democracies. We do not need to split hairs over definitions to recognise this. If you look at constitutions alone, perhaps the greatest of all liberal democracies was the old Soviet Union! -- Surgeonsmate 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What is Australia's famous food?
Meat Pies, and barbequed meats are also popular
Below are figures of participation at affiliated clubs (note: not schools, or social comps or sampling programs):
Schools data is as follows:
Rob van den Honert
Manager - Research, Analysis & Strategic Projects
Football Federation Australia
T +61 2 8354 5504
F +61 2 8354 5590
M 0422 200 905
E Rob.NOvandenSPAMHonertPLEASE@footballaustralia.com.au
I can't find the news article from last year that uses the Sweeney Sports data that includes social Football which highlights this even further. Will this do for now? -- Executive.koala 06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I put NO SPAM PLEASE to stop the email address from being spammed. I thought it was obvious. I notice that the people who keep removing the the football paragraph, don't leave any mention of the sport at all. We still play the game and we still qualified for the World Cup. Also, it's common knowledge that football is a far more popular participation sport than the rugby codes and Aussie Rules. What a joke that football is not even mentioned once. Great article guys. Great article. Well done! -- Executive.koala 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ek, Tancred and Xtra: do not try to continue the football argument here. I'll delete this entire section if that's how this continues. Ek, soccer didn't require its own paragraph, and that the Socceroos will compete in the World Cup is irrelevant to this article. In fact, the sports paragraph as a whole detracted from this article's summary style. Thus, I've trimmed it (with mention given to soccer).-- cj | talk 08:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
it says that more miners were irish?? I just wonder how that could be because theres only 47 known mines in ireland [ irish mining herritge] [ theres thouasands and thousands of mines in england]
thats proof england is a nation of miners,
I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Australia is the biggest football nation in the world per population. This needs to be stated. Also soccer is soccer in Australia and football is football(AFL and NRL). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomn DOGS RUN FREE ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In very simple words, Rugby League is watched, Rugby Union is played. When we say "Lets play Rugby" we mean Union. League is just Union simplified.-----
The AFL is a regional competition. Please leave arguments against this and not indiscriminate bile. I cannot see how it can be described is national when it has only a couple of franchises and a negligible presence in in half the nation where Rugby League is far and away the most popular. Mr nice guy 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This issue has drawn a lot of attention over the past 9 months or so. In The Australian newspaper, Patrick Smith, a regular columnist, writes:
Armed with these facts, it is clear that this article does not really reflect where aussie rules sits in the sporting landscape. I am not going to change anything, I will just continue copying this quote in the talk pages until the message slips under that thick tape wrapped around those cauliflower ears. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Insert non-formatted text here
![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I changed an opening sentence in the Demographics section from: "The Australian Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; there is no state religion" to "The Australian Constitution guarantees a limited form of the separation of church and state; there is no state religion." (Emphasis obviously not in original.)
This was challenged: "why do you say it is limited? the terms are absolute."
Separation of church and state is only partly about:
The term can have a limited meaning, which is covered by the two items above. It can also have a broader meaning, such as is found in the US, where for example if legislatures have opening prayers they cannot be limited to a certain faith (as compared to Australia, where the Lord's Prayer is the only one used to open the sessions of the federal houses of parliament). It can also have the broadest meaning, perhaps shown by countries like France where the separation extends to the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools.
Here are just a few examples of how governments in Australia engage with churches in ways that contravene the strictest notions of the separation of church and state:
Etc etc. etc.
Furthermore, the vast majority of jurists agrees that the separation clause in the Constitution is not interpreted as being a "high wall". It is a restriction only on compelling membership of a church. It was largely a result of Catholics (then a small minority compared to Anglicans) being concerned that they would be compelled to belong to the C of E. It is not about forcing the government to bow out of religious and spiritual matters, as the strict form of separation entails. A good example of that recognition was the High Court's DoGS case in the 1980s, which found with only one dissenting opinion that the clause is about preventing the creation of a state church, not about any other restriction.
Australia's is hence only a limited form of separation, so my edit was wholly and totally correct - and indeed more correct than leaving the term unqualified. As such I'm reverting to my edit, since it is demonstrably beneficial to the accuracy of the article. El T 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
church / state relationships are irrelevant to freedom of religion. freedom of religion is freedom to exercise religious belief without interferance from the state.
116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Xtra 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If you read the DOGS case you would notice that the judges said that the Commonwealth could only fund religious schools if done on a non-discriminatory basis. Xtra 05:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
And about the lord's prayer - it is not compulsory, and it would be more discriminatory for the parliament to not allow its recitation, as that would inhibit the freedom of religion of the vast majority of parliamentarians. (also the lord's prayer is not religion specific) Xtra 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
A more obvious question about this whole business is why on earth a discussion of rights in the Constitution is being discussed in the "Demographics" section. I'm moving that bit into "Politics" and adding some more material. El T 06:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
That right to trial by jury is an interesting one. I learnt about it in constitutional law. I am not sure if there is an article on it, but one would be interesting as there has continually been a majority and minority view. The majority of the high court have said that an indictable offence is only what the Cth says is indictable, whereas the minority has said that takes the teeth out of the right and it is deeper than that. Xtra 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a summary article. Please discuss these issues in daughter articles.-- Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
(Please don't forget to sign) As this is a feature article, I felt it necessary to revert to the last stable version. Some of what you now find in demographics are remnants of a previous much larger section which included sub-headings for "Education" and so on. That section was whittled down to its present form in the process of becoming a feature. Compare with other country articles and I'm sure you'll find similarities. And I think it's fine to mention in passing the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state when delineating religious adherence. Remember this is only a summary or overview article. We'd welcome more coverage on the separation of church and state in Australia. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Australia in fact does have a reference to non-seperation of church and state..even though the constitution may have cleverly removed "Defender of the Faith" from the queen's title, is she still the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" both in Britain and Australia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.161.16 ( talk • contribs) 06:49 14 Dec 2005 (UTC).
do they speak english or what? that article i couldn't find out.
[edit]
According to http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Australia
this should be in the article or make it more visible if it's not already in there!
focking firefox stupid search bar, I see it now, move along.
Having had dealings with Joe Lo Bianco, I would trust his information. He wrote the National Policy on Languages while engaged as a Ministerial Consultant to the Hawke government. Still no response from PM&C, so I vote we say what Joe said and cite his speech. JackofOz 02:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- ("a carton of tinnies" (case of canned beer)???) "Tinnies" isn't Oz slang. It's from tourism advertising campaign (featuring Paul Hogan) aired in the USA. You got the others correct.
According to the form I got when I applied for my citizenship (DIMIA 1027i), the 3rd point under "Who is eligible" states: "You are able to speak and understand basic English;". I think that pretty much mean that, at the very least, english is considered the official language for immigration purpose. -- Marc pasquin 16:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that English is our official national language, as the appropriate conventions of British Parliament were inserted into our legal system, before Federation. -- Master Spiky 10:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
During my studies of linguistics at Monash (a univerity in Melbourne, Australia) we learnt that Australia does not have an official language (that is, although it's obvious that English is the language of choice, nowhere is it written that English (or any other language) is the official language of Australia).
Nothing on IR? Why's that? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I recently was at a concert with australian contemporary music. One piece was utterly interesting and moving. It tells of the story of settlers and the hardships they had to endure. I forgot the name of the music. Anyone remember? I remember that crickets were played by violins. Anyone have a clue? They should put something like that in the culture part. It's simply a masterpiece, I am german, and I think that if there's anyone who can write more on australian contemporary music, it would be great. - 200.56.172.126
Nowadays, you're less likely to find the beer-swelling, pot-bellied, lazy Aussie drongo in every household. In actual fact, most Australians can be compared to chardonnay-sipping, culture loving intellects that are greatly against public displays of patriotism (greatly opposed to the USA).
Lol! Seriously...Sadly, I myself lack knowledge of Cont. Aus. Classical Composers, Ross Edwards, eh..I think that's probably the reason most people tend to avoid it..opting for the more well-known and superior European composers. -- Master Spiky 10:28, 30 May 2006
Why is this link here? I am dumbfounded why a link like this would stay but other links are deemed commercial and deleted?
What is the relevance of this? Wouldn't it be better to have actual Legendary Australian musicians in this article who have wrote about the Australia Way of Life?
When I think of Australia, I think of Cold Chisel, Khe Sahn.. Not Manic Street Preachers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AustralianTraveller ( talk • contribs) .
I removed this from the article;
The word "Australia" in Australian English is pronounced /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.ljə/, /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.liː.ə/ or /ə.ˈstɹæɪ.jə/.
If I knew how, i'd format the phonetics correctly - but i don't! - could someone smarter than I fix it? Thanks! Petesmiles 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Ooops - a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, I thought that these phonetics were an attempt to display the phonetic font that I'm used to seeing, such as [3] [I corrected the URI — FtC 14.11.05] - as a lay reader, i erroneously thought that these phonetics were a kind of typo. - i do find them hard to understand, but they're obviously technically correct - sorry!, my fault. The only reason I haven't put them back in myself is because I do find them a little incomprehensible, and wonder if anyone else agrees? - Petesmiles 07:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
isn't it possible to record examples of the various pronunciations and have these available? - Felix, would you have any such resources? - maybe that would be a further improvement? Petesmiles 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
In the 1980s, the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, started the process of modernising the Australian economy by floating the Australian dollar in 1983, and deregulating the financial system.[9] Since 1996, the Howard government has continued the process of micro-economic reform, including the partial deregulation of the labour market and the privatisation of state-owned businesses, most notably in the telecommunications industry.[10] Substantial reform of the indirect tax system was achieved in July 2000 with the introduction of a 10% Goods and Services Tax, which has slightly reduced the heavy reliance on personal and company income tax that still characterises Australia's tax system.
This paragraph needs to be pulled apart. I've never voted liberal in my life and even I can see the npov in this! It highlights the achievements of the labor party, omits the 'recession that australia had to have' the unemployment levels and interest rates born by Paul Keating's labor government and fails to acknowledge the achievements of the liberal government.
I'm not the right person to do it but this certainly needs to be rewritten! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Factoid Killer ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
Don't re-wriet - the para is about the deregulation of the Aust economy, and does a good job in the few words it has available. But do change 'modernisation' to 'deregulation' - modernisation is a pretty meaningless word.
PiCo
11:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Re-insterted the reference to 2 major territories, which seemed important to me. A small question - apart from Jervis Bay territory, which other regions fall into this category? - pretty sure Lord Howe (for example) is just part of NSW, but wondering about other tiny islands etc. - will research myself and update here, unless someone beats me to it...... Petesmiles 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Aboriginal welfare is not genocide. Attempts to portray it as such are politically motivated. In international law the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide" defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" - so the question of INTENT is critical. At part (e) the Convention says that "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" would be genocide where the INTENT to destroy a racial or ethnic group was operative. The transfer of children that took place in Australia was for purposes of benign child welfare - only about 10% of children where removed, many were voluntarily given up to care agencies, most were of mixed race, and in many cases, there were clear dangers to the health and welfare of the child. As mentioned above, one of the first "Stolen Generation" compensation cases to go to court found that the "stolen child" was in fact rescued after being stuffed down a hole and left to die. So genocide is rescuing children from death or neglect and giving them food, shelter, education, medicine and care? The intent was care, help and protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.127.160 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 November 2005.
cj - sorry, I posted in wrong spot - the talk archive - I deleted that misplaced post and put it here --- also, I am now signed in. I had lost my wik user name and password but now and back in business --- better than a bare IP number (even if it is static as in my case)!
To address the issue: cj, the point is "intent to destroy" just as it says plainly in international law. I do not believe you will find any evidence of "intent to destroy" with respect to Australian practices of child removal. Hardly any full blood Aboriginal children were removed. It was mixed race children and even then they were only removed in the context of a threat to their welfare or survival.
It is wrong to revise history in this way and smear the names of many compassionate people of good will who tried their best to help children they perceived to be in danger. How can we, 50 or 100 years later, judge the delicate situations they faced? If the same circumstances existed today, the same child welfare interventions would be carried out. -- Marcusvox 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
cj - The facts I allude to (and others of this nature) may be found in Wik's own sources and others. But I don't think it is up to me to "prove" that the genocide reference is inappropriate. If you want this highly politicised assertion to stand, you must demonstrate that it meets the requirements specified in international law and the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide", which is the authority cited. That authority specifically says that genocide involves the "intent to destroy" - you need to show that that Australia as a nation and state was inspired by an intent to destroy the Aboriginal race. I do not think you will find any evidence of such malice, except perhaps for isolated incidents and acts of individuals. The fact that Aboriginal society declined as a result of disease and the ascendancy of European culture does not amount to genocide ... not in law and not in fact. -- Marcusvox 09:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"... the word genocide has fallen victim to 'a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist'. ... the term has progressively lost its initial meaning and is becoming 'dangerously commonplace' ... Michael Ignatieff, director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University, agrees. 'Those who should use the word genocide never let it slip their mouths. Those who unfortunately do use it, banalise it into a validation of every kind of victimhood'" ... Exactly. -- Marcusvox 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia are simple: it must be verifiable, it must not be original research, and we must include other views on the same topic so that a neutral point of view is reached. And no Marcus, we don't have to represent every crackpot viewpoint, but if one can name "prominent adherents", then the viewpoint can be included. [5] There are prominent adherents on both sides of this issue, and so both sides ought to be presented in the article. Whether it is truthful to say that genocide happened is irrelavent. Whether we as editors believe what people say is also irrelavent. -- bainer ( talk) 13:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Several issues: In the past we had a link from today's understanding to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I think that was helpful. The wording of the convention does not at all imply any malice towards individuals, only an intent to destroy a group. The sentence saying that some people consider the claims a fabrication is fair enough, but it does seem to be spending too much time on the issue in the context of the article. Most claims about genocide are controversial - does it need to be spelt out that this one is? The "decline of the indigenous population" statement is interesting, as it is true if "indigenous population" is meant to mean a community, but not so true in the modern sense that anyone with any indigenous ancestry is indigenous, and encouraged to identify as such. JPD 11:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)~I've made some changes. Personally I can't see why the forced removal of children is even being discussed as one of the main causes of indigenous population decline. IMO it is disingenuous bordering on the dishonest. Very few children who were removed died as a result of the move. Only a few thousand children were ever forcibly removed, something like 90% of those after the Aboriginal population had started to rebound. It was simply never a significant contributor to population decline and can not be justifiably included in a list of the main causes of population decline. I haven't actually deleted the entry, but I have edited it so that it no longer appears that any serious anthropolgist or historian considers this a major cause of population decline.
Personally I think that the reference should be deleted altogther, not because it is controverserial but because it is so trivial to the subject being discussed. It simply was never a major cause of population decline. By all means start another "historical controversies" section or something, but it really doesn't warrnt listing as a major cause of population decline. If someone can find a refernce to a respected anthropologist or historian who lists the removal of chilren as one of the main causes of population decline then all well and good. Until then we shouldn't make such a claim.
Other changes:
1) Forced resettlement rather than migration.
2) Cultural breakdown was important. Unfamiliar diet, discarding social traditions and taboos that allowed for survival
3) Resettlement not directly linked to death (usually), rather it was the result of unfamiliar and hence unhygienic living conditions combining with infectious diseases like cholera.
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The 2005–06 budget provides A$2.5bn for development assistance;[7] as a percentage of GDP, this contribution is less than that of the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Haven't most countries fallen short of the goals? Andjam 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that it should be noted that this is far from unusual. -- RaiderAspect 10:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a special reason why this article has its own infobox, which just uses {{
Infobox Country}} in turn, anyway? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers!
ナイトスタリオン
✉
09:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've taken a different direction which should serve the interests of those users who oppose {{
Infobox Country}} due to its inherent lots-of-code nature and of those users who're trying to standardize country articles —
SEWilco (who created the flag template) is currently looking into implementing something similar for the country infoboxes, i.e. you'll only see something like {{infobox country|Australia}} at the top of the article, and the infobox can be editted separately while still being standardized and not over-using meta-templatization. State your thoughts at
Template talk:Infobox Country, please. Thanks!
ナイトスタリオン
✉
23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
If you read the 'history' section too on quickly, you'd miss out discovering that Australia ever had a convict shipped to it. I think there needs to be a fuller account of the reasons for the British foudning of a colony, and the nature of early colonial (pre-gold rush) society. PiCo 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
that would be like leaving out the declaration of independence in the page on the USA or the mayflower. Australia only came about because of Britain setting up a penal colony in New South Wales.-- Evski 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English suggests:
Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
and
Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
[For example] Article on Uluru (Ayers Rock): Australian English usage and spelling
Andjam 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
i changed "has been" to "is believed to have been inhabited for over 40,000 years" as almost every year new scientific reports suggest Australia has been inhabitated by humans for 40, 50, 60, 20, thousand years. the number just keeps changing. also by all christian accounts, the world has only existed for 5000 years, so 40,000 years of habitation would somewhat contradict this. no im not a religious fanatic but lets keep the article neutral and full of facts. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Evski ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 December 2005 Z+11
"Although Australian voters rejected a move to become a republic in 1999 by a 55% majority,[5] Australia's links to its British past are increasingly tenuous. "
hmmm, "increasingly tenuous"..... how so? anyone have ideas on this.
i live in australia, and keep up to date with domestic and foreign affairs and havent noticed any tenuous links with britain. theres so many british immigrants, most australians dine on traditionally british meals, theres plenty of political and diplomatic cooperation between the two countries....
-- Evski 04:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a dynamic shift from the UK to the US, but Australia's own identity is swiftly being established. I can saftly say that the majority of australians want to shead the inaccurate image of us all being bush-bashers that speak like drongo's and drink beer all day with koala's and kangaroo's in our back yard...and this image isnt being help along with the god-awful 'Steve Irwin'... Overall, i guess the way australian culture is now, there isnt really a great need to bear the union jack on our flag...
If you know of any famous Lebanese Australians, they are being listed on the Lebanese Australian page. FYI MPS 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference to indigienous first peoples arriving "by land bridges and short sea passages" from India - there were never land bridges between Australia and India, and the sea passages are far from short. This relates to geography, not ethnology - if someone wants to put back the reference to Aboriginal Australians having the latter kind of connection with India, they're welcome, but it should be drafted in a way that makes the difference clear.
Also noticed this: "The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland..." So far as I'm aware the TI people never inhabited any of the mainland. But maybe someone with detailed knowledge can check this. PiCo 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Torres Strait Islanders occupied the islands, the adjacent coastlines on the Australian and New Guinea mainlands and much of Cape York at the time of European settlement. They were slowly expanding their range southward. This was the traditional method of invasion, beginning with the people who made it all the way to what is now Tasmania and became separated from later waves.
During Ice Ages, Bass Strait became passable, as did much of the narrow passages separating islands all the way to the mainland, with the exception of one deep ocean trench which required a not-insignificant sea crossing.
Given that mankind evolved in Africa and the first Australians essentially walked here (in a trek which must have taken thousands of years) it is hard to see how they could have avoided passing through what is now India. -- Surgeonsmate 09:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I recenly switched the article to footnote3 since footnote4 is no longer recommended for use. A 203. anon keeps restoring the old referencing system for no apparent reason, I'd appreciate it if people could watch out for these edits.-- nixie 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very good and very accurate article. ED jan o6
The article states the coastline length to be 25,760km; Geoscience Australia ( http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/coastlin.htm) states the mainland coastline to be 35,877km, island coastlines to add to 23,859km and the total coastline to be 59,736km. This seems a fairly basic fact for a previously featured article to get wrong, so I thought I'd check here before changing it. On what basis was the 25,760km figure chosen? -- Blinken 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of work on the White Australia Policy and have been trying to see if anyone has done something on the transportation of convict labour to Australia. Perhaps I'm just tired and can't find it. But if anyone does have some info on this it would be good to know rather than start something fresh. Harrypotter 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Please to not compare modern day australia to the ancient 'white australia policy' which has almost definatly completly turned around. a major image os australia is their multicultural society
Okay, now I know it's not perfect, but personally I think it's pretty darn good ;-). If you'll ignore the occasional edited-in corrections, and don't mind hearing a 15-year-old rant on about Australia, then everything should be good. The opening five minutes isn't very good, but I think it gets better after you get used to my voice and I start using a bit of expression.
One more thing. You will probably notice music towards the last ten minutes. This is because my mum decided to crank up the damn stereo right in the middle of my damn recording. Let me stress that this is by no means a professional job. ;_;
When I made this, I put a big emphasis on making my words loud and clear, and made as few mistakes as I could. Whenever I made a particularly obvious mistake, I went back and re-did the paragraph. This took me from about 2pm-10pm to do, so please be nice :-(.
Oh, and you might notice a bit of a wierd accent at the opening. I have no idea how this happened. It dies away after only a few minutes, so please bear with it :-). Babij 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The article says our neighbours are Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and New Zealand. What determines which countries are considered neighbours and which not? Is it distance alone? A lot of Western Australians would consider Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Burma (Myanmar) just as much neighbours as New Zealand. Is it about being able to get there in a straight line without going through any other countries? If so, then places like India, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Madagascar, many east African countries, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Tuvalu, Kiribati, USA (Hawaii) and many western South American nations would all qualify. In the Australian experience, neighbours are often 200 km away or more, not just 'over the back fence'. Why don't we extend this principle to our overseas neighbours? JackofOz 20:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I made a really crappy map with the Generic Mapping Tools and drew some really crappy circles on it around Australia. That would show that our nearest neighbours in any direction are NZ, Fiji, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, PNG, Indonesia East Timor, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Antarctica. A slightly smaller circle would leave out Malaysia, the Philippines, Fiji and NZ. I'll upload the map if anyone wants it. -- bainer ( talk) 02:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I've been looking at the map for a few days and still can't decide what I think its implications are. Sometimes the simplest concepts require the longest amount of pondering. JackofOz 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thought it should be mentioned that New Caledonia is a French dependency, not a country, since it starts by saying "neighbouring countries include..." -- Astrokey44| talk 12:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
hey what is up i ma going to go to australia in a few days ii wanted to ask if any one of you know any spots
well you'll definatly want to go to queensland and tour the reef. Cairns is a good place to get some snorkling and scuba-diving done. Sydney is good if you want some basic history, australia has changing dramatically over the last 200 years, its quite remarkable. South Australa is a good place to go, the fruit yards and philip island is nice. ballartt, bendigo and eucuka are interesting towns regarding their involvment in the gold rush. appart from that, there isnt much else...
--There's wikitravel for this -- 84.249.252.211 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The current introductory paragraph states: "The current population of around 20.4 million is concentrated mainly in the large coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin.". I don't think any of the population is concentrated in Darwin - as most larger country towns even have a higher population. There is very little of the population concentrated in the NT - I think Darwin should be omitted. Davez621 14:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph censored:
Provide a source and find an appropriate location. Quite simple. Xtra 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the spoken article icon at the very top right of the article, links down to external links and not references, which is where the actual information, and links to the spoken articles are? If anyone can fix it, that'd be great, I just don't know how it's controlled... Brendanfox 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some of the early history, particularly the way Irish Catholics were treated, during the convict period. The history of Jack Duggan would be an excellent way to illustrate this.--
I have removed the two photos. On the width window I usually use, they overpower the article next to each other. They both appear on the Government of Australia article, and are unneccessary here. I think consensus is to leave them off. Please comment here before re-adding them. -- Scott Davis Talk 10:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Australis is a latinization of Spanish the word for South "Austrio". The Latin word for South is Meridionalis. So, it ows its name to the Spanish language and its condition of being a Souther continent, not to Latin because otherwise it would be called Meridionalia.-- tequendamia 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
I've made a couple of minor alterations to the flora and fauna section.
I've specified that it is only the woody vegetation that tends to be evergreen. Australian herbaceous vegetation tends to be primarily annual/ephemeral in common with arid zone flora elsehwre in the world.
I've also modified a comment which implied that all acacias and eucalypts are adpated to fire and drought. There are species in both groups that are adapted to neither, notably the rainforest and vine scrub acacia species.
I've also modified an ambiguous comment that might suggest that more species have become extinct following European arrival than vanished in the preceeding 40, 000 years. If we are going to allude to the so-called 'overkill' hypothesis at all then we should take care not to imply that the total extinction level was lower under Aborignal managemnet than European.
From the third paragraph of this article:
Since federation, Australia has maintained a stable liberal democratic political system and remains a Commonwealth Realm.
From the liberal democracy article:
Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.
I'm not too sure about whether that description fits Australia. Australia currently has no equivalent to a bill of rights, and while there is a little bit of talk about possibly creating one, rights and freedoms of Australians are currently being sacrificed in various pieces of new legislation. We don't actually have anything that protects free speech, although we do have sedition laws. I'm not really sure what Australia should be called (just a democracy, perhaps?) but I think it's an accepted fact that the Australian constitution doesn't really place much emphasis on the protection of rights and freedoms.
Thoughts? Suggestions? - James Foster 20:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If Australia is not a liberal democracy, then I am the King of Mars. Xtra 06:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Australia is one of the great liberal democracies. We do not need to split hairs over definitions to recognise this. If you look at constitutions alone, perhaps the greatest of all liberal democracies was the old Soviet Union! -- Surgeonsmate 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What is Australia's famous food?
Meat Pies, and barbequed meats are also popular
Below are figures of participation at affiliated clubs (note: not schools, or social comps or sampling programs):
Schools data is as follows:
Rob van den Honert
Manager - Research, Analysis & Strategic Projects
Football Federation Australia
T +61 2 8354 5504
F +61 2 8354 5590
M 0422 200 905
E Rob.NOvandenSPAMHonertPLEASE@footballaustralia.com.au
I can't find the news article from last year that uses the Sweeney Sports data that includes social Football which highlights this even further. Will this do for now? -- Executive.koala 06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I put NO SPAM PLEASE to stop the email address from being spammed. I thought it was obvious. I notice that the people who keep removing the the football paragraph, don't leave any mention of the sport at all. We still play the game and we still qualified for the World Cup. Also, it's common knowledge that football is a far more popular participation sport than the rugby codes and Aussie Rules. What a joke that football is not even mentioned once. Great article guys. Great article. Well done! -- Executive.koala 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ek, Tancred and Xtra: do not try to continue the football argument here. I'll delete this entire section if that's how this continues. Ek, soccer didn't require its own paragraph, and that the Socceroos will compete in the World Cup is irrelevant to this article. In fact, the sports paragraph as a whole detracted from this article's summary style. Thus, I've trimmed it (with mention given to soccer).-- cj | talk 08:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
it says that more miners were irish?? I just wonder how that could be because theres only 47 known mines in ireland [ irish mining herritge] [ theres thouasands and thousands of mines in england]
thats proof england is a nation of miners,
I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Australia is the biggest football nation in the world per population. This needs to be stated. Also soccer is soccer in Australia and football is football(AFL and NRL). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomn DOGS RUN FREE ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In very simple words, Rugby League is watched, Rugby Union is played. When we say "Lets play Rugby" we mean Union. League is just Union simplified.-----
The AFL is a regional competition. Please leave arguments against this and not indiscriminate bile. I cannot see how it can be described is national when it has only a couple of franchises and a negligible presence in in half the nation where Rugby League is far and away the most popular. Mr nice guy 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This issue has drawn a lot of attention over the past 9 months or so. In The Australian newspaper, Patrick Smith, a regular columnist, writes:
Armed with these facts, it is clear that this article does not really reflect where aussie rules sits in the sporting landscape. I am not going to change anything, I will just continue copying this quote in the talk pages until the message slips under that thick tape wrapped around those cauliflower ears. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Insert non-formatted text here