Talk:Australia/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Added sub-section, link and excerpt to climate change in Australia

I have just added a link to climate change in Australia by using the excerpt function. User:Moxy, you are saying this is not recommended for FA articles? I didn't know that, is that documented somewhere. I have only started using the excerpt function recently, on advice by User:Sadads. Haven't seen anything about FA articles in that respect. I don't understand why it's currently including the image from the lead of the sub-article though. It shouldn't do that. Is that because it's larger than a normal thumbnail? - we have done a similar structure for other articles and plan to do it for more. So far (for example): South Africa, Senegal, Kenya, Bangladesh. EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Who is we?? Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries does not recommended this nor was there a talk. FA article like this one are highly watched over to maintain there level of quality. The vast majority DO NOT have the the sub article on there watch list to make sure all is ok . As for the image ....did not match the size of the rest here and was going into the next section because of placement. Also best not to use |indicator=yes as it gives undue weight to the section because of different style. Would be best to actually write the section so the flow is proper and we dont regurgitate information or links or have one sentence paragraphs. Overall content editors think this is a lazy way to add to an article that is at this level of quality. To be honest not sure we should spam every country article with a climate change section.....perhaps a paragraph in the current climate section. Think you should rethink this approach. --Moxy 🍁 14:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"We" in my comment above is a group of people from WikiProject Climate Change, e.g. User:Phoebe. See here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide . On the page it also recommends the use of excperts: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/Style_guide#Using_excerpts . I have also started a discussion on the WikiProject Countries page, see here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included? (a continuation of the discussion there would be welcomed). I like to use indicator=yes to show which parts of the text are excerpted, but I understand the disadvantage of drawing too much attention to it. Point taken. But this is not about "regurgitating" information, this is about being efficient, so that when updates have to be made they only need to be made in one spot, not two. You said "Overall content editors think this is a lazy way to add to an article that is at this level of quality." I wasn't aware of that, having just found out about the excerpt tool recently. Could you take me to a recent discussion where I can read up on this or is it more your own personal opinion? In my opinion, it's an efficient way, not a lazy way. - As to that image, I have removed it now, as it's in the sub-article and probably doesn't need to be in the main article as well (am happy to put it back in if people prefer). EMsmile (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Moxy, my understanding is there is a current initiative in a climate change task force to try and put climate change information on every country article. A very short discussion was had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates, but I'm not aware of any other discussion. On this article, I agree that it can not have text transposed from another article. Even if this was not a FA, the transposed text was from a lead, which often doesn't include sources, which obviously is a bad idea to transclude on any article. CMD (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps best we go to that project and explain that many see this as undue and perhaps a form of Wikipedia:Advocacy.--Moxy 🍁 14:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy:, of course you are welcome to argue this, but I do not see "many" people saying so. I think making the case why this doesn't make sense would be better than claiming that this is undue (I think it's very 'due', as noted below). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, there's no particular consensus or style guide about this one way or the other. The country articles should absolutely have a mention of climate change and its effect; it's a globally important issue that affects every aspect of a country, from agriculture to migration to weather, so having a section is not amiss. The excerpt tool can be good particularly for smaller articles where it is used to create a section; for an article that is well-maintained, like Australia, I agree integrating the info is probably a better bet. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 14:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that most country articles should have at least a sentence about climate change, and countries like Australia that are feeling those impacts as a large-scale, one or two full paragraphs seem appropriate. My experience with excerpts of ledes is not that positive: quite often it doesn't quite fit in the article, is either too much or too little, and can lead to serious WP:SANDWICHING. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Phoebe and User:Femkemilene. Let's try to unpack this, CMD: So you have a problem with the excerpt tool. OK, that's one thing. Secondly, you don't agree that this article could have a sub-heading on climate change below the heading on geography? Why not? Yes, the discussion at the WikiProjects Countries is still small but I started it a while ago and it's been slow to collect anyone's inputs there. I don't think it's a particularly controversial thing. If country articles have a sub-heading on climate then they can also have one on climate change. If you don't like the excerpt tool then we copy some sentences and references across. It doesn't need to be much as it's a high level article. Just a paragraph and pointing people to the sub-article. Before I worked on this article today, the article didn't even mention climate change once and didn't even link to climate change in Australia. I felt strongly that this ought to be rectified. EMsmile (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This article, and all country articles, should in most cases avoid single-paragraph subsections because MOS:OVERSECTION is part of core Wikipedia layout guidelines. Climate change is a vital issue and I agree it's remiss that it is not mentioned on this page, but as I said on the country project talk page forcing an identical framework for a single issue onto every country article is not appropriate. CMD (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Think the project members of climate change have great intentions...we just need to give them some advice on how to move foreword on country articles. -1) best not to use excerpts. - 2) give proper weight as in a sentence or two. - 3) do not make a sub section for the topic, they should be included in climate or Geo section with a link to main article in prose. - 4) we should not mention future goals but instead focus on current data. --Moxy 🍁 15:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

why should it not be allowed to have a sub-section? I don't think that putting it under "climate" does it justice. In future, readers will expect to see a dedicated sub-heading on climate change in the table of content, in my opinion. It could be a sub-heading under climate if you like (I would prefer a sub-heading under geography). I'd just like to point out that there are already 3 sentences in the section on "climate" that actually talk about climate change without mentioning the word! At the moment, they appear out of nowhere and have no logical flow - having a sub-heading would explain how the three sentences are linked together or why they are there: "Australia's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are among the highest in the world, lower than those of only a few other industrialised nations. January 2019 was the hottest month ever in Australia with average temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F). The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season was Australia's worst bushfire season on record." EMsmile (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about a subject that is a sub topic of a sub topic (Geography -> Climate -> Climate change). To put it simply it should not be given more weight then our coverage of the world wars or constitutions.--Moxy 🍁 15:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. I don't think that Climate change should be below Climate because it is far more wide reaching than "climate" alone when you look at all the impacts. I would put it at the same level as climate. But can we think of a way to get a broader discussion going, i.e. not just you and me, and not just here in the Australia article? Shall we discuss it further here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#In_which_section_is_climate_or_climate_change_meant_to_be_included? Although that seems to have low number of people watching, given the lack of responses there. Is there a better place to discuss it somewhere else? - Meanwhile, what about my criticism that we have 3 sentences about climate change in the Australia article that appear out of nowhere and have no logical flow and don't even mention the word "climate change" once. I repeat them again: "Australia's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are among the highest in the world, lower than those of only a few other industrialised nations. January 2019 was the hottest month ever in Australia with average temperatures exceeding 30 °C (86 °F). The 2019–20 Australian bushfire season was Australia's worst bushfire season on record." So what to do about that? And can we at least have one mention of the sub-article Climate change in Australia? I am too scared to make any changes myself now, in case they get reverted again. EMsmile (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an existing paragraph written from 2012-2015 that could be replaced and updated. The Bureau of Meteorology's 2020 report says temperature increase is 1C since 1960, and this could replace the first sentence. Using that source, I'd suggest "Average temperatures have increased by more than 1°C since 1960, with this trend expected to continue due to climate change." Then I'd replace the 2014 sentence with the existing 2019 sentence, append the bushfire sentence to that one, and then add the emissions sentence at the end. CMD (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That may be a bit WP:EGGGY, as I'm expecting to be linked to our normal CC article by that. Maybe something like: Climate change has driven temperatures up in Australia by more than 1°C since 1960, with this trend expected to continue in the future.? (also not superhappy with this prose)

Like EMsmile is saying, climate change has impacts far outside of climate. There are two solutions to not surprise our readers. The first one is having a subsection on climate change, which then includes information about bushfires, coral, temperature, drought and emissions. Or, include temperature, drought & emissions in a paragraph in climate, and address coral and bushfire in their respective sections.

I prefer the latter, as it will give due weight to multiple environmental factors. The coral sentence could then talk about the combined impact of pollution, climate change and acidification, instead of only highlighting the rising temperatures. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just need to get the additions right. I remember the water and sanitation additions a few years ago on all the country pages....most were removed leaving no info. Best get a good balance or it will be deleted and we are left with nothing.--Moxy 🍁 00:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If linking just "Climate change" is eggy than the pipe can be expanded to "continue due to climate change", although I agree with the input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#MOS:EGG and linking to specific pages that the context makes it not eggy. Asserting climate change is responsible for all of the change is stronger language than that used by the BOM in the source I linked, so I prefer to follow their lead in just highlighting the past change and then noting climate change as the primary driver of the trend. CMD (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Moxy’s 4 points above, particularly pertaining to this article. Cavalryman (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

I second that. 109.93.0.197 (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Many may have problems that the climate project has big plans for articles not within their scope and that affect 100,s of country deicated projects and an overview county project.....but we should help facilitate some data just need to make sure its a balance of curent information presented in a fair manner.--Moxy 🍁 05:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've editing the CC manual of style to not recommend excerpts broadly and detail their disadvantages. There is no 'official plan' to target these articles, but it may be a good idea to make this plan, so that we can give editors good advice on how to determine whether their additions are due. Point 3 is way too general; for a handful of articles it may even be due to dedicate an entire section to CC, f.i. Tuvalu. Let's now go back to discussing the article at hand.

Proposed paragraph in climate. Coral reef needs inclusion elsewhere.

In response to a global warming climate, Australia's temperatures have risen by 1°C.(BOM) 2019 was the warmest year on record (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/). Droughts have increased in the southwest and southeast, with the entire continent experiencing more extreme rainfall.(BOM) Dangerous fire weather has become more frequent, and the 2019-2020 was the worst bushfire season on record (BOM + BBC). Australia's carbon dioxide emissions per person are among the highest in the world (new source needed). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In response to Femke Nijsse: yees to some of your points but please not those wikilinks that don't correspond with the words because the way you have proposed it, if someone searches for "climate change" in the article , they still wouldn't find these sentences! Can we please have the word "climate change" appear at least once in the article if someone searches with Ctrl+F? And probably more than once. Like you rightly point out, climate change ought to be mentioned several times in the article about Australia as it's interlinked to other issues as well, like the reduced biodiversity of the coral reefs and coral bleaching, ocean temperatures warming, droughts, bushfires etc. Personally, I would say for a country article like Australia it would NOT be an overkill to have a section that does appear in the table of content and says "climate change" PLUS having it mentioned and linked where needed. But I am already a little bit happier if it appears at least once in the article. As to those sentences and references, couldn't we just reuse 2-3 sentences from the article climate change in Australia rather than trying to come up with new sentences and references? From first glance the article climate change in Australia is not bad. Why it hadn't been linked yet from the Australia article is beyond me. - Apart from this Australia article, I propose a wider, more structured discussion - where? - to achieve consensus if and how the topic of climate change is "allowed" to be mentioned in the country articles. I tried to kick-start such a discussion on the page of WikiProject Countries (see link above) but it has way fewer watchers than this page, so the discussion never really took off. Where is a better place to discuss it (for all country articles), so that we don't have to restart the discussion each time? I think 5 years from now, the discussion will be obsolete and every country article will have at least a sentence if not more about climate change as it will affect every country and we have good references for that. This is not advocacy type work (although I do understand that some people might feel like that). I'd like to make it just the facts and with neutral language, it's just how it is, we are not trying to "advocate" anything. Do you think that perhaps on Village Pump would be a good place to discuss it? I feel that the country articles in Wikipedia are important to get right, as they tend to have high view rates. I totally get that people would say "not too much detail about all the sub-topics, please". So if there is already an article on "Climate change in country XX" it might be as simple as linking to it with a couple of sentences, just like we would link to "Climate in Country XX" or "Geography in Country X". So it wouldn't have to take up much space but it should be in there. EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the proposal above uses summary style better than the sentences in climate change in Australia. The sources are also outdated there. Feel free to propose something else, I'm absolutely not married to my proposal above.

I think we might want to engage with a few other country articles that are now featured and don't mention climate change yet. For a country as Bulgaria, I think one sentence is probably okay. Tropical countries, low-lying countries, polar countries will warrant between one paragraph and four. These discussions are difficult to have in the abstract, and when we engage with featured articles, we can compare paragraphs that are written in proper summary style with new paragraphs that we would propose. From the things we learn there, we can give advice on the WikiProject climate change. India would be a good option once we have agreed text here. Parts risk becoming uninhabitable, but CC is not even mentioned. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the suggested paragraph, I don't see where in the linked source much of the information comes from. Australia's average temperatures have risen well beyond 1C, but at the same time the BoM seems hesitant to attribute it all to climate change. Drought has extended far beyond the southern corners, and some of the continent is receiving less rainfall than before. Also, what is the reason for using a 2019 report rather than a 2020 one? CMD (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Let list sources so we can see what we have to work with before guess work wording....that said length of proposed addition seems ok.--Moxy 🍁 17:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CMD, The report with 2019 in the title was issued January 2020. Many climate reports do this, which is always buggering me. I'm paraphrasing relatively closely to the source, I cannot thikn of another interpretation of (BOM: "Australia’s weather and climate are changing in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910"). The word driving doesn't imply a hundred percent attribution, and is very common for these kind of statements in the climate literature. I forgot since 1960 in my proposed text.

@ Moxy: I'm editing with accessibility software, hence me abbreviating sources instead of properly citing them here and talk. Sorry for inconvenience. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The BoM source I cited above is from the State of the Climate 2020 report (full pdf), which was published earlier this month. Using that, adjusting the above, my proposal is to replace the current second paragraph (which is half a decade out of date) and replace/integrate the three current stray sentences at the end with

"Driven by climate change, average temperatures have risen more than 1°C since 1960. Associated changes in rainfall patterns and climate extremes exacerbate existing issues such as drought and fire weather. 2019 was Australia's warmest recorded year,^BoM2020 and the 2019–20 bushfire season was the country's worst on record.^{Existing source} Australia's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are among the highest in the world.^{Existing or new source}

CMD (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I love proposals that replace rather than add. I'll try to propose a small addition in the text about coral reef next weekend. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The approach i took was to incorporate info into the geo section at the end of relevant paragraphs. Thus being the last points on the topics without overwhelming the article with advocacy sections. Simply stated some basic facts while providing inks and sources to more info (linked Air pollution in Canada- Environmental issues in Canada- Climate change in Canada)....see Canada#Geography, biodiversity, climate, and environment.--Moxy 🍁 08:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't quite understand your comment? Was that in relationship to the Canada article or also for the Australia article? EMsmile (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have made a few small tweaks to the way climate change is mentioned and linked now. In this case here, I think it's better if the text is identical to the wikilink, so if the Wikilink goes to Climate change in Australia then I think the wording should also be "climate change in Australia", not "climate change" as I would expect a wikilink behind "climate change" to go to there. I think it's useful for the reader to immediately appreciate that there is a separate article that specifically deals with "climate change in Australia". EMsmile (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I reworded a bit. Not sure why the climate change link is different to the bushfires link, but I've shifted the pipe allowing the general link to go on the first sentence. Prose takes precedence of wikilink names, and repeating "in Australia" is redundant. Sources don't need to be duplicated for consecutive sentences. CMD (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD, you are saying here "reworded" a bit, but in actual fact you have pretty much completely undone my edits without explaining in the edit summary why. I do think my edits had merits and made things clearer. But OK, if every single edit has to be discussed here on the talk page first with everyone, then lets do this. What do others think, which version is better? My proposal was: "Due to the impacts of climate change in Australia, average temperatures have risen more than 1°C since 1960. Associated changes in rainfall patterns and climate extremes exacerbate existing issues such as drought and weather that increases the risks of bushfires. 2019 was Australia's warmest recorded year, and the 2019–20 bushfire season was the country's worst on record. With regards to contributing to climate change globally, Australia's greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world." The alternative (current version after my changes were reverted) is: "Driven by climate change, average temperatures have risen more than 1°C since 1960. Associated changes in rainfall patterns and climate extremes exacerbate existing issues such as drought and bushfires. 2019 was Australia's warmest recorded year, and the 2019–20 bushfire season was the country's worst on record. Australia's greenhouse gas emissions per capita are among the highest in the world." - the wording "driven by climate change" is in my opinion unclear, especially for readers who don't have a university degree or don't have English as a first language. Let's keep the language easy to understand. Putting "climate change in Australia" as a wikilink behind the words "more than 1 deg C since 1960" is confusing in my opinion. That's not what I would expect from a wikilink. "Existing issues" is vague. For people who are unfamiliar with climate change, they may not understand why the greenhouse gas emissions sentence appears there (it's in the section on "climate" after all), which is why I had proposed to introduce it with "With regards to contributing to climate change globally". EMsmile (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary is short, which is why I posted here as well. As I noted, repeating "in Australia" is redundant prose given the article topic. The adding of "weather that increases the risks of bushfires" makes the sentence a unwieldy and potentially ambiguous as to what the "and...that" refers to. (Here I think the wikilinked "bushfires" is better than the former "fire weather".) I disagree that "driven by" is university level language, and it was specifically chosen to replace "due to" to reflect the sources used, which do not attribute complete causation of temperature rise to climate change. I have no strong opinion where the Climate change in Australia pipelink should go, but this was an attempt to shift it due to the opposition to the previous placement. "Existing issues" is in both versions, so I'm not sure what the proposal is for that. For "With regards to contributing to climate change globally", it implies local contributions are different, and the framing of global contributions which looks at the country as a whole doesn't gel well with per capita information. CMD (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Australia is mainly non-religious

Trust me, I’m an Aussie. I know the stats. More than 50% are non-religious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.55.17 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This all depends on how one interprets the Census data. The relevant OPTIONAL question is "What is the person's religion?" Then it has a number of options, and a box to write in one if yours in not listed. There is no attempt to correlate the response with actual church attendance data. Established religions love using the results to prove that Christianity is still strong in Australia, but they don't actually do that. Many people I know tick one of the boxes, even if they never attend church. It's a social convention to say you are a Catholic, or an Anglican, etc, even if you have no real connection to the church. I don't know how the issue can be properly resolved. I simply pay strong attention to the wording of articles, emphasising that all we can know is what boxes people tick, and that that doesn't prove belief. My personal view is that the vast majority of Australians are apatheists. They have very little interest in whether there is or is not a god. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

New national anthem

Can someone write about it? Saidur Mursalin (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Write what? Only a single word has changed in the lyrics. The Advance Australia Fair article has been updated. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

To add within the right-hand sidebar, under Anthem: Advance Australia Fair, the royal Anthem: God Save the Queen. Along with a sample of the anthem. Australia's royal anthem is played infront of the reigning monarch when in Australia and outlined with the governmental parliamentary publication as seen below.

"Australian National Anthem". Archived from the original on 1 July 2007. "16. Other matters – 16.3 Australian National Anthem". Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. "National Symbols" (PDF). Parliamentary Handbook of the Commonwealth of Australia (PDF) (29th ed.). 2005 [2002]. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 June 2007. Retrieved 7 June 2007. Brockisrandom (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done:. Adding the royal anthem is how it's handled on Canada, Jamaica, The Bahamas, etc., so it makes sense to add it here as well. I think the note we have now is fine though, as I'm pretty sure Australia play the royal anthem in the presence of royal family members too.

Nevermind, see here. Volteer1 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Add below the national anthem in the right sidebar, the Royal Anthem 'God Save the Queen' with corresponding sample of the song. In most commonwealth countries like New Zealand, Canada and Jamaica, they have listed the royal anthem in this manner, and so should Australia. God Save the Queen is a legal royal anthem recognised by the Australian Government and can be played in the presence of the monarch, royal family members, governor general, government, etc. on special occasions. It becomes significant to recognise the royal anthem in the infobox as it represents the symbolic and ceremonial identity of Australia. Brockisrandom (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done, see Talk:Australia/Archive_19#Request_for_Comment_on_the_inclusion_of_"God_Save_the_Queen"_as_the_official_Royal_Anthem_of_Australia. There is a consensus against this change. You would have to run another RFC to overturn that. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

I don't know if i'm doing this right but i'd like to recommend an addition. On the right side of the Australia page there is a table that summarises Australia's area, population, government etc. one of the sections is about independence from the UK,I was wondering if it would be possible for someone to add when NSW gained self government (6th of June 1856) and next to it, it would say something like first Australian colony to gain self government and something similar with Western Australia the last colony to gain self government (15th of August 1890). Obviously this is not necessary but the self governance of the colonies did contribute to the federation of the colonies and I believe it should be mentioned in this section. PT22 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The infobox section is a very quick summary of how Australia gained its current status, not a history section. Those dates are not even mentioned in the current History section. CMD (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

We do have "Between 1855 and 1890, the six colonies individually gained responsible government, managing most of their own affairs while remaining part of the British Empire." I'm unsure whether more detail on self government is useful there, it might be. Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:05 Sat 24, AEDT) 23:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, does the infobox already have too much detail on "Independence from the United Kingdom"? Should we just state establishment / federation 1901 and leave the rest to the main text? Pelagic ( messages ) – (10:13 Sat 24, AEDT) 23:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Change : Mount Augustus, claimed to be the world's largest monolith,[129] is located in Western Australia. "To" Uluru is the world's biggest known monolith located in the Northern Territory. "End"

FYI- mount Augustus IS NOT a monolith. [129] reference is wrong 1.128.108.79 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Australia

Artlicle claims Australia is part of Oceania. It isn't, we are part of Australasia (South of Asia), along with Indonesia, New Guinea and New Zealand.120.156.4.123 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read me.--Moxy 🍁 03:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Australasia Please read that. I don't know what kind of fools they employ at National Geographic but we have always been part of Austalasia (from Latin: 'South of Asia'). Australasia has never been part of Oceania. I see this confusion has spread to the Encyclopedia Britannica, whose editors should know better, but that it seems to now be just a wiki too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.4.123 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

incorrect. We will require sources to consider your POV.--Moxy 🍁 01:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Things can be part of more than one thing at once. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 07:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy: "We will require sources to consider your POV"? It's the way every Australian has been educated since the British arrived. You are obviously not Australian so exit stage left.120.156.4.123 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the way we've 'all been educated since the British arrived' It should be easy to provide a source. My experience of Australian education is obviously nothing like yours. And please don't tell editors not to edit in good faith because they're not the right nationality. It's not on. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

By some definitions, Australasia is a subset of Oceania, so "largest country in Oceania" is a more significant statement than "largest country in Australasia". However, if your preferred circumscription of Oceania excludes Australia, then that makes no sense, obviously. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:57 Sat 24, AEDT) 22:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The IUCN here states The Oceania region is spatially the largest region in CEM, It includes the continental land mass of Australia and covers a vast area of the Pacific including the larger island land masses of Papua New Guinea and New Zealand as well as the 22 countries and territories of the Pacific Islands covering most of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. The region extends over 100 million square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean, but has only a land surface area of 8.5 million square km. Of that land surface area three countries Australia (7 million km2), Papua New Guinea (463,000 km2) and New Zealand (268,000 km2) make up almost 93% of the total land area.

Seems like Australia is part of Oceania after all.

Oh, and Australasia is a smaller region as per Lexica: Australasia is the region consisting of Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and the neighbouring islands of the Pacific.

Indeed, Australia is in Australasia which in turn is within Oceania. So Australia is in both. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

Add a 1996 study on Australian ethnic backgrounds into demographics because it shows a different conclusion than Australian self identified ethnic backgrounds.

A 1996 study of the ethnic origins of the Australian people shows:

• 12,438,600 people had English origins.
• 5,454,200 people had Irish origins.
• 5,393,800 people had Scottish origins.
• 768,100 people had Cornish origins.
• 727,800 people had Welsh origins.
• 46,600 people had Manx origins. 120.18.45.106 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems rather dated, especially given the large-scale immigration since that time. Many millions of Australians have no European heritage. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Like Nick-D, I see little point in including 25 year old data. In addition, ethnicity seems possibly the wrong word to be using here. Australia does no official recording of ethnicity. The Census asks people about ancestry. They are not the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Religion

Regarding this edit by Goalcy, and subsequent [1][2] ...

I disagree with "9.6% No answer" because the reference does not say that 9.6% did not answer. We cannot assume that the missing percentage did not answer at all - it's possible that some people gave answers (e.g Jedi, Pastafarianism) that the ABS does not consider to be religion. According to [3] "not a recognised religion in Australia, close to 48,000 people reported themselves as Jedi" - but that reference does not say that "Jedi" was counted as "No religion", so we don't know whether such responses were counted as "no religion" or simply ignored (thus treated as "no answer"). In the absence of a specific statement from a source, to say "9.6% No answer" is WP:OR.

If we want to reduce the number of entries in the infobox, I suggest combining Sikhism, Judaism and Other into a single "1.3% Other" - with a WP:HIDDEN comment such as "Sikhism 0.5% + Judaism 0.4% + Other (from ABS ref) 0.4%" to justify the routine calculation. The note "Religion was an optional question..." (deleted by Goalcy's edit) should remain to explain why the numbers do not add up to 100%. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames you said We cannot assume that the missing percentage did not answer at all - it's possible that some people gave answers (e.g Jedi, Pastafarianism) that the ABS does not consider to be religion. Yes we can! The 0.4% 'other' figure includes are those confessions. And the 9.6% figure indeed represents people who gave 'no answer' as the quoted reference itself says that As religion was an optional question, the total for Australia will not equal the sum of titles above it.Goalcy (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The 0.4% 'other' figure includes are those confessions. — Please quote the reference that states this.

the 9.6% figure indeed represents people who gave 'no answer' — Please quote the reference that states this. Note that "the total for Australia will not equal the sum of titles above it" is not the same as "the difference is those who did not answer". For example in 2011 "some people provide responses which cannot be coded. In these instances, an 'Inadequately Described' code is allocated during processing". Is "answered but Inadequately Described" counted as "other" or is it counted as "no answer"? (Be sure to cite/quote the reliable source that supports your answer.)

Also at this point, please consider WP:SYN (with emphasis here) - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames You said The 0.4% 'other' figure includes are those confessions. — Please quote the reference that states this. As I already said that the abs source quoted as reference itself says that all confessions other than Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism and Judaism collectively make up 0.4% of the population and are labelled as "other".

httpss ://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Religion%20Data%20Summary~70. You said the 9.6% figure indeed represents people who gave 'no answer' Please quote the reference that states this. Please again see the reference above. It's directly mentioned below the table.

You said Note that "the total for Australia will not equal the sum of titles above it" is not the same as "the difference is those who did not answer". For example in 2011 "some people provide responses which cannot be coded. In these instances, an 'Inadequately Described' code is allocated during processing". Is "answered but Inadequately Described" counted as "other" or is it counted as "no answer"? (Be sure to cite/quote the reliable source that supports your answer.) It's actually you who is doing WP:SYN here I am afraid. Unless you have a reliable source to support your claims, there is simply no reason to believe that abs included certain responses in the "no answer" category instead of "other". Furthermore there are several other Wikipedia articles which mention "no answer" category e.g., United Kingdom, New Zealand etc, I see no reason why it's even a problem here.Goalcy (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

In the 2016 census, the non-response rate (listed as 'Not stated') for the Religious Affiliation variable was 9.1%, and Inadequately Described was 0.5% (Data quality statement for Religious Affiliation (RELP)) – this appears to be where the 9.6% figure comes from, adding Not Stated and Inadequately Described. I have verified these figures and percentages from the raw figures from an ABS Census TableBuilder query, and the TableBuilder figures match those in the Cultural Diversity in Australia report:

RELP - 1 Digit Level	Population	Population (%)
Buddhism	563,674	2.4%
Christianity	12,201,605	52.1%
Hinduism	440,300	1.9%
Islam	604,242	2.6%
Judaism	91,025	0.4%
Other Religions	221,593	0.9%
Secular Beliefs and Other Spiritual Beliefs and No Religious Affiliation	7,040,717	30.1%
Inadequately described	106,570	0.5%
Not stated	2,132,165	9.1%
Total	23,401,881	100.0%

--Canley (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Canley thank you for this valuable information. It will be reasonable to add 0.5% 'inadequately described' figure into 'other' category.Goalcy (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It will be reasonable to add 0.5% 'inadequately described' figure into 'other' category. — I disagree. If we include "inadequately described" in "Other" [4] our table says "Religion: 1.8% Other", which does not match the sum of any combination of religion's figures in the reference that we cite - i.e. it fails verification. Canley's table (can we have a link to verify it?) specifically says "Other Religions 0.9%, Inadequately described 0.5%", i.e. "Inadequately described" is explicitly not part of "Other Religions", but our table includes it in "Religion: other". Again, fails verification. Rather than haggle over, and/or define in the article's infobox, the meaning of "other", I really think we should stick to numbers that match the cited references (which can include "no answer", now we have a ref). If you really want to keep the table shorter and merge the values that are less then 1%, make the total verifiably (with a hidden comment) match the reference, e.g. "Other: 1.3% <!-- Sikhism 0.5% + Judaism 0.4% + Other_from_ref 0.4% -->. If you think it important, list "inadequately defined" explicitly, with a reference [5]. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The table was from TableBuilder, use the Guest login and select 2016 Census of Population and Housing > 2016 Census - Cultural Diversity > 2016 Religious Affiliation by Sex. There is an Excel file here (the raw numbers are slightly different but the percentages are the same). --Canley (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Mitch Ames. Deus et lex (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's a complete and easily verifiable list that adds up to 100%:

Religion in Australia

• 52.1% Christianity
• 2.6% Islam
• 2.4% Buddhism
• 1.9% Hinduism
• 0.5% Sikhism
• 0.4% Judaism
• 0.4% Other
• 30.1% No religion
• 0.5% Inadequately described
• 9.1% No answer

Note that I deliberately put "no religion" near the bottom, rather than sorting by percentage, because that's what the reference does. ("No religion" is logically distinct from any religion, so it doesn't make sense to sort that answer as if it were a religion. Likewise "no answer".)

I don't think this much detail is required in the infobox, so I'd be happy to drop "inadequately described" and "no answer" and restore the explanatory note from [6], although I'd put it next to the main ref, because it does not actually apply specifically to "other". Goalcy's original edit comment was "merge", and that edit merged three smaller percentages (Sikhism, Judaism, Other) into a single "other". I'm not convinced that's a good idea - if it's good enough for ABS to list them, I suggest that it's good enough for us, especially as Sikhism, Judaism have their own "in Australia" articles.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs)

I agree that it is a bad idea to merge those three groups into "other", similarly I think it is likewise a bad idea to lump the first three categories in the source (Catholic 22.6%, Anglican 13.3% and Other Christian 16.3%) into one category "Christian" 52.1%. Synthesis springs to mind. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Summing the three Christianity figures to 52.1% is what ABS does in the ref, but then they also combine all "others" (including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism) into "total other" of 8.2%. Perhaps the OR is us deciding which of those two summations we use and which we don't? I'm sure the Muslims and Jews wouldn't be happy about being counted together; I don't know about the Christians. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know what the problem with current version is. People who come under "inadequately described" category can't be grouped with "no answer" category because they indeed tried to answer the religion question, so it's reasonable to group them with "other". I agree with Mitch Ames regarding various Christian denominations being group together under Christianity, therefore I see no "synthesis" in this case.Goalcy (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The ABS has separate figures for "inadequately described" and "other", so I don't think we should merge them. As previously mentioned, it fails verification - unless we explicitly define "other" to be something different to our references, and I don't think that's a good idea. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone (Goalcy in particular) object to my putting the complete and easily verifiable list that adds up to 100% into the infobox? Do I need to create an RFC to resolve this instead? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No I won't object if you are willing to put no religion in the 2nd place it deserves due to its relative percentage. Just because reference puts it below doesn't mean we have to do that too. No religion might be different from other affiliations but it's still an affiliation that people willingly choose as their preferred label. Putting it in the bottom undermines its importance and isn't aesthetically fine either due to its massive percentage. If you aren't fine with this suggestion that I think we should revert the article back to its original version before my edits. I will be fine with it too. RegardsGoalcy (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've restored the previous stable version (from 2021-06-18), but see new section #Religion order below. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Mention of multiculturalism in lead

I've noticed in the USA, Canada and New Zealand articles there've been mentions of multiculturalism/ethnic diversity in the introduction, but not in Australia's. I have added It is also one of the most multicultural and ethnically diverse nations in the world. in the fourth/last paragraph. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What is your source for that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

tijs van yyoouohkkyypyookyoyyypoykyoyku yyi

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

The section at the beginning where it says Australia is the sixth largest country should specify this is by area, since it is low in population relative to other large area countries like the US, China, Russia, and Brazil. 24.228.190.137 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I feel the default assumption is that it refers to physical size, that and the fact it in-links to List of countries and dependencies by area seem to provide enough clarity. — IVORK _Talk 01:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Change the national language to Australian English 49.190.196.104 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sources generally refer to it as just English. Please provide additional sourcing to support this change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

For extra clarity, Australian English is a variety of (or a set of varieties of) the English language, rather than being a separate language in itself, so we don't list it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: No section on science and technology

Just a small suggestion, many country articles have sections for science and technology (or some variation), could this be something added to the Australia article?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This page already has 57kB of prose, do sources put this on the same level as commodities and services? CMD (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Religion order

Following edits, reversion, discussion in #Religion above, we were unable to reach an agreement on the details of the Religion section of the infobox, so I have reverted to the last stable version. However, I disagree with the ordering of the entries in that version - in particular I propose that "No religion" should be listed last, rather than second (as it currently is), on the grounds that:

• The cited source lists "No religion" last - because it is not a religion (it is not included in "Other Religions" with Islam, Buddhism etc)
• The infobox (and the ABS) lists religions (counting all Christians together) by decreasing popularity, but "no religion" is not a religion, so it is not the second most popular religion and ought not be listed as such.

Can I have some opinions on this ordering please. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere in the article that it is actually illegal to practice religion in some of the major cities in Australia and that just going to Church can have you fined a very large fine and for those who open a Church can be put in Jail. ZhuLien (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source to support that assertion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

There seems to be some serious censorship and misinformation within the main English Australia article that even mention of it in the talk also gets the mention removed.

That is... Australia is now a dictatorship since 2020 and not a democracy with over half the population in forced home imprisonment. Many Australians cannot go outside without being beaten by police nor can we attend church without being beaten by police or arrested. Someone is refusing to allow any mention of recent events to show on the wiki page.

Why is this censorship allowed? Is it also driven by the Australian Government who is now locking up reporters (political prisoners), beating reporters (for doing their job) etc.

This is an important turn in the history of Australia and a real part of history that for the past 1.5 years has been occurring. Australian's need help from their tyrannical Government.

ZhuLien (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided a "detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made", as requested by WP:EDITXY. Nor have you provided any reliable source to support your assertions. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

OMG you can just see people being beaten, harrassed constantly looking out the window in a typical Melbourne CBD apartment. Most news here is being censored, you can search youtube if you want to see much of it in action, some news media who are not the mainstream but these days seem more reliable are reporting it.

ZhuLien (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please have a read of the links I have given you, so you know what Wikipedia is and isn't.Nickm57 (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

I would like to change some grammar, spelling and formatting so that it makes a bit more sense. Thank you. Kind Regards. 121.208.220.54 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. IP, you may either tell us specifically which sentences to fix, or create an account, get autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days), and come back. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

God save the queen should be listed under the national anthem as the royal anthem

Most commonwealth countries on wikipedia that have god save the queen as a anthem/royal anthem/special occasion anthem usually have it listed under the anthem of the coutry.

EX. Canada's wikipedia page and New Zealand's wikipedia page. Not a large request more rather a simple one— Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartVeronica (talk • contribs) 23:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed on numerous occasions, see Talk:Australia/Popular topics#Anthem, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to include it. --Canley (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Australia is one of the most well known members of the Commonwealth of Nations. I understand with India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Singapore et cetera either they don't use the royal anthem or their membership is only nominal. At least include it in name only without the play button, like the New Zealand page. The lack of consistency is strange.Mantr33r (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is strange. But as the link above and as a search in archives shows, it has been discussed multiple times, with no consensus to change. Nickm57 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that at the end of the line naming the anthem, there's a little "N 1" in brackets. Its link takes you to a note at the bottom of the article that explains that God Save the Queen is the Royal Anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is very worthy of pointing out Hilo48 but it should be more visible on the article like Canada or at the very least new zealands page. This should get a conesus soon due to it being soooo simple. User:IHeartVeronica

Exactly why should it be more visible? It's of virtually no interest to the vast majority of Australians, and says nothing special about the country. HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Do independent WP:Reliable sources accord the royal anthem that much visibility? CMD (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should depend on its prominence in the RS. But just a comment from a non-Australian: it is a piece of information that maybe most non-Australians wouldn’t be aware of and might find interesting. And we are here to provide information. I for one had assumed Advance Australia Fair had completely replaced God save the Queen in all respects. DeCausa (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a note. It's prominence is at as least as high a level as the Royal Anthem in most people's minds. Do you not read such notes? HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Why would a reader hunt that down? “As high a level as the Royal anthem in most people’s minds”. WP is about providing information to people who don’t already have it not validating editors’ views. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The information is there. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - It should be included in all the commonwealth realms' infoboxes -or- included in only the United Kingdom's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps in the monarch's Infobox. The royal anthem, is in fact, attached to the monarch, rather than the individual countries who still have that monarch. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't tell that, to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Confused with Austria?

Is it really necessary for the "confused with Austria" notice to be on top of the page? I think I've seen it added and removed at least a few times... What does everyone think? Okay420 (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's silly to have that. No one seriously gets them mixed up. --Dmol (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - almost all of the times the countries are mixed up it's a joke. I find it hard to believe that this is being added in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's ridiculous.Nickm57 (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree there's no need for this notice: hope the consensus here helps keep it off the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, notice isn't required. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, as Wikipedia editors, we do not need this notice; however, Wikipedia is beautiful in part because we serve people from all backgrounds (including those with little access to formal education or otherwise basic exposure that we take for granted). Adding a notice does not detract from the quality, breadth, or depth of the article. Flaun (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

'Sahul' was the original name for Australia...

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

Greetings! I suggest to include the 1st name that Australia had in the section called "etymology". Captain Pedro Fernandez de Quiros called it by the divine name of «Southland of the Holy Spirit». No other nation has this honor. It is part of our history and our religion. Here I share some sources with you:

http://www.chr.org.au/books/southloand-of-holy-spirit/page2.html# http://diduno.info/terra-australis/ http://pol.org.au/Portals/193/ParishData/Id219/Uploads/Type3/Australia%20South%20Land%20of%20the%20Holy%20Spirit%2014%20May%201606%20Pedro%20Fernandez%20de%20Quiros.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garcoral (talk • contribs) 07:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Etymology section

The etymology section is missing the earlier origin of the name (the 1606 given by Spanish expeditions) then it's mentioned in History section of the main page.

I suggest adding to the etymology section the correct timeline of events until the today name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassssssss (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The image used of Sydney

The image used for Sydney—under 'Demographics'—is incredibly dated and does not work with the updated images of Australia's other major cities.

Is it possible for this to be amended?

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salexi (talk • contribs) 11:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Should we add a Royal anthem "God Save the Queen" per infobox? (via source: [7]) 49.150.116.127 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Search?search=anthem&prefix=Talk%3AAustralia%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 ~ cygnis insignis 08:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggestion regarding Indigenous people

It currently reads: "Indigenous Australians have inhabited the continent for approximately 65,000 years.[21]"

I suggest that we change this to "at least 65,000 years", which is more accurate. 49.183.63.65 (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The reference abstract [8][9] says "Human occupation began around 65,000 years ago", not "... at least 65,000 years ago". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also see my recent edit [10]. The refs say "around 65,000", "perhaps 65,000" and "potentially by 65,000", not "known to be at least 65,000". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Pls remove political statement from section headed Ancestry and immigration

Not relevant to section and not neutral:

Indigenous Australians experience higher than average rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education, and life expectancies for males and females that are, respectively, 11 and 17 years lower than those of non-indigenous Australians.[279][313][314] Some remote Indigenous communities have been described as having "failed state"-like conditions.[315] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.193.252 (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done

I've removed the "failed state" sentence, because I agree that it is non-neutral and doesn't belong here. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've also removed the first sentence as requested. Possibly the information belongs elsewhere in this article, but I don't think it's appropriate here. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

I have an edit request for this article. This article does not contain anything about the wildlife in Australia. Here is what I want to be put in:

Most kangaroos, unlike humans, are left handed. Koalas are only awake for four hours of the day. In this article, you will be learning all about Australian wildlife. Here are some more facts that you probably didn't know: even though koalas sleep so much, they can swim very well. Wombats can dig 100 foot tunnels underground. Tasmanian Devils store fat in their tails. You will learn much more if you keep reading.

Some Australian land animals are kangaroos, koalas, echidnas, wombats, thorny dragons, Tasmanian devils, dingoes, and many more. Australian land wildlife is very interesting. There are many different types of landscapes in Australia so that means that there will be very different kinds of animals on land in Australia. Some landscapes are desert, providing homes to animals like the Thorny Dragon, some landscapes are rainforest, giving hospitalization to animals like the Tasmanian Devil. And some animals, like the Echidna, can survive in multiple kinds of biom- es.

Some animals in Australia that rely on water are frogs, mosquitoes, fish such as Australian bass, many birds, and gators. Australian water life is crucial to the organized way that Australian wildlife works. The platypus, an animal with a duck-like beak, is both a water and a land animal. Though if you go to Australia you will not see one, for they are very good at hiding

In the skies of Australia, you will find many different birds such as the forest kingfisher, the tawny frogmouth, the superb lyrebird, and the red-tailed tropicbird. However you are very much mistaken if you think birds are the only sky animals in Australia. Sugar gliders, also known as the flying squirrel, also live in Australia.

Now you know all about wildlife in Australia. If you are not sure about some things that you read, or if this did not answer all of your questions about Australia, you may find it in another source. 50.39.175.149 (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Reference God Save the Queen as a Royal Anthem of Australia along with the National Anthem of Australia similar to Canada.

Sources: Australian National Anthem (PMC) (Proclamation of 'God save the Queen' as Royal Anthem) Syncedsubject (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Talk:Australia/Popular topics#Anthem ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Australia is a really good place Jackson maccas (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC) I want to edit this text because it has a lot of unanswered questions about Australia.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. 💜  melecie  talk - 05:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2022

Change Prime Minister Scott Morrison to Anthony Albanese 117.20.65.97 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Hello, could someone please add the Royal Anthem below the National Anthem in the 'quick facts' box, as the other Commonwealth Realms have on their Wikipedia pages? RedJiyve (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. CMD (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Stolen Generations

Hello all, I have changed the following sentence: "A government policy of "assimilation" beginning with the Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 resulted in the removal of many Aboriginal children from their families and communities (referred to as the Stolen Generations), a practice which also contributed to the decline in the indigenous population.[74]" The 1869 Act was a Victorian Colonial Government Act and didn't introduce a policy of assimilation or the removal of Aboriginal children. Legislation facilitating the removal of Aboriginal children from Victorian reserves was enacted in 1886. The various colonial governments had different policies but moved towards segregation rather than assimilation. Assimilation of Aboriginal people 'of mixed blood' only became the policy of the Commonwealth and most state governments in 1937. I have added a relevant source. Happy to discuss.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin I suggest that the sentence mentions that policy started with segregation and moved to assimilation. That said, I suspect this would be an oversimplification of various policies that existed across the Australian colonies – in South Australia, for instance, there was never a distinction made between aboriginal and settler for electoral purposes. Also, as far as I'm aware, the phrase 'Stolen Generations' pertains specifically to individuals affected by post-federation policy. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin Also, please note that this particular section is about colonial expansion and concerns Australian history from 1788-1850. The policies discussed here are not related to that period nor the decline in the Aboriginal population that occurred during it, as the previous sentence is. I don't think it belongs there. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the reference to Stolen Generations to the section on Colonial expansion. As you state, it could also fit in the Federation section. However, the 1886 Victorian legislation was a watershed and was copied by a number of colonial governments and set the template for later state legislation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin I believe the federation section is the best spot for it. While policies prior to federation may have influenced post-federation policy, it still primarily concerns the era after federation. thorpewilliam (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You are probably right but there is still a problem of where to put the sentence. Removals of Aboriginal children occured with greater or lesser intensity from the 1880s to the 1970s but probably peaked in the 1950s. The justification for the removals also varied from biological absorption to assimilation to simple child welfare. We could put a more general sentence in the Post-War and Contemporary Era section immediately before the sentence on the 1967 Referendum. How about: "In the decades after Federation, Commonwealth and state governments removed many Aboriginal children of mixed descent from their parents and communities creating what became known as the Stolen Generations." However, a problem I have in putting the sentence here is that it might imply that the 1967 Referendum had something to do with policy on child removals, and I don't think it did. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Religion

Hello all

I have tried to rationalise this section because a lot of the information was repeated, unsourced or out of date. I have tried to stick to the facts as revealed in the 2021 Census. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Australia is a country, NOT a continent. There is clearly a typo on this page. The official continent name is "Oceania", which includes Australia, New Zealand, and several other small countries. Your own Wikipedia page even talks about Oceania. I think it's important not to confuse viewers with conflicting information. Thanks. Wikifixa78 (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: not a typo. continental Australia is the continent (including parts of the sea located within the continental shelf) including New Guinea, country Australia, and Tasmania, which is located inside Oceania. Oceania meanwhile is a geographic region composed of continental Australia as well as Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

I suggest adding the total size of Australia's claimed lands including the Australian Antarctic territory in brackets on the card on the right side of the page as showing the territory in light green and then not referencing it may make people think that the size listed is for the whole highlighted area and not just the mainland and larger islands. Stainless667 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done .....Would need concessus to add area as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, and Norway are the only ones to recognise Australia's claim to sovereignty in Antarctica.Moxy- 15:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Charles III

You can’t just change Elizabeth out and out Charles in without checking pronouns. Schoolboy error 🤦🏽‍♀️ 2403:5807:8BF1:0:1881:67B2:168D:9E20 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

In Australia, we drive on the RIGHT side of the road, not the LEFT as stated on the page, in the main area in the top left section. Username is Donnytee3022 "Commonwealth of Australia A blue field with the Union Flag in the upper hoist quarter, a large white seven-pointed star in the lower hoist quarter, and constellation of five white stars in the fly – one small five-pointed star and four, larger, seven-pointed stars. Flag Coat of arms of Australia Coat of arms Anthem: Advance Australia Fair[N 1] 0:55 A map of the eastern hemisphere centred on Australia, using an orthographic projection. Commonwealth of Australia, including the Australian territorial claim in the Antarctic Capital Canberra 35°18′29″S 149°07′28″E Largest city Sydney Official languages None at the federal level National language English[N 2] Religion (2021)[3] 43.9% Christianity 38.9% No religion 3.2% Islam 2.7% Hinduism 2.4% Buddhism 1.7% Others 7.2% Unanswered Demonym(s) Australian Aussie (colloquial)[4][5] Government Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy • Monarch Charles III • Governor-General David Hurley • Prime Minister Anthony Albanese Legislature Parliament • Upper house Senate • Lower house House of Representatives Independence from the United Kingdom • Federation, Constitution 1 January 1901 • Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 9 October 1942 (with effect from 3 September 1939) • Australia Act 3 March 1986 Area • Total 7,692,024 km2 (2,969,907 sq mi) (6th) • Water (%) 1.79 (2015)[6] Population • 2022 estimate Increase 25,968,000[7] (53rd) • 2021 census 25,422,788[8] • Density 3.4/km2 (8.8/sq mi) (192nd) GDP (PPP) 2022 estimate • Total Increase $1.605 trillion[9] (18th) • Per capita Increase $61,941[9] (19th) GDP (nominal) 2022 estimate • Total Increase $1.748 trillion[9] (13th) • Per capita Increase $67,464[9] (11th) Gini (2018) Positive decrease 32.5[10] medium · 16th HDI (2021) Increase 0.951[11] very high · 5th Currency Australian dollar ($) (AUD) Time zone UTC+8; +9.5; +10 (Various[N 3]) • Summer (DST) UTC+8; +9.5; +10; +10.5; +11 (Various[N 3]) Date format dd/mm/yyyy yyyy-mm-dd[12] Driving side left (this should be Right not Left) Calling code +61 ISO 3166 code AU Internet TLD .au" Donnytee3022 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The driving is on the right side of the car, not the right side of the road. CMD (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Australian Monarchy

I don't know much about the European ways, but I'm pretty sure that HM is the monarch of the UK. Faithful15 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but also monarch of the other Commonwealth realms. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 16:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ohhh. 🤦‍♂️ Faithful15 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

In the section "Biodiversity" I suggest to add the updated information on Australia announcing on 3 October 2022, a 10-year plan to prevent any more species from dying out in the country by protecting its most threatened plants and animals. The plan brings Australia into line with more than 100 other countries, including the United States, which have pledged to protect 30% of their land and 30% of their ocean by 2030. Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/04/asia/australia-threatened-species-plan-climate-intl-hnk/index.html

i.e. change X = "There are more than 1,800 animals and plants on Australia's threatened species list, including more than 500 animals."

to Y = "There are more than 1,800 animals and plants on Australia's threatened species list, including more than 500 animals. On 3 October 2022, Australia announced a 10-year plan to prevent any more species from dying out in the country by protecting its most threatened plants and animals. The plan brings Australia into line with more than 100 other countries, including the United States, which have pledged to protect 30% of their land and 30% of their ocean by 2030. Reference: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/04/asia/australia-threatened-species-plan-climate-intl-hnk/index.html " Modnar2020 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 3mi1y (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Paperpencilpeople121 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC) I would like to edit this post because I just wanted to add slight more information about the convicts arriving to Australia.

Hi Paperpencilpeople121, protection is not on a user by user basis, it is related to duration of edit history. Is there a specific change you would like to suggest? You might also want to see if the information is present on a more dedicated article, such as History of Australia (1788–1850). CMD (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022 (2)

Change "comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands." to "comprised of the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands." 168.8.125.20 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "comprising the mainland ..." is correct. See comprise. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Valid request for more naturalistic language Googleguy007 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment. Another editor has restored the correct original wording - please note that the article uses Australian English. Bahudhara (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Change "Australia is a sovereign country" to "Australia is a Country" 168.8.125.20 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The text as it stands is correct. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Valid request for more naturalistic language Googleguy007 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is now the only country article that uses this odd qualifier " sovereign country". To the majority of reader this "sovereign qualifier" implies it just recently became independent from some other country or that it's some sort of disputed territory. See Talk:United Kingdom#RfC on description of United Kingdom as a "sovereign country" in its opening paragraph for the most recent discussion about this qualifier. Moxy- 00:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The qualifier isn't odd because it makes a useful distinction between a sovereign country and a country (eg Wales) which isn't a sovereign state. This distinction is made in the linked wikipedia article. Nor does calling a country a sovereign country imply that the country has recently gained sovereignty or is a disputed territory. However, if there is consensus that articles on countries should not distinguish between those which are sovereign states and those which are not in the first sentence of the lead, then I am happy to go along with this. As for changing "comprising" to "comprised of" and "country" to "Country", one is a mistake and the other doesn't improve the article one jot. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Qualifiers are odd when they give the impression of straying away from the default when that situation does not call for it. For example if someone called Jupiter a classical planet in casual parlance that would be unusual. A useful distinction in context, but unneeded outside of specific situations. Less "naturalistic" might be a good description of it. CMD (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's arguable that all Wikipedia articles about countries should make the distinction between those which are sovereign states and those which aren't, particularly when there is a link to a wikipedia article making such a distinction. This is an encyclopaedia, not a casual conversation. But, as I said, if this is the only article which uses the term sovereign country, and a clear consensus has been establised against this usage, then the change should be made. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The type of country is normally covered in the 3rd paragraph...as it is here " Australia is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, comprising six states and ten territories. Australia's population of nearly 26 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated on the eastern seaboard" Moxy- 20:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern, as a reasonably well educated Australian of over 70 years, is that I have no idea what a sovereign country is, and the article now tells me I live in one, with a Wikilink that doesn't explain it at all. This is made worse by the fact that in recent elections I have seen candidates claiming to be and to represent sovereign citizens, again without explaining what that means, and generally appearing to be nutters. What IS a sovereign country? And how about we explain it better? This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, after all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia explains sovereign country adequately. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

But (1) that's not what our article links to, and (2) even your link goes to something different, "sovereign country" to Sovereign state. I find this stuff very confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the link back to "Sovereign state", as it was previously (in his haste to fix Googleguy007's edit, Aemilius Adolphin had inadvertently put in the wrong link). IMHO the distinction still needs to be made, until Australia becomes a republic. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Australia going to become either unsovereign or not a country if it becomes a republic? CMD (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It will be more obvious then, so it will no longer need to be specified. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with whether Australia is a monarchy or republic. A sovereign state is simply one that has full legal personality in international law. "Independent state" might be a better term, but the term of art is sovereign state. I still think the distinction between a country and a sovereign state is a useful one to make early in an article, but I am happy to go with established practice. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also a matter of perception - the Canadians may have just decided to retain their links to the monarchy, but at least they have their own flag, whereas Australia's flag containing the Union Jack dates back to Federation, harking back to the days of the British Empire. Bahudhara (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That perception is not helped by a defensive lead that specifically point outs sovereignty, as opposed to the majority of sources which simply take sovereignty as written. CMD (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Again the odd qualifier begs the question of sovereign from whom and when. Are Australians concerned about their sovereignty? It makes it sound as if there was a question about its sovereignty. ..... the new Taiwan I guess.

Moxy- 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples arrival

The page makes a claim of beginning to arrive approximately 65,000 years ago. However, there has been evidence found of habitation by aboriginal peoples from 85,000 years ago. Silver Dante (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to support that evidence? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

In citation #1, there are six external links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All but 1 and 3 are dead links (surprisingly, 5 is dead, even though it's an archived link), so please mark 2, 4, 5, and 6 with {{Dead link}}. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: There are only 3 citations there, all of which have the original and an archive link, which I think got you confused. I've marked the 3rd as dead as the archive link does seem to be corrupt somehow. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Reliefmap of Australia.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Austria

This has been discussed before and consensus was not to have such a note. An editor recently added it again on the grounds there is a similar note on the Austria page. I thought I would leave it for a while before raising yet again here. I think it is not required. There is no evidence of readers confusing the two countries that I am aware of. Nickm57 (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Anecdotally I've heard of this confusion a number of times. I think both pages should have a note to that effect. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

From whom

Who is Australia "sovereign" from? Is it that they were ruled by another country before and they are now a new state? 204.237.89.229 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

(Talked about above already) ...It is odd but its been here a long time and in view should be removed. Problem with the wording is that a state can achieve independence long after acquiring sovereignty, So thus the article leave open the question is it an " independent" country not needing a qulifier. Is it more like Canada or still part of the UK like England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is what most will ask when seeing the word sovereign. Moxy- 12:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Independent country" and "sovereign country" are synonyms, and refer to states which have legal standing in international law. (Australia has standing in international law and is a member of the UN so is a sovereign country. Wales is a country but doesn't have standing in international law and isn't a member of the UN so isn't a sovereign state.) The term "sovereign country" is explained in the link so anyone who is confused need only click it. As you point out, the statement has been part of the stable version of this article for years and there seems to be no consensus for change. I would prefer that "sovereign country" be changed to "sovereign state" which is the more common term in international law. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Will have to disagree with your assessment and unsourced definition Talmon, S.; Talmon, C.D.I.I.L.P.L.S. (1998). Recognition of Governments in International Law:. Oxford monographs in international law. Clarendon Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-19-826573-3. Retrieved 2023-03-19.. As mentioned above the link does not help explain 1901 nationhood vs 1986 independence. Current wording sound like we are talking about native title Moxy- 12:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think Australia only became an independent country in 1986, you really need to read the article about Australia and the article about sovereign states. And recognition of governents in international law is different from the recognition of states. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We can debate full autonomy later as historians and legal scholars differ on this[11]. Having the first link in the lead...leading to zero content about the country is useless and as seen by multiple comments causes confusion. The article should explain its sovereignty not a link as the other country articles do.Moxy- 13:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dreadful English

"When Europeans first began visiting and mapping Australia" - no, when they began visiting. They only did this once. There was no 'first, second etc'. Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.253.184 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I have fixed it. Thank you for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this :) 89.240.253.184 (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Anglosphere

Hello all

A couple of editors would like to add some references to the concept of the Anglosphere in relation to Australia's culture and foreign relations. My view is that the concept is rarely if ever used in Australian public debate in these areas and it hasn't been demonstrated to be a key factor in foreign or cultural policy or developments. The trend of the past few decades has been towards multiculturalism and Australia as a part of Asia. Of course, the US is a major strategic partner and there are historical cultural ties to the UK and other British settler countries, but I am yet to see a strong consensus of sources that the concept of an 'Anglosphere' explains the recent shifts in Australian culture and strategic partnerships. I don't think the concept is helpful in a general article about Australia but if the consensus is to include a reference I think it should be a general one in the body of the article something like, "'while some writers consider Australia to be a key member of an 'Anglosphere', since the 1980s there has mostly been bipartisan support policy for multiculturalism and increased strategic partnerships with other Asian nations." The words could be polished and suitable sources easily found. I think a statement like this would be better than shoehorning the concept into the article in an awkward way. Happy to discuss and go with the consensus. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The government places a strong emphasis on the Quad, which includes Japan and India and has evolved into an alliance-like structure. Australia's foreign policy and defence links with Japan are particularly close. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say, particularly regarding trends of recent decades towards multiculturalism and involvement with Asia. But at the risk of being a smartarse, I can think of more than 300 billion reasons in the past week alone why the concept of the Anglosphere is relevant in discussions of Australian foreign affairs, particularly when it comes to defence and intelligence matters. A mention of the Anglosphere best sits with AUKUS and Five Eyes, I think, as these are prime examples. Perhaps we could expand on it by saying the term is often used when criticising such arrangements? Examples of use of the term include: ABC, The Conversation, East Asia Forum, Fin Review, The Guardian, Lowy Institute and the Sydney Morning Herald. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Yes, it seems like the use of the word Anglosphere has become more popular as a term of derision used by some people opposed to Aukus (it's telling though that the articles had to include lengthy explanations of what the "Anglosphere" is). But many see Aukus as a strategic response to the perceived China threat in the South China Sea/Pacific, where the interests of the partners happened to coincide, rather than a pivot by Australia away from building strategic partnerships with other Asian powers. My concern is that the notion of Anglosphere is a disputed interpretive framework rather than a description of Australia's foreign policy. In an article of this kind, which is mainly about describing Australia (including its foreign relations) I just don't see how the term adds anything to the previous simple description of the multiple strategic alliances. Perhaps it could go in the history section? Aukus is certainly important enough to have a line there explaining what Aukus is, it's obvious link to Chinese policy in the region and that several writers have criticised the policy as a step towards creating an Anglosphere in the region. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Got to be a bit careful with this new term...Vucetic, Srdjan (2011). The Anglosphere : a genealogy of a racialized identity in international relations. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7769-8. OCLC 727944978. Moxy- 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

1.) The Anglosphere is not an inherently "racial" term.

2.) Even if the term "Anglosphere" is being distilled into race, there was literally a White Australia policy until 1973. KlayCax (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change 'Sydney' to 'Melbourne' as largest city? Scatos (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: See above discussion. CMD (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's been done at the moment, but there is not a firm consensus above. CMD (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I had an idea that I think would work well, what if Sydney was kept displayed in the infobox as largest city but in brackets next to it it specified that its the largest by the greater Sydney region, and Melbourne was displayed underneath stating that it was the Largest by urban area? I feel like this would clear up the confusion between people who read the article about the differences in why Sydney is still being listed, despite it being all over the news that Melbourne has overtaken it. Also, the fact that the Urban area is closer to how the population of many cities on wikipedia is measured makes it seem like Melbourne should at least be mentioned and the difference explained, if not it seems inconsistent with the demographic info of many world cities information on wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.199.29.145 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing this discussion to avoid duplication with the previous section. CMD (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 20 April 2023

Australia largest city is Melbourne Velorus (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. Please take part in the discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of the term "anglosphere"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article include any mention of the term "anglosphere"? Meticulo (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment. This is far too vague for a valid RfC. You will need to recommend specific wording for a change to the article. You should also firrst try to seek consensus on the Talkpage. There have already been two or three proposals for specific wording. We should see if a consensus emerges on any of these. I can't force you to do anything, but I suggest you remove the RfC for the moment until the issues and proposed wording are clarified. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I considered adding a specific wording but thought this might depart from the advice at WP:RFCOPEN to "Include a brief, neutral statement". My posting an RfC is not out of keeping, I feel, with your comment earlier on this talk page, "But let's see what others think". Once consensus has been reached about whether a mention of the concept of an Anglosphere has any place at all in the article, we can then quibble about the wording if needed. I think the term is relevant and valid as it is has been a strand of foreign policy, defence and intelligence thinking in Australia historically; and remains so, hence my earlier comment about "300 billion reasons", referring to the cost of the recent submarine deal. It is synonymous with neither the Five Eyes alliance nor the Commonwealth as a whole, being more than the former and less than the latter (and gets a mention in the article on the United Kingdom, but admittedly not those on Canada, New Zealand or the United States). I am not a proponent of it, and acknowledge it potentially has problematic racial elements with origins in the white Dominions and Anglo-Saxonism, and that the trend of the comments here so far seems to be against including the term. I've posted a notification of this RfC on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, and if there's no significant response within the next couple of weeks, I propose to post a closure request. Meticulo (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Even if there is a consensus for including the term, it will be harder to get consensus on the actual wording. We'll see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No....not a common term... the average English speaker would have no clue what this is...it's akin to saying white Commonwealth. A few years ago we had something similar added all over CANZUK. Just a recent attempt to add this everywhere as if somehow it became notable all of a sudden and no one thought of using the term before."Opinion - Britain, Time to Let Go of the 'Anglosphere'". The New York Times. 2018-07-13. Retrieved 2023-03-26.... simply not something discussed in the history of these countries that is covered by other terms.Moxy- 03:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The term is in the news now, and all of the sources provided above were news sources. Do any high-level sources use the term, and what weight do they accord it? CMD (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not surpisingly, we have an article on Anglosphere. It describes Australia as one of the five core countries. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Australia is certainly core to the concept of an "Anglosphere", not sure I've seen a use of anglosphere that excludes it. What is less sure is how core the concept of an Anglosphere is to Australia. At a broad level, the Commonwealth covers similar ground. At a restricted level you simply get the Five Eyes, at which point you're better off just discussing the Five Eyes. CMD (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Australia is clearly part of the Anglosphere. The concept is broad and extends beyond defence and foreign policy matters, and – immigrants, multiculturalism, and Asia focus notwithstanding – it deeply applies to Australia. Whether this article's prose can be shaped to include the term in a natural way is another matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Anglosphere is an imagined community of English-speaking nations....what could be mentioned is the Five Eyes an actual alliance Moxy- 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I believe the term was first introduced by The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-first Century By James C. Bennett .

I think references to books like this support the inclusion whatever the connotation but I have not scanned the literature for more recent. The term itself is intuitive and describes a kinship all citizens of English speaking nations have which is very real. Biz (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed RFC

Hello! Per the listing at Wikipedia:Closure requests, I've endeavored to close this RFC. Unfortunately, I believe the fairest reading of the comments suggests the result was "no consensus" based on the participation numbers and the valid arguments on both sides. (I will say that the editors who opposed inclusion were more likely to strongly oppose that inclusion, but I didn't think the distinction was so apparent as to push the result one way or the other.)

As a complete aside, my first instinct would have been the same as Meticulo's—to first ask whether the term should be used and then worry about specific wording. But Aemilius Adolphin may be right that presenting two specific sentences (or passages, as it were) and asking other users to express their preference may be more likely to achieve a consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sovereign country

Does it say "sovereign country" because Australia has a king who is referred to as the sovereign? Why does Canada not have this term?104.192.232.78 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a term of art in international law. If you click on the link you will see the explanation. Also see the discussion above in this talk page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Languages of Australia

It seems that this addition to the article does have to be discussed here rather than have an edit war.

• Let me kick this off by saying that I think the edit was fine and that those who who oppose it should carefully explain why they oppose it on the talk page and that it should stay at least until that discuss is concluded. --Bduke (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The stable version stays until consensus is reached on a disputed change. The first problem is that the info box is not the place to put new information which isn't in the body of the article. MOS:INFOBOX. The second problem is that the information is misleading if not outright wrong. Australia is a multicultural country with hundreds of spoken languages. The census collects data on languages spoken at home and this needs to be adequately covered in the body of the article rather than the infobox. I have no problem with more information on Indigenous languages, but this is a complex and disputed area which would need to be properly sourced and included under an appropriate sub-section of the article. I would be happy to work with others to produce such a section but it needs to be done properly rather than crammed in a misleading way into the infobox. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want, you can exclude non-indigenous languages and limit "Spoken languages" to "Indigenous languages" Arallilbb (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The whole idea of "spoken languages" is complex and probably does not belong in the info box. No other country article that I know of has a separate "spoken languages" section in the info box for a very good reason-it isn't meaningful for multicultural countries with large migrant populations. The source also doesn't look reliable. For example, it states that English is the official language of Australia which, as far as I know, isn't the case. What you should do is try to improve the discussion of languages in the relevant section of the article. That section is hopelessly out of date, quoting information from 2005 in some cases. Please read the policy on infoboxes and the policy on disputed edits WP:BRD. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. "Spoken languages" in Australia, crammed into the info box, is not an improvement to the article. Nickm57 (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Infoboxes have their limitations. There is extensive discussion in the article about the complex situation in Australia regarding languages other than English, but it's too much to try to squeeze into the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

exactly, agreed Velorus (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

i also agree, it shouldn’t be there plus it’s wrong and misleading Michael Reinolds (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

bruh literally puts every single language that is spoken in Australia on the info box lol Aussielandian (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly thank you mate, should not be added Wualifier ors (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's been converted to Indigenous languages like in Papua New Guinea, I think it might be appropriate for you. Dêrsimî62 (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

no countries with native people state a link to all the languages that even the slightest people speak, if that was the case then Papua new Guinea and South Africa would have over 1000 languages on their section. Keep the Australia article clean and correct Michael Reinolds (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

i don’t agree, shouldn’t be added Velorus (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is an "Indigenous languages" tab of 851 languages in Papua New Guinea. Dêrsimî62 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Canada and Usa also have many languages spoken. Do you see a link for all of them on their info box? nope Wualifier ors (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This does not belong to the info box Aussielandian (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

remove it now Factgifter (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It's removed. So hopefully, discussion about the usefulness of languages in the info box can be had here instead. Nickm57 (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous languages

One editor has made several attempts to change the info box to include a definite number of Indigenous languages. Once again, the problem is that the exact number of living Indigenous languages in Australia is disputed. Ethnologue says there are 214. This article states that the number is 123. I have read other scholarly articles which give different figures. The info box is not the place to present this complex issue. It needs to be addressed in the main body of the article.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be in the spirit of WP if those editors in favor of this change could actually present their ideas for improvements here on the talk page. I don’t mean a one line edit summary either. Nickm57 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes remove it please it is wrong Michael Reinolds (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove the misleading information he added it’s still there Factgifter (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the relevant section of the article which should aid discussion on whether anything should be added to the infobox.

"호주" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 호주 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 호주 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Random list vs real infomation reverted ?

What version is more informative about the country and has better links and sources? Simply put what version is more educational?

New version....WP:COUNTRYLEAD

Australia has a highly developed market economy and one of the highest per capita incomes globally. Its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade relations are crucial to the country's economy. Australia is recognized as a middle and regional power for its role in international affairs, with a tendency to pursue multilateral and regional solutions. To support its foreign policy commitments, the country maintains a well-equipped military having the thirteenth-highest expenditure. Australia is part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions.

VS

Old version....WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Australia has a highly developed market economy and one of the highest per capita incomes globally. Australia is a regional power, and has the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure. It is a member of international groupings including the United Nations; the G20; the OECD; the World Trade Organization; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation; the Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence/security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, the Five Eyes, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue. It is a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

References

Moxy- 11:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

As I explained on your Talk page, I can see why you want to summarise the information about Australia's international relations, but your wording is too general and vague. One could take any country in the world and say that they "are part of multiple major international and intergovernmental institutions" and "with a tendency to pursue multilateral and regional solutions.". We need to be more specific than that, but perhaps without adding a shopping list of international agreements.

Some of the current sources are a bit dated, but they support the content which still generally holds true. The current version of the lead also says, "Australia's abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade relations are crucial to the country's economy, which generates its income from various sources including services, mining exports, banking, manufacturing, agriculture and international education." You deleted the second half of this sentence for no apparent reason and replaced the sources with an article from the Reserve Bank Bulletin which doesn't support your truncated content. (The article is actually about the Terms of Trade Boom from 2005-11.)

WP:INDISCIMINATE is about entire articles which are nothing but an indiscriminate collection of facts. It is irrelevant for the lead which is supposed to be a summary of the article. I think the lead as it currently stands is a better summary of the article than your version, but I agree it could do with some refinement. That said, I think the Economy Section of the article needs to be improved before we takle the relevant part of the lead. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I now see that you copied your changes to the lead pretty much from the Canada article which you also recently rewrote. Australia isn't Canada you know. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup was trying to bring the article up to what other FA articles do..that is drop link spam to articles that don't mention this topic and drop sea of blue with links to main/parent articles that are oddly missing over ever sub article. As for "multilateral and regional solutions" I think with its source and basic info that is covred in the article its much better then link spam and sea of blue to inform our readers. Its clear to me the educational value difference here. Your version or the old version does not link to parent articles on economy, foreign affairs, or even the military... instead it links things like Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence/security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, Five Eyes and the even the United States. Just have to say it's disappointing to see a revert to a less informative version based on it could be better over trying to improve the edit. Done here!! .... as one of the main contributors to this article over a decade I find recently there has been trouble with implementing educational upgrades.Moxy- 00:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Largest" City in Australia

Hi all,

There were a few articles on 17 April that indicated that Melbourne has become the largest city in Australia based on population numbers of "Significant Urban Areas" from the Australian Bureau of Statistics but in the "estimated regional population" metric, it states that Sydney is larger. What are everyone's thought on which statistical metric that aligns most with 'largest city' here? GarbageKarate (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC) BBC Article SMH Article

We have used the Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) definition for some time and should continue to use it for consistency over time and between cities. None are intrinsically better than another, but the ABS uses the GCCSA definition for most of its major publications so it makes sense to stick with it. If we want to change to another definition then there should be a good reason to do so and a broad consensus for the change. The fact that one definition now shows Melbourne to be more populous than Sydney doesn't seem to be a good reason to change our definitions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Put both, Sydney(largest city) Melbourne (largest metro area). Just like the India article does. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that largest city in Australia was based on the statistical division, not the urban area? (I mean, technically Brisbane is the largest actual city.) I'm fine with listing Melbourne as the largest, but if we're basing it now on urban area wouldn't we have to change rankings in a lot of articles? Advocateaxis (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not totally sure what distinction you're making. Brisbane is indeed the largest urban local council in terms of population. Melbourne now has the largest Significant Urban Area population which defines contiguous urban areas, and which aligns with most accepted definitions of an urban (city) populations, notably the populations used in most Wikipedia city Infoboxes. As such I agree we should be listing Melbourne as the largest city in the Infobox. Jimmythemini2 (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

When I was working in Adelaide for the ABS on the 1991 Census, the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) hierarchy then used was based on Statistical Divisions (corresponding to regions, such as Greater Adelaide, etc.) made up of Statistical Local Areas (which usually corresponded to Local Government Areas). For the 2011 Census, the AGSC was replaced by the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) (see ABS: Frequently Asked Questions).

The ASGS structure is more complex (see the ASGS diagram on this page and the definitions on the Census geography glossary.

Historically we have used the "Statistical Division" pop stats for "Greater Metro xxx" articles, and under the AGSC structure, "Statistical Divisions" have been replaced by "Greater Capital City Statistical Areas" (GCCSA), which IMHO should still be used for consistency, rather than "Significant Urban Areas" (SUA). As the SMH article points out, using SUA rather than GCCSA figures makes Melbourne currently larger than Sydney, but this is based on a technicality, rather than the official GCCSA metric. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

What I'm meaning is that there are multiple ways to define city, but up until now for Australian articles we've been using the metric by which Sydney is still the largest. We can change that, absolutely, but we'd have to edit a lot more to make it consistent across all Australian city articles. Advocateaxis (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem we have is that the statement from the ABS that Melbourne now has the largest population has, not surprisingly, gained massive publicity, and not just in Australia. It's nice for us to try to be consistent in our definitions over time, but we simply cannot ignore what the ABS has said and what the world has heard. We must acknowledge the ABS statement in our article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

No we don't. We have a beatup from the BBC. The BBC asked the ABS for a comment and the ABS were at pains to point out it is a technicality in one definition and that in their (and our) preferred definition Sydney is still the most populous city. Read to the bottom of the BBC article and search the ABS website and you will see that there is no official statement saying that Melbourne has overtaken Sydney as the most populous city. Indeed the official ABS data still shows Sydney as the most populous city.[12]https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/regional-population/latest-release Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I sounded so bossy. I just think we need to wait to this settles down then we can make a reasoned decision on which is the best definition of the city populations in Australia. We shouldn't just react to random media articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My point still stands. The media HAS said Melbourne is the biggest city. It has become big news. We cannot ignore it. We need to say something. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The media has latched onto whatever gets clicks, and they'll do the same when Melbourne does indeed become the largest city by the measurement that Wikipedia and the relevant authorities have always used. We are not there yet and as it stands Sydney is the largest city in Australia by population. Emerald3333 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It makes no sense to suddenly change from using GCCSA to SUA to measure the population of cities in Australia. If the SUA had been the most relevant metric of a city's population, Melbourne had a larger SUA than Sydney in 2018, however, there was not a push to change the description of the largest city in Australia to Melbourne when this happened. This event in 2018 did not attract much media attention either. However, the surpassing of Sydney by Melbourne in SUA population in 2023 has somehow attracted widespread media attention and has sparked a departure from the historic measure of a city's population which is the GCCSA.

Technically, the "largest city" could be defined in three ways:

Largest Metro Area: Sydney

Largest Urban Area: Melbourne

Largest City Proper: Brisbane Sydtransportwriter (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Sydney and added a footnote explaining the SUA vs GCCSA. Let me know what you all think. GarbageKarate (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your footnote states: "On 17 April 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics announced that Melbourne had become Australia's most populous city based on Significant Urban Areas (SUAs) ..." However, there's currently nothing on the ABS website about any such announcement or official media release, and there's no reporting of this on the ABC News website. The BBC article's source is the SMH article, which seems to be based on the reporter delving into the more obscure SUA data (rather than GCCSA), followed by his interview with the ABS staffer. This selective statistical reporting seems to be just a beatup to stoke historic Melbourne-Sydney rivalry, which has worked, judging by the ensuing edit warring on the respective articles. Bahudhara (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, an amendment is to the footnote is fine then. GarbageKarate (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the clarification @Bahudhara. I have now removed the footnote and left as is. There has also been some edit warring on mainly the Sydney page and one of my reverts was considered 'unconstructive'. I've changed it again and added my justification as well as a previous source. GarbageKarate (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for reposting this here, I am not sure if this is seperate from an edit request and I wanted to add it to the discussion- im not trying to spam. I had an idea that I think would work well, what if Sydney was kept displayed in the infobox as largest city but in brackets next to it it specified that its the largest by the greater Sydney region, and Melbourne was displayed underneath stating that it was the Largest by urban area? I feel like this would clear up the confusion between people who read the article about the differences in why Sydney is still being listed, despite it being all over the news that Melbourne has overtaken it. Also, the fact that the Urban area is closer to how the population of many cities on wikipedia is measured makes it seem like Melbourne should at least be mentioned and the difference explained, if not it seems inconsistent with the demographic info of many world cities information on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.199.29.145 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Given this will continue to be an issue and source of confusion until the Melbourne GCCSA overtakes that of Sydney, I think we should essentially make a distinction between a 'Largest metro' and 'Largest urban area' and leave it at that. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the ABS releases/updates its regional population release on 20 April 2023 to see what's included there.

As others have said, I think we should consider consistently using the SUA populations for demographic data relating to "cities" across the Australian pages. Jimmythemini2 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea that we should be changing from GCCSA to SUA does not make any sense. We have been using the GCCSA's for a long time and they are the most common definition of a city's population as used by the ABS. It is also consistent with how city populations are calculated in other countries. I've yet to see any compelling evidence as to why this should be changed. MDRX (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, GCCSA should remain the standard. But I also think (as we've been discussion on the Melbourne talkpage) that SUA should be listed with appropriate explanatory notes on the infoboxes of the capital cities alongside GCCSA. It would help clear up this confusion, and SUA provides a more accurate measure of city density that's closer to international standard. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Yet again, Melbourne would only bigger if you include Melton, which is like including the Blue Mountains in metropolitan Sydney. Anyway, it's a similar issue with other countries, a good example of this is Belgium. Brussels is listed as the capital and largest city because it is, but as municipality Antwerp is larger. We have a note on the article about Antwerp that says: "The capital region of Brussels, whose metropolitan area comprises the city itself plus 18 independent communal entities, counts over 1,700,000 inhabitants, but these communities are counted separately by the Belgian Statistics Office."

Also, hardly anyone has heard about this, not even in Australia. I only found out because of Wikipedia. Therefore, it has not gained significant publicity, Sydney is still known as the bigger city and the more culturally significant/iconic city, plus NSW is still the most populous state (no exceptions). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a very silly and parochial comment. Including Melton is absolutely nothing like including the Blue Mountains. Half the rest of your comment is boasting about how great Sydney is. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not but anyway. Believe whatever crap you want. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like when an American presidential candidate wins the popular vote but loses in the electoral college. Why not just say that Melbourne is the biggest city when measured in this way but Syndey is when measured that specific other way? The largest cities in the U.S. by population and geographic area are not the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The US has a consistent list of most populated cities. As does Australia. The measurement used for the latter both with the ABS and on here is the GCCSA, which is in line with international standards for similar lists. For the time being, Sydney remains the largest city in Australia by population. Emerald3333 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposals

I suggest:

1) We change the info box to something like this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Aemilius_Adolphin/Sandbox2 (I'm no good at source editing, so please feel free to adjust the wording and notes.)
2) We change the wording of the lead to: "Canberra is the nation's capital. While Australia's most populous city is Sydney, Melbourne is more populous in its contiguous urban area." This wording is consistent with that currently in the Sydney and Melbourne articles.
3) In the Demographics section there is a table of Largest Populated Areas in Australia. We add a footnote to Melbourne in that Table stating that it is the most populous in contiguous urban area.
4) We retain GCCSA as the main definition of capital city populations for the time being.
5) We make any necessary edits to the Sydney and Melbourne articles to ensure that the wording and footnotes are consistent with whatever we decide here.
6) The issue of whether we move to SUA as our standard definition of city populations be deferred and discussed separately when the current Sydney/Melbourne issue dies down.
Happy to discuss— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We should not have those acronyms in the infobox, they are going to be completely meaningless to almost all readers. As for the lead, such detail over a point of trivia is undue; it would be better to simplify the sentence or remove the list of cities. CMD (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that those acronyms will be meaningless to most readers, however a note like Sydney (Metropolitan area) and Melbounre (Urban Area) use definitions that most people will understand, whilst retaining the definition meant by those acronyms. 122.199.29.145 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes to info box made. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah that looks like it would work 122.199.29.145 (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Who says Melbourne is bigger in its contiguous area? According to the last Census, Greater Sydney has just under five and a half million people, Greater Melbourne has around five million people. In terms of the city itself, Sydney is also bigger. Just keep it as Sydney, do not change it. Anyway, "contiguous" is a word that might confuse readers if put in the lead section. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, note that your definition of "Urban Sydney" probably doesn't include places like Camden, Pittwater or Windsor, which are in Sydney, which probably decreases the population, whereas your definition of "Urban Melbourne" probably includes Melton, which is not in Melbourne. As pointed out in several articles I found, the only reason Melbourne would be bigger is if you included Melton. So including Melton as part of Melbourne is like Sydney including the Central Coast or the Blue Mountains as part of Sydney. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Melbourne is indeed more populous in its contiguous urban area. This is a fact which has had enormous media coverage in the past few days and is supported by the ABS definition of Significant Urban Area. Contiguous is an ordinary English word and the concept is explained in the link in the article. Please read the attached links and the discussion above. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

It's the ABS' definition of urban area, SUA, just as the Greater Capital City Statistical Area are determined by the ABS and are also defined by arbitrary decisions about what to include and what not to include in the boundary. Importantly, they roughly correspond to common international measures of cities, the "Metro" and "Urban" population. The question is how much weight to place on the two distinct measures, and what we can do to stop people constantly revising the articles based on news coverage. I think @Aemilius Adolphin's solution seems effective, easily understandable and accurate, and I think we'll need to make similar changes to both cities. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought the Blue Mountains counted towards Sydney's statistical division population? I prefer using the statistical division / metro as the basis of city population, but Sydney's hardly better defined than Melbourne. Advocateaxis (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think our best option is to list them both, one way or another. Considering the legal definition of the "City of Melbourne" and the "City of Sydney" are not the most populous cities in Australia (that being the "City of Brisbane", the "significant urban area" would most likely best fit the typical (albeit unofficial) definition of a "city", while the "greater region" or "functional area" would more likely be considered a "metropolitan area".

So, I think listing them as Melbourne (urban) and Sydney (metropolitan/region), or separating them into two separate "Largest city" and "Largest metropolitan areas" sections, could be best suited. I think it would be a poor decision to list one rather than the other, especially considering the number of sources that reported Melbourne overtaking Sydney, even if deeper in the article it was described as a technicality. However it is listed, they both should be up there, probably with a footnote as well. Estar8806 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That still sounds needlessly confusing.

GCSSA has always been the standard here. Why the desire to change? Emerald3333 (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should also include a citation in the lead with a link to the latest ABS regional data released yesterday. Policy allows for referencing of statement in the lead if they are likely to be challenged. Also when people are confronted with official data which contradicts what the media told them they might think twice before making an edit. The same source should be cited in the Sydney and Melbourne pages.

So add a link to: "Canberra is the nation's capital. While Australia's most populous city is Sydney, Melbourne is more populous in its contiguous urban area." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Initial survey

This discussion currently seems to be going nowhere, and has broadened significantly. On the issue of Australia's largest city, should this article say Australia's largest city is:

• Sydney
• Melbourne
• Both
• Neither

Pinging previous participants: @GarbageKarate, Aemilius Adolphin, Wkpdsrnm2023, Advocateaxis, Jimmythemini2, Bahudhara, HiLo48, Emerald3333, Sydtransportwriter, MDRX, Gracchus250, Thiscouldbeauser, Chipmunkdavis, and Estar8806: Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Missed some: @Scatos, Velorus, and ScottishFinnishRadish: Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both. It should say Sydney is the most populous city in its metropolitan area. However, it should also say that Melbourne is more populous in its urban area. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This should probably not be in the lead section though. Explain it in a footnote instead because on Wikipedia we have used GCCSA (which is what the ABS uses) for years, it's weird to just suddenly change to SUA. Plus Melbourne is only bigger because they want to include Melton.

This is a similar thing to the issue with Belgium and its largest city. I'm sure we all think it's Brussels, the country's capital. Well, you're correct in the common definition but in terms of municipalities, Antwerp, the capital of Flanders, is the largest.

Anyway, Australians (at least the ones in my area) still know Sydney as the largest city in Australia, because GCCSA is what really matters. Again, nobody calls Brisbane the largest city by population (it is by area), yet the Brisbane City Council has over a million people because Brisbane is mostly just this one LGA (unlike other state capitals or even some large regional cities e.g Newcastle, which has two).

So if you're really desperate to include it, put a footnote and please note the differences between definitions (i.e the common/ABS definition (GCCSA) and the alternative definition (SUA)). The infobox should stay as Sydney, with the footnote if you truly insist. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As I and others have said above, we should keep Sydney because it makes no sense to change from GCCSA (greater capital city statistical area, which has been the standard here for years) to SUA (significant urban area). The ABS uses GCCSA, so we should stick with that here on Wikipedia. Plus, if you think about it: Sydney is the largest city in GCCSA, Melbourne is if you include Melton as part of the SUA and Brisbane is if you look at city councils (but that's because Brisbane (and other Queensland cities), unlike most other large cities, has one main LGA (local government area/council), which is the City of Brisbane, which functions like a state parliament, whereas other capital cities have a bunch of different LGAs, e.g the City of Sydney is just inner-city Sydney). Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I would opt to keep Sydney, absent more sustained change. That there is a statistical way to make Melbourne larger has clearly made news, but that doesn't make it more than trivia so far. Either way, the debate should not come remotely close to the lead, and anything in the body should clearly explain terms rather than expecting readers to know the technical difference being used to differentiate "metropolitan area" and "urban area". CMD (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what the formal definitions are of metropolitan area, urban area, and GCCSA, nor do most of our readers. (During COVID lockdown times, the Victorian government's definition of Melbourne went as far 115 km east of the city centre, because of where municipal boundaries are.) So it's actually pretty silly for us to be insisting that one of these definitions is better than the others. I would like to see Wikipedia tell the world that Australia has two large cities of roughly equal size. That's actually more significant than one of those two cities having a population 1% bigger than the other, this month, by some arbitrary measure. Trying to be absolutely precise with numbers on these things is a mug's game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This argument seems like alot of different people arguing from arbitrary metrics. You're right that most overseas readers may not realise that Melbourne is one of the biggest English-speaking cities in the world and that is worth pointing out. Poketama (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

And just as significantly, Australia's two biggest cities are virtually the same size. That's a rather unusual thing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard has always been GCCSA. Based on that, Sydney is the largest city in Australia. Ergo, that should be reflected whenever the topic comes up.

The 'Demographics' section of the Melbourne page could however make mention of Melbourne's SUA status in addition to this. Emerald3333 (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with basing on the GCCSA, and therefore Sydney. But I do also believe we should make mention of Melbourne's SUA. GarbageKarate (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between Melbourne being Australia's largest urban area (i.e. the form of a "city" as most people would conceive it and which the recent media articles are alluding to, and which aligns with the Significant Urban Area classification), and Sydney being the largest metro area (which aligns with the GCCSA classification).

The fact of the matter is Australia essentially has two different largest cities depending on which of two totally valid ABS classifications you want to use, and we should acknowledge that. It seems the media will be using the SUA definition going forward so not reflecting this reality will just cause confusion. 203.214.77.107 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both - Melbourne and Sydney could both be Australia's largest city depending on what your definition of largest city is. It's not like listing two cities as the largest is unheard of, we've already done it on India and in several U.S. states (albeit as separate "city" vs. "metro area"). In any case, numerous reliable sources reported on Melbourne overtaking Sydney as the largest city (albeit on a technicality), so we must mention it one way or another. --Estar8806 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Both. Recommend using the India page as a model i.e. Largest city: Melbourne (urban area); Sydney (metropolitan area) Jimmythemini2 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Both as I said in my original comment: Put both, Sydney(largest city) Melbourne (largest metro area). Just like the India article does Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that makes some sense, but I'd still prefer a footnote. Anyway, every other language Wikipedia still has Sydney as the largest city. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

We've had a fair bit of the argument "We've always done it that way" here. Now you're using "But everyone else does it that way". Neither is terribly helpful. Surely the Wikipedia written in the language used in Australia can be be reasonably expected to lead the way on a matter about Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

Include all National Anthem, the Royal Anthem being God Save The King as done on Wikipedia pages for Canada and New Zealand 120.17.152.151 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The royal anthem is not the national anthem. It is only played when one of the royal family visits, as the note in the info fox already states. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Official and national language of Australia

Given that Australia's de facto official language is English, I think the page should be edited to reflect that because to say next to the official language word None at the federal level sounds like that Australia has more than 1 official language which it doesn't and that's gonna confuse a lot of readers, so instead I propose that the languages section at the top of the page should be like this, Official language and national language English (de facto). 82.19.40.217 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The info box is supposed to contain a concise summary of key facts. It correctly states that there is no official language at the federal level in law. The question of whether it has de facto status as an official language is best kept for the main body of the article where I think the point is already adequately explained and sourced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Australia explicitly does not have an official language (see [13], for instance). The infobox is correct in that it notes that there is no official language, though English is the national language. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nick-D 1234554321veer (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nick-D No, Austrailia has no officia 1234554321veer (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No Austrailia has no Official Language 1234554321veer (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nick-D No, Austrailia has no official language 1234554321veer (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

Remove Sydney as largest city. As of 2023, Melbourne has exceeded both in terms of metro and urban population figures. BrigadierBringadeer (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Could a royal anthem be added as ‘God save the King’ since this is a recognised anthem of Australia. 58.107.153.248 (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what a consensus is, if you edit this page. Like the Canada page could you add God save the King as Australia’s Royal anthem 58.107.153.248 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The footnote on the info box already explains that God save the King as well as Advance Australia Fair is played whenever a member of the royal family is visiting. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Australia

An editor has made a couple of attempts to add information on LGTB rights to the lead and various other parts of the article. I reverted them because:

1) In some cases they were not supported by the cited source or were contradicted by other sources.

2) In some cases the reliability of the cited source was dubious (ie a "crowd sourced" database)

3) The information was randomly placed in the article.

I have no problem with relevant, reliably sourced information about LGBT rights being incorporated into the article in a logical way, but I think we need to reach a consensus on the best way to do this. I and have invited the editor to make their case here. @Doomdorm64 Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"Redundant" wikilinks for states and territories, recently reverted by @Aemilius Adolphin

I carefully added a tight clump of wikilinks for states and territories to Australia#States_and_territories. It is true these wikilinks exist previously in the text, but these links are scattered throughout the early article and several screens away. As a PRACTICAL matter, someone who is reading such text and becomes interested in a particular state or territory, would naturally look to the states and territories section to find a link to such, especially if they are interested in more than one.

While technically redundant, I find it quite reasonable to provide this resource.
 EubieDrew  (talk)  ~  01:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but the states and territories are already linked earlier in the article and linking them all together again results is a sea of blue. Given that there is already an article on the states and territories of Australia, the best solution is to provide a link to that article. This has already been done.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I can accept that. Not what I would do if in charge of style, but reasonable. :)
 EubieDrew  (talk)  ~  00:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Australia is a continent

Australia is a continent 116.250.222.129 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Australia (continent) Moxy- 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How many founders of Australia were there?

How can we find out the exact number of convicts that arrived on the first boat from England? 2ndbaseshortstop (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See the article on the First Fleet. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

And note firstly that it was a fleet of 11 ships, not a single boat, and secondly, that others from that fleet, marines and soldiers, stayed on too to help establish the colony. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As a mild addition to the OP responses, the people on the First Fleet only founded the Colony of New South Wales. "Australia" as an inhabited location was founded by Indigenous Australians many thousands of years earlier. "Australia" as a political construct was founded in 1900 by an Act of the UK Parliament, and I guess it's arguable the founder is therefore Henry Parkes who was the person in Australia integral to achieving this outcome. Point being the number of convicts on a boat in 1787-88 is not meaningful in identifying the founders of either the place or the nation. There's a fair bit more on all of this at the article.-- Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest that the founders of Australia as a political entity were the several million voters (including a small minority of women and Aboriginals) who voted by referendum to federate the existing colonies. Parkes and other politicans could huff and puff as much as they liked, but the people of Australia had to vote it in. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, agree with that. It just wasn't a decision made by the sad unfortunates dumped in Botany Bay in 1788. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

[Pedant alert] They weren't dumped in Botany Bay. That was found to be a useless swamp, so they were dumped at Sydney Cove instead, where the soil was so poor they couldn't grow anything and nearly starved to death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

[Counter-pedantry alert] Well, for the first night at least they were dumped in Botany Bay - where some of them staggered ashore, got drunk, had sex with each other on the beach and lost most of their livestock in a storm, thereby setting up some enduring Australian stereotypes. And yes they were recollected and re-dumped in Sydney Cove later but I'd argue that was a second dumping rather than the continuation of a multi-day dumping that began in one bay and then migrated over the sandhills to continue dumping in the next one. I will grant you that Sydney Cove then became a human dump for decades while Botany Bay eventually became just a rubbish dump. But clothed in the glory of true pedant righteousness I maintain that the first and original (and therefore most exciting and not at all wp:undue) dumping was in glorious Botany Bay and not your irrelevant and insignificant Sydney. Harrumph! -- Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm from Melbourne, where we all already agree that Sydney is irrelevant and insignificant. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Human migration to Australia

Hello all,

I have changed the date in the lead from 65,000 years BP to 50,000-65,000 years BP to reflect the information in the article and the current scientific consensus. I have added sources from the relevant article on the site of the oldest human habitation at Madjedbebe.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Further to my changes, please see relevant policy on reliable sources:

"Isolated studies – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context."

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We should drop this from the lead. Let the body explain. Moxy- 13:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding to Demographics (ethnic and ancestry)

In the "Demographics of Australia article" i added a paragraph commenting on the ethnic composition of Australia a few months, it is as follows

"Although the ABS does not collect data on race and ethnic background, various studies have put together results of the census to determine the ethnic composition of Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission has estimated the European population at 76% of the Australian population,[20] while a media diversity study put it at 72%, the non-European proportion was 21% and 23% respectively, and the Aboriginal Australian population at 3% in both.[21]"

They are pretty reliable sources, with the first coming from the AHRC

I was curious able how others felt about incorporating perhaps something like this into the "ancestry and immigration" section under demographics

I say this because this section does not specifically state the estimated ethnic composition of Australia (largely because the census doesnt collect ethnic data, just ancestry)

Perhaps something mentioning the data on Australians with anglo-celtic ancestry, or just european ancestry as a whole, etc, and while on this topic, i think some sort of maps indicating the ancestral/ethnic data would be useful, as they are generally scarce, it would mainly come down to people being willing to do the research.

Happy for discussion on this! Auspol4 (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any value in this. The AHRC report is dated (they don't use 2016 census results) and both reports simply lump people into 3-4 crude categories based on their interpretation of census results. It is wrong to call these crude categories "the ethnic composition of Australia". The two studies also have a particular political agenda. I strongly recommend sticking with the official ABS categories which are the most objective and widely used for statistical purposes. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

These estimates pretty much always seem to ignore a reality that is possibly more common in Australia than in most other countries, that is the proportion of people with mixed ancestries. It's obviously an increasing proportion, and must not be ignored. I get very suspicious when the figures add up to 100%, or close to that. I suspect all the people with multiple ancestries should make the number a fair bit higher than 100. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2023

pebis Based and truthpilled (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Christian sects

According to the 2021 census, 20.0% are Catholic, 17.7% are Protestant and 3.7% are other Christians. This information should be added. Trannoyye (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the Religion section. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Religion, languages and info box

Hello all

I have edited the info box so that it retains its intended purpose of a quick summary of the most important information in the article MOS:INFOBOX. In particular, one editor has been increasing the number of religions listed in the Info Box to the point where religions representing only 0.8% of the population are included. This is too detailed for an info box. Information at this level of detail can be found in the article and in the linked article on religions in Australia. Policy states: "the purpose of an infobox [is]: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article.... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

Simiarly, the samne editor has added dubious information on Indigenous Languages to the info box. As the article makes clear, the number of Indigenous languages currently spoken in Australia is contested. Estimates range between about 120 to 200 plus. It all depends on which source you use and how you decide between languages and dialects. The article makes this clear as does the linked article on languages in Australia.

This has been discussed before on the Talk page and I request that if editors disagree with the approach outlined in policy they discuss it here on the Talk page and seek consensus.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trannoyye Given that you again restored your contested addition to the info box without responding to my concerns on your Talk Page, please seek consensus here. I again refer you to relevant policy: WP:BRD MOS:INFOBOX Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames @Canley @Nick Thorne You were all involved in the last discussion on this issue in 2021. Would you like to comment? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the parameter entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed remove the parameter entirely. Our most overseen FA article's like Canada, Japan, Germany dont use it... however we do have some antiquated FA articles that still use it like India, but the India article is in an old FA style still having sources in the lead and odd sized images and galleries all over that just don't fly with today's FA standards. Moxy- 00:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The info is useful. It needs to be present in the infobox. 182.177.0.240 (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Previous related discussions: [14][15][16][17] Mitch Ames (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Previous stable version should remain.Dysporta (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What you created wasn't a "previous stable version" it was a version which had the same information on religion three times: in the info box, in prose in the Religion section and in a table in the Religion section. I removed the table in the religion section to get the article back to what was the previous "stable" version. Can you tell us why you "strongly disagree" with the removal of religion from the info box with reference to policy. Otherwise this is a "I just don't like it" argument. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Trannoyye Please stop changing the religion section of the info box while it is under discussion. Please join the discussion here and seek consensus for your preferred version of the info box. Please read and comply with policy on the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Please read policy on disruptive editing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Area of Australia

According to the given Geoscience reference, the area shown on this page is incorrect. Travelmite (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Irreligion

Hello all,

I have removed the following statement in the Religion section: "As of 2023, a plurality of Australians are irreligious".

Unless I have missed something, the cited article doesn't use the term "irreligious" and the survey indicated that more people in Australia are religious than not religious. In any event, the 2021 Census is far more reliable that a sample survey and it shows that the plurality of Australians are religious.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If the branches of Christianity are considered separate then that statement would be true. however the cited article doesn't show this and the info box shows Christianity as larger than no religion.

I didn't know the meaning of "plurality" and others might also not, so it shouldn't be included Garvey 96 (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Torres Strait Islander

Agriculture also developed on some islands and by 700 years ago villages appeared.

This section can be added to the Torres Strait Islander section in the Indigenous part in the History section. 46.2.198.130 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to boldly make this edit. I personally don't have access to the book/source you referenced. Fork99 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It is impossible for me to do this because the page is procected. 46.2.198.130 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise that, could you please formally request an edit request by using the WP:Edit request wizard? Make sure to request your edit in a "Change X to Y" or "Add X after/before Y" or "Remove X after/before Y" format. This will alert editors across Wikipedia that there's a pending edit request on this article, rather than just the few editors who may or may not have this article on their watchlist. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

australia continents in detail describing about their culture habitat language popular food and famous places

australia continents in detail describing about their culture habitat language popular food and famous places 103.41.37.164 (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Makasser fishermen

Hello all

I have rewritten this to make it clear that the Makasser fishermen were not Indigenous Australians. The significance of their contact with the Aboriginals of northern Australia is the (hotly debated) influence they had on the local cultures. I don't think any more detail is required in a general article on Australia.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Australian culture - Food

Hello all,

some recent additions to this need discussion. I have made some changes, for example, a sausage sizzle is not a food. Most of the items mentioned are of contested origin and are likely to start endless fights over who invented the Pavlova and the lamington. There seems to be a tendency by a couple of editors who have recently become involved in this article to make changes tending towards the promotion of a 1960s caricature of Australia as a land of lamingtons, the fair go, and a dominant Anglo culture. It’s starting to get embarrassing. Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether you personally find something embarrassing or not. That's your personal bias against the Australiana stuff (a bias I share on the whole). But what do reliable sources say? And how do we reach a balanced, neutral perspective? I think re cuisine section, we have achieved something approaching such a perspective. Stuff like lamingtons and pavlovas might make you cringe, but they are still popular, and that they are still often called iconic Australian foods is notable in itself. I don't think it's somehow problematic to acknowledge this (ideally very briefly), and I think it's possible to then also highlight how greatly cuisine in Australia has expanded and evolved (ie increasing popularity of native ingredients, transformative effect of multicultural immigration). Disputed origin of a particular food doesn't matter. Pretty much every dish that is considered authentically and uniquely [insert culture] has either an antecedent somewhere else or something close to identical developing in parallel. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I love lamingtons! My embarrassment is that the discussion of “Australian cuisine” is reduced to cliches like lamingtons, Vegemite and sausage sizzles, written in cliched tabloid prose where everything is “iconic” or “quintessentially Australian”. Is the pavlova really Australian? Is it more popular than McDonald’s and KFC? Is it really the consensus of the most reliable sources on Australian cuisine that Vegemite is more noteworthy than Japanese/French/Australian fusion? What is a reliable source for national cuisine and what is just industry propaganda? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's four foods summed up in ten or so words. Point is that they are often called "iconic", which is true. I think you are too "near" the foods to see them clearly. What you cringe at, others might find unique, interesting, endearing. Kind of like how we cringe at Ken Done, yet the Japanese in the 80s and 90s thought him a master of colour (Done now finally and slowly being critically reevaluated here). And the cited source is a leading food writer and academic. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sport

@HappyWaldo Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your reversion.

I don't think a section that has good information that you believe is poorly written should be removed. Isn't the whole point of wikipedia is that anyone can edit and fix it? Regardless, I found a better source that doesn't include dancing. I did think it was strange, but defining what a sport is highly subjective. Either way, I think clearly dividing the participation rate and the watch/interest rate is useful as otherwise it's difficult to be objective about what sports should be emphasised in this section.

In the sport Australia survey the most popular sports are by participation are running/athletics, swimming, cycling, football, golf, tennis, basketball, netball, surfing and aussie rules.[18] You could perhaps divide it into team sports vs individuals sports. Safes007 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Colonial expansion, treaties and land rights

Hello all

There has been a spate of recent edits and reversions aound this issue so I think it should be opened to discussion to avoid an edit war. The relevant sentence is currently in the section on Colonial expansion: "British settlement expanded into other areas of the continent in the early 19th century, initially along the coast. The British did not sign treaties with the Aboriginal peoples and English common law did not recognise Indigenous land rights until the 20th century."

This seems to me to be relevant, properly sourced and accurate. While I am happy to discuss the exact wording, I think the article should acknowledge Indigenous dispossession as part of colonial expansion and this is the logical place to put it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Got to be a better way of wording this info. Way it is written it sounds positive.... as in they were not heard it into reservations or something like that.... but instead we're free to do what they will all over..... and this is definitely not the case. Moxy- 02:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you specify which part of the wording comes off that way? However, even if that is not an issue, the text as written is not supported by the sources, which in turn are themselves not that high-quality. CMD (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous land grab treaties are generally considered a bad thing. In this case seems like they're free to do what they will anywhere they want it. Moxy- 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a helpful international perspective. My understanding of the literature on Australia is that the lack of such treaties allowed for excesses that were at least nominally curbed in other parts of the British Empire. There was certainly not an absence of reservations. CMD (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree the sourcing wasn't the best so I have replaced one and added Josephine Flood's The Original Australians (2019) which states: "Under common law, all those born in the dominions were British subjects; Aborigines therefore became British subjects but lost any proprietary rights in the land they inhabited" (p. 42). Also, "The judges' decision [in the 1992 Mabo case] therefore also applied to mainland Aborigines and determined that the common law of Australia recognises native land title and that Indigenous Australians have rights to land based on prior occupation." (p. 300). Also: "No treaties were ever made between any government and Aboriginal Australians, but their feasibility is still under discussion." (p. 111). None of this is controversial and there are plenty of other reliable sources to be found. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Those reliable sources should be added to the article. The mentioned quotes are good, but still do not cover the first sentence you posted above about British settlement expansion. The specificity of "common law" at this level of writing may be confusing to readers, it should simply be Australian law (and definitely not English common law). "until the 20th century" also seems an odd way to note 1992, which is almost at the end of that century. Noting that this does refer to 1992, it is very weirdly placed in the colonial section of the History section. It should be near the end. CMD (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to cite a specific source stating that the settlement expanded in the 19th century WP:the sky is blue. It is supported by the subsequent text and sources. Nor is there any need to cite further sources for the statements that no treaties were signed with Aboriginal people or that the common law didn't recognise native title until 1992. There are already two sources. If you can come up with a reliable source which states the opposite be my guest. The statement that the common law didn't recognise Indigenous land rights until the 20th century sits perfectly well here because it is true and shows that such rights were not recognised in the period under discussion which is the main period of colonial expansion where the issue of such land rights and dispossession was most acute. It is common is such articles to make a general point which extends into the future. For example, earlier in this article which covers the period from 1788 to 1808, it is stated: "The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. Thousands more died as a result of frontier conflict with settlers." In the article on the USA, the section on the Post-Civil War era (1865–1898) states: "From 1865 through 1917 an unprecedented stream of immigrants arrived in the United States, including 24.4 million from Europe." However, if there is a consensus that this would be too confusing for people, we can change the relevant sentence to "The British did not sign treaties with the Aboriginal peoples and the common law did not yet recognise Indigenous land rights in Australia." It would be inaccurate to say "Australian law" because some colonies did indeed pass laws which gave Indigenous people land rights. The issue is common law rights which survived settlement. If people don't know what common law is, a link would be sufficient. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

On further reflection, the sentence "The British did not sign treaties with the Aboriginal peoples and common law did not recognise Indigenous land rights in Australia until the 20th century" could also go in the preceding section straight after: "Thousands more died as a result of frontier conflict with settlers." This would fit in with a general parapgraph on some of the adverse effects of colonisation on Indigenous Australians. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a Featured article, it should cite high-quality reliable sources, not webpages for school children (as helpful as those can be in other situations). The comparison is flawed as it is to an ongoing process, rather than a specific moment in law which should be covered at the relevant point in the article. Australian states also operate through common law, so any distinction there is not helped through the use of the term common law. CMD (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

To step back, I think the sentence is basically trying to get across that British law was not that helpful to Indigenous people who ever had a dispute with the British over land, even if looking back we can see some theoretical promises of protection. In that sense, how does this sound: "The British did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups and the ability for Indigenous people to challenge further settlement expansion in courts was [limited/practically impossible]." Safes007 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in as the person who started this latest spate of edits with my initial "Regarding the land as terra nullius, Britain never signed a treaty with any Indigenous Australians; campaigns for recognition of Australian Indigenous sovereignty continue to the present day." The main point I wanted to get across was that the Brits, unlike (to my knowledge) in their other settler colonies, didn't sign treaties with any indigenous peoples of Australia while colonising it. This was a big talking point leading up to the Voice referendum last year, and I'm pleased to see general agreement that it warrants mention in this article. I concur that talking about "common law" here is too vague - "colonial British law and subsequent Australian federal law" might be more accurate, albeit clunky. I would also consider changing "Aboriginal groups" to "Indigenous Australian groups". Neegzistuoja (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to avoid the technicalities of land rights v native title, common law v statutes, colonial law v state and federal law, etc, by making a general statement such as: "The British did not sign treaties with any Aboriginal groups and the expansion of settlment resulted in the dispossession of Indigenous peoples of their traditional lands." Or if this implies that the dispossession was caused by the lack of treaties, simply: "The expansion of British settlement resulted in the dispossession of Indigenous peoples of their traditional lands." I don't think anyone disputes this nowadays, and there are plenty of reliable sources for this statement. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. As a minor change, I would suggest: 'The continued expansion of British settlement across the continent resulted in Indigenous people losing their traditional lands' as it doesn't imply any specific legal relationship that 'dispossession' does. Safes007 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"The British did not sign treaties with any Aboriginal groups" what of Batman's? Later implicitly declared void, yes, but it was still a treaty signed by British settlers, and "the colonial authorities understood that the Kulin expected it to be honoured, even helping Batman’s company to supply the agreed-upon goods." - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just because the British authorities thought the group expected the treaty to be honoured, doesn't mean they considered it valid. A party thinking an agreement is binding does not make it a binding treaty/contract.

This could probably be mentioned in a footnote if needed or by replacing "British" with "the colonial authorities", but I don't think the current sentence in incorrect or misleading in context. Safes007 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the treaty was honoured is irrelevant. Batman's Treaty is an anomaly but it perfectly contradicts the claim that "The British did not sign treaties". Because it was a treaty that British people signed, in the most literal, corporeal sense. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's only true if you interpret "the British" to mean "any British person" when in context I think it is clear that it refers to the local government or imperial authorities. But making the term clearer to "colonial authorities" I think removes any doubt. Does this address your concern? Safes007 (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The sentence preceding it describes the expansion of British settlement, which was often spurred by private enterprise, ie squatters. Not necessarily with permission from government. In this context, "the British" could easily be taken to mean "any British person". Worth disambiguating. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A lot of expansion was driven privately, but given the sentences suggests the expansion in question relates to treaties, it suggests heavily that the context is the government-driven settlement. The "continued expansion" however presumably includes private, so that's a bit harder to relate to the treaties. CMD (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I reverted your latest revision because it conflates two separate points and distorts the meaning.Your version implies that treaties would have stopped the spread of infectious disease. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

How does it do that? My edit combined the same point made by the same source (now with the revert appearing again as two separate sources). CMD (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The current version makes two separate points in separate paragraphs. 1) “The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease.Thousands more died as a result of frontier conflict with settlers.”

2) “British settlement expanded into other areas of the continent in the early 19th century, initially along the coast. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups and this continued expansion resulted in Indigenous people losing their traditional lands.”

1) is linking population decline to diseases and frontier conflict.

2) is linking loss of Aboriginal land to European expansion and lack of treaties.

Your edit changed this to, “ British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups. The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease.As British settlement expanded, thousands more died as a result of frontier conflict with settlers.”

The sentence order implies that the lack of treaties was somehow linked with the infectious diseases which were the main cause of Indigenous depopulation. It also omits the key phrase “this expansion resulted in Indigenous peoples losing their traditional lands.”

I don’t see where the same source is repeated. Flood is cited twice but with different page references.

I’m not suggesting that the current wording can’t be improved. But it was the result of considerable discussion and compromise and shouldn’t be unilaterally changed without prior discussion and consensus here. Could you state your objections to the current wording, placement and referencing of these two paragraphs and suggest an alternative we can discuss before we change the relevant part of the article yet again? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The loss of aboriginal land was not solely due to the lack of treaties, that was part of it but the lack of treaties is more a contrast with other colonies. If that is the impression you draw from the current text, it should change. The loss of traditional lands was due to the frontier conflicts as settlements expand, the settlers were not moving into empty space. The current wording was not the result of discussion and compromise, it was the result of a bold edit here, similar to my edit. As for my edit, it was to combine the two paragraphs making the same point about indigenous displacement on either side of the somewhat arbitrary subheader. Given your interpretation of point 2, which is as mentioned not a direct link (see also Moxy's confusion above), the current text probably needs to change to remove that interpretation. Your points 1 and 2 should not be separated, as the loss of land driven by frontier conflicts (which was the effect of British expansion as mentioned by HappyWaldo above) and enabled by disease. Flood 2019 is being used twice because it's the same point. My suggestion would be to combine that same point similarly to my edit (I don't see how my wording suggests a link between treaties and disease, but it could always be tweaked). CMD (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

1) I agree with your first and third sentences. I think we agree that this aspect could be better worded and perhaps combined and placed in one section. I still think your edit is worse because paragraphs are supposed to link related sentences developing a single idea. If we say that the British authorities didn't sign treaties with any Indigenous peoples and in the following sentence of the same paragraph state that the Indigenous population declined mainly due to disease then the two ideas will be linked in the mind of any reader and suggest causation. It's true that the British didn't sign any treaties with the Indigenous peoples of Australia but if this is linked with anything (which is debatable) it is linked with dispossession. You, yourself just stated this. It therefore belongs exactly where it is now.

2) Why do you want to remove the phrase "this [British] expansion resulted in Indigenous people losing their traditional lands."?

3) Why do you insist that the two citations from Flood are making the same point? I have the book in front of me and I added the citations. They are entirely separate pages and chapters about different things. One states that the decline in the Indigenous population was mainly from diseases. The other citation (with different page references) states that the British authorites didn't sign treaties with the Indigenous peoples and that colonial expansion resulted in dispossession.

4) The current wording was indeed the result of considerable discussion and compromise. Look at the discussion in this very thread. Look at the edit history and the edit summaries.

5) As a personal aside, I agree with Flood and (apparently) you that treaties wouldn't have made any difference to dispossession. The British simply annexed half the continent in 1788 and assumed that there were very few natives and that there was plenty of land for everyone. But once the genie was out of the bottle there was no stopping it. Many Aboriginal people died of diseases, whole tribes collapsed, and then there really was depopulation. Squatters ran sheep on vast tracks of land, "cleared" any natives who made a fuss, and the authorities had no practical means of stopping them. Aboriginal people had no concept of alienating land through treaties or other agreements and wouldn't have understood the implications of what they were signing. British settlers intent on surviving or making a fortune wouldn't have adhered to treaties either because there weren't enough government authorites to enforce them. Others, however, seem to think otherwise.

6) Please suggest improved wording here and see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The idea being developed is the treatment of the indigenous people by colonial authorities and by settlers (often private). The settlers did cause disease. The signing of treaties is not causative to dispossession, see the many other colonies where dispossession occurred despite treaties. The main causes of dispossession in Australia were the frontier wars and similar actions (aided by a few other things such as disease and government actions/inactions). I don't mind the phrase mentioned, it was simply mostly covered by the frontier wars, as they were wars over land (mostly) and it seemed to me that the point of widespread death should not be diluted. The Flood quotes you pointed above span three separate pages, they are not a single point, however they together with the other Flood citation are all about the same theme. I have looked at the edit history and summaries, my edit similarly reflected discussed concerns as I pointed out above. I suggest the wording before, but tweaked per the concerns raised: "The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups. As settlers spread further, thousands died as a result of frontier conflicts and others lost access to their traditional lands." CMD (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement on what we currently have and is more concise. I support these changes.

@HappyWaldo@Moxy@Neegzistuoja@Safes007 Any comments? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"As settlers spread further, thousands died as a result of frontier conflicts" could be taken to mean that thousands of settlers died. It might flow better too with the reordering of the last two sentences. Something like: "The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. Thousands more died in frontier conflicts with settlers, while other Aboriginal people lost access to their traditional lands. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups." Isn't the "spread of settlement" already in the name "frontier conflict"? Edit: having read the discussion more closely, I struggle to know the best approach at this time. My only useful contribution is probably the first point I made. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

How about: ""The indigenous population declined for 150 years following European settlement, mainly due to infectious disease. British colonial authorities did not sign any treaties with Aboriginal groups. As settlers spread further, thousands of Indigenous people died as a result of frontier conflicts and others lost access to their traditional lands."

As for your other point, settlement didn't always result in conflict, and hundreds of settlers died in frontier conflict too. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this is fine.

As a minor point I would change "As settlers spread further" to "As settlement expanded" as two words starting with s sounds odd (and settlers spread sounds like a really bad brand of butter).

Also perhaps changing "lost access to their traditional lands" to "lost their traditional lands" as the relationship of Indigenous people to land was deeper than one of access. It also keeps the ambiguity between the legal relationship that existed at the time and avoids preferencing western legal notions. Safes007 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that settlement wording tweak, I had trouble with that. Implemented. CMD (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"settlers spread sounds like a really bad brand of butter".

That made me laugh. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Health

Under health the article mentions thanks to stringent lock downs Australia had one of the lowest COVID-19 mortality rates. In my opinion this is misleading, whilst beneficial several other facts were helpful in obtaining this accolade. Geography, socioeconomic status etc MetaAintcha (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australian culture is one of the oldest continuous cultures on Earth

This edit is way off the mark by 30,000 years. Pls put an effort in to searching for sources.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Juvenile Nonfiction Payne, F. (2020). Australia's Intriguing Past. Fantastic Facts About. Redback Publishing. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-922322-04-3. Retrieved February 9, 2024.

Moxy- 15:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a children's book, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that claim.

The Australian Geographic sources first paragraph is "ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE descendents of the first people to leave Africa up to 75,000 years ago, a genetic study has found, confirming they may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet." The second claim is prefaced with may and none of the people interviewed mention culture.

The CNN article states "A new genomic study has revealed that Aboriginal Australians are the oldest known civilization on Earth, with ancestries stretching back roughly 75,000 years." Again nothing about culture.

Finally, the abstract of the study makes no mention of culture and no mention of it is made in the study.

As culture is derived from the practice of a population, not its genetics, I don't see how we can claim these sources support the claim that "Aboriginal Australian culture is one of the oldest continuous cultures on Earth." From my understanding of these sources, a sentence like "Aboriginal Australians share a common and ancient ancestry, being descendents of a group that split from the original out of Africa population 57,000 years ago." would be more fitting with the sources. I took that date from the CNN article, but if you believe it's wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Safes007 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes a children's book that would never be used as a source....it's here for basic learning like National geographic for kids. I

I am assuming your not getting the point of what an archaeological culture is like Clovis culture or Hallstatt culture. What is being said is that DNA studies like the archaeological evidence show a cohesion throughout time and the continent......as in the tools they use the art they still do and all genetically linked Moxy- 01:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but a source is needed to support the claim that DNA studies and archaeological evidence shows a cohesion of archaeological culture over time. The current sources don't make that argument and are therefore insufficient. Safes007 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The DNA evidence shows that today's aboriginals are direct descendants of the first inhabitants. Moxy- 06:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That's my point. I think that would be a correct statement that reflects what the source state. To make the claim that this indicates that there was also a continuity of culture is a reasonable hypothesis, but would require a different source.

This source discusses the various meanings of culture in relation to Aboriginal People (Dockery, A. M. (2010). Culture and Wellbeing: The Case of Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9582-y).

Basically they classify culture as a way to classify and distinguish a population from other populations. One definition is 'The collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another. This stresses that culture is (a) a collective, not individual, attribute; (b) not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (c) common to some but not all people.' Another definition is 'Culture is to society what memory is to individuals. It refers to tools and ideas that are shared and transmitted to succeeding generations because they were once practical at some point in time'. The definition used for that article is the 'beliefs and values transmitted over generations'.

Now these aren't the 'correct' definition of culture, but it does show that its meaning is context dependent and we risk misleading people without either using a different term or providing clarification. Because if we mean to indicate that Aboriginal peoples have beliefs and practices that are some of the oldest in the world, that would require a different source. Simply being decedents of very old population doesn't mean your practices and beliefs haven't changed. If on the other hand we mean to indicate Aboriginal people have an ancient heritage as demonstrated by DNA evidence and other archaeological culture findings that indicate their ancestors have lived here for thousands of years, I think a word other than 'culture' should be used. Perhaps 'The cultural heritage of Aboriginal Australians is one of the oldest on Earth.' This also avoids suggesting Aboriginal cultural was monolithic as there were hundreds of different languages with groups having different cultural practices. Safes007 (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I support retaining the current wording. One source states at Aboriginal Australians "may have the oldest continuous culture on the planet." Another states that it has, "the oldest continuous civilization." Flood (2019, p 161) is more definite, "Australian Aborigines have the oldest living culture in the world." I'm not sure what the difference is between a civilisation and a culture but given the degree of doubt in one of the sources I think "one of the oldest continuous cultures on Earth" is a reasonable summary of the sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that Flood source is much more useful than the others, so I added it directly. Safes007 (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the widespread variation in geography, language and cultural practices, I'm not sure I would agree that Aboriginal Australians constitute a single culture. We know that e.g. the Pama–Nyungan languages spread across the continent starting around 5,000 years ago, which is a much shorter duration. What does it actually mean for a culture to be "continuous"? How do we address similar claims made about other peoples, e.g. the San? I think we should be setting out the facts – what is the best evidence for an arrival date, what is the best evidence for continuing cultural practices – not making sweeping statements. ITBF (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

As the sourcs state....tools used.....art.....cooking practices...burial rituals...(Australian Aboriginal artefacts). What is missing is an article called Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of Australia like Genetic history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas Moxy- 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

We don't have those sources listed at the moment however, which was why I added a CN tag in the first place so that sources about culuture, not genetics, could be added. The Flood source helps in that regard however I still think the statement is too broad with the current sources. Safes007 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Sources are very clear and direct. Moxy- 05:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the wording I suggested in my previous reply when I talked about culture? That is 'The cultural heritage of Aboriginal Australians is one of the oldest on Earth.' The use of the phrase 'continuous culture' is my main issue. Do you think this wording could be improved, or is there something about the current wording that this misses? I think this maintains the views you had of the sources with my criticisms. Safes007 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Intro to Australian culture section

Does anyone else find it confused and confusing in its current form? It appears to describe Australia the continent and not the subject of this article, which is Australia the country (see the lead sentence). Quote: "Prior to 1850, Australia was dominated by Indigenous cultures. Since then, Australian culture has primarily been a Western culture, strongly influenced by Anglo-Celtic settlers." Australia (the country) was a British creation and therefore thoroughly Western since colonisation began in 1788. The choice of 1850 as the turning point must refer to the gold rushes, and therefore suggests that Australia only became "primarily ... Western" once Indigenous Australians were outnumbered by Europeans. Even if 1850 was the turning point, the intro fails to explain why, and so it will be lost on many readers. My attempt at clarifying this (subsequently reverted) is far from perfect, but I think a step in the right direction. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I mostly prefer your version; however, to avoid complicated discussions about national identity I would suggest just simply stating what the current majority culture is in the first sentence. Perhaps: "Australian culture is primarily Western, reflecting the Anglo-Celtic heritage of the majority of the population." Safes007 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The current version and the suggested alternatives so far are all problematic because they risk getting us caught up in unproductive culture wars. I would suggest, “Australia is a multicultural country, strongly influenced by Indigenous cultures, the predominantly Anglo-Celtic cultures of British settlement, and the diverse cultures brought to the country by immigration since the second half of the 20th century.” The emphasis on “a distinctively Australian culture” in the article makes me wince because there is a hint of desperate assertion in it in the face of multiculturalism and the globalisation of culture. I would prefer the Culture section to be more descriptive than interpretive. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This sounds good. By the by, I interpret "a distinctively Australian culture" as reflecting a push back against good old-fashioned Australian cultural cringe. But that's a topic for the Australian culture article proper probably. Safes007 (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Points taken. Best to keep it as simple as possible, to avoid disputes. Hopefully my latest version achieves this. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The section lacks anything substantive....see Canada#Culture or even the C class article United States#Culture...note they talks about what makes the culture... be a policies or social norms. Should be discussing how the country is progressive in its culture...... "distinctive cultural traits"? What are the cultural values ? and cultural identity.Moxy- 01:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure Australia is progressive to the degree that Canada is. This guy was our PM for instance. On the whole we seem geared to centrism and compromise, achieved through systems like preferential and mandatory voting. This is covered in the government and politics section though. The intro could be expanded a bit but I like the idea of keeping it short and to the point. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean things like egalitarianism underpins values in Australia....Australian culture values equality...is among the most open-minded nations i.e same-sex marriage etc... Moxy- 13:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this approach. Any attempt to define supposedly core Australian values is bound to be contentious and should be avoided in a general article like this. This is probably the reason by the Australia article has good article status and the ones for Canada and the US don’t. The encyclopaedia Brittanica and government press releases are not sufficient to establish uncontested “core values” generally accepted in Australia.It would be easy to find hundreds of academic sources stating that these supposed core values are a myth. Best to stick to the short introduction to the culture section which we already agreed on. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This article like the Canada article are FA class...but this article has been a bit stagnant to upgrade like other country over the years (just less editors I guess). It's odd identity or values are not seen anywhere. Wondering if what is needed is sub article so that info can be summarized here with full articles on a few topics like other well developed country projects...Canadian identity vs Australian identity (a redirect to nothing on the topic) - Canadian values vs Australian values Moxy- 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@HappyWaldoPlease self revert your latest addition. You made a bold edit. I reverted it. It is now up to you to establish consensus for you changes here on talk. See WP:BRD Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As a non-Australian, I find this edit interesting - I'm referring to the government's official statement of what are Australian values - and would keep it. National "Values" content is normally dubious but "official" statements of self-perception are at least tangible and a hard fact whether or not they meet reality. The image the government wishes to portray as a national consensus is interesting and in itself says something worth knowing. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point. It was the preceding sentence which I found most contentious. But even the sentence you highlight, as an official government position, needs to be balanced by the many critiques of the content and the very idea that there are Australian values. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes. That would be the obvious follow on that should be included - what do Australian RS say in response to the "official" line? It would be important, per WP:DUE, to ensure the responses referenced are proportionate to prominence. DeCausa (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry what does RS mean? Safes007 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks Safes007 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to use fewer weasel words in the intro. For example, "Australians generally identify values such as egalitarianism, mateship, irreverence and a lack of formality as part of their national identity" is questionable. Many Anglo-Australians do, many non-Anglo Australians might identify racism as a more pervasive part of national identity. The cited sources cite commentators positing these as typical Australian values so the revised wording better reflects the sources.

I have removed, "" For instance, despite Australians' general fondness for archetypal larrikins, respect for authority and policing is also quite high." "A general fondness" and "quite high" are weasel words. And "for instance" is more suited to a discursive essay than a concise encyclopedia article. Better would be, "X states that despite Australia's supposed fondness for "larrikins" studies show that their respect for authority and policing is among the highest in the world" (or whatever the source actually cites.) Better still is simply to remove this example and keep the general point that many commentators argue that the existence of supposedly Australian values held and practised by a broad cross section of the population is a myth. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007 Commentator is the better word and more concise because all the cited sources (except for the official government statement) are written by commentators or cite commentators on what they consider are Australian values. None cite any statistically valid survey showing that X per cent of Australians nominated x, y, and Z as key Australian values.

Your edit summary stated: "These sources discuss the debate around the content of Australian values since pre-Federation, not their existence." They do indeed discuss the very existence of universal Australin values. See the quote from Don Watson pointing out that "mateship" was, and is, and Anglo male value and not distinctively Australian because others countries also value friendship and sticking by one's friends. The debate is about the existence of typically Australian values and my version states this more succinctly.

Every culture tells soothing myths about themselves. This section could be about the particular soothing myths Australians tell about themselves and how some commentators have challenged these. (The article about slang and diminutives is very good and most foreign commentators note that white Australian culture is more informal than most other cultures, but many Australian ethnic-cultures are very formal).

I'm not trying to be picky. I agree with most of your recent edits and you have improved the article a great deal. Perhaps you have just hit on a couple of my bugbears. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think there are several debates here we are getting confused with. There's the debate as to whether "Australian values" are actually followed in terms of action. Then there's the debate as to whether Australians identity with Australian values (whether or not they follow them). Also, there's the debate as to what Australian values mean as a national myth (i.e. is mateship a white-anglo celebration of the past, or an egalitarian value that works with multiculturalism?). Finally, there's the debate whether Australian values are unique to Australia or common to similar countries.

I think I went too far in my revision, as I saw those sources as solely about the meaning of values. You are right, they also debate the existence of values unique to Australia (especially the first one). What I was trying to do was show that the list of values endorsed by the government and also commonly cited by commentators have so many meanings and interpretations to essentially be meaningless. i.e. the government's view that "a fair go" expresses typical liberal and capitalistic ideas about equality of opportunity is but one interpretation.

I don't think it's that important to point out that such values aren't unique, as I think even politicians would agree (the government list includes the rule of law, which almost all countries at least pretend to agree with).

However, I think we can include both points by saying something like "However, the meaning of these values have been debated since before Federation and it has been noted that such values are not particularly unique in Anglosphere or globally." Or something more concise.

In terms of the first sentence, this survey supports the idea view mateship as part of the national identity and this one, about the notion of a fair go. I can't find a survey for the other values, but I think there's enough support in the other sources for the non-precise term "many Australians". The SBS article for example claims to be academically reviewed (albeit not-peer review) but I think that's sufficient for our purposes. Safes007 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)