Talk:Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Australia is  a featured article; it  (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or  improve it, please do.

This article is  supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and  related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Australia, or  visit the project page for more  details. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on its quality.

	Australia is  part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and  Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and  then leave comments here to identify the strengths and  weaknesses of the article and  what work it  will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do: edit  Here are  some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Australia: The current Australian collaboration of the fortnight article is  Torres Strait Islanders. Requests: Bicentennial Heritage Trail, Daintree Reef, George Adams, Insurance in Australia, Poppy Industries, Sports Rorts affair, State Orchestra of Victoria, Yarmirr v Northern Territory Attention: Aboriginal Protection Act, Australian Payments Clearing Association, Coral Sea Islands, Qantas, Peter Foster, Reg Ansett Expand: Barossa Valley, Coorong, South Australia, List of Australian military memorials, Palm Island, Queensland, Rossiter Bay Juanita Coco Stubs: Australian Racing Museum Australian women's cricket team, Barry McKenzie, Calgardup Bay, Western Australia, Mortein, Prospect Creek, Russian Jack, Yabbying, Younghusband, South Australia Images: Darwin beer-can regatta, Darwin International Airport, Dingo Fence, Driza-Bone, Eucalyptus coolabah, Esky, Four'N Twenty Pie Quality watch: 37 FA-Class Australia articles - 21 GA-Class Australia articles.

Australia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and  the release version of Wikipedia. it  has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. it  is in the category Geography.

Australia has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is  now archived. it  may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Australia is  either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or  is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is  at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and  if possible stick to GFDL and  GFDL-compatible images.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

Australian Wikipedians
Forums: Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board
Meet-Ups: Adelaide Melbourne Sydney

Adelaide Meetup Next meetup: - view/edit

Last meetup: 24th August 2006

Contents 1 "Chruch Attendence" 2 "Overturne" 3 Voting turnout 4 Jones 5 self-governing ACT? 6 head of state 7 Labour Market 8 Little problems 9 New map with links 10 New language info 11 Settlement Vs Invasion (or a suitable compromise) 12 vandalism 13 recent edit 14 Australia Part of Asia? 15 Unemployment Figures 16 Water as % of area 17 Racial inequality 17.1 Just the facts please... 18 More on Racial inequality 19 Separate articles? 20 Sixth-largest country 21 Racial inequality once again  (*sigh*)

[edit] "Chruch Attendence"

Currently the article puts 7.5% of the Australian public as weekly church goers - however another page from the same cited website puts 9 (http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2276). I'm new to wikipedia and  wouldn't know how to add this webpage as a citation - so if you think it  is worth changing someone can think about it. U R A GR8 M8 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Overturne"

christal is  Argentinian and  I'm learning English as a second language. Could you tell me what "overturne" means? --200.117.226.180 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in this article "overturn"(correct spelling) is  used in a legal context. WIktionary's legal definition says "Overturn" is

to reverse a decision; to overrule or  rescind

Hope that helps - even if this is  perhaps not the correct forum for this. Remember for future reference that Wiktionary is  a dictionary and  thesaurus. The Reference desk is  the place to ask generall questions of inquiry here on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting turnout

The sentence about voter turnout has been removed by blatant reverts to previous versions from days ago (19th October) for no other reason than it  is "irrelevant" and  can be stated in other places. What do other editors thing? Ansell 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. I removed it. If it  has a place, it  is in a more  detailed artcle. The statement that it  is compulsory is  enough. --Merbabu 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen what the voter turnouts are  like in most countries? The information is  actually unusual. I think this requires more  discussion. As two editors against and  three for the information (so far) shows it  is disputed. Ansell 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but feel you're being unusually agressive. You have  pursued this minor issue across a number of pages and  misrepresented the facts – I have  never used the word "irrelevant", and  to state I have  "consistently removed statements" (paraphrase) is  disingenuous. Moreover, you have  equally performed "blatant reverts" (your term), returning an  inappropriate addition to the introduction twice now. My actual argument was that the statement was inconsistent with the article's summary style. Per that standard, it  is sufficient to note that voting is  compulsory in Australia; discussion about fines and  turnout is  something that is  more appropriate to the section's subarticles.--cj | talk 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like I am  pursuing things too vigourously, I am  a little annoyed (in general) at the idea that FA's should not be expanded on, but mostly, it  is my thinking that there genuinely is  a place for a fact of that magnitude, on this page, and  that the "compulsory voting" statement does not fit on its own. How many other countries have  voter turnouts that high?

Also, sorry for misquoting you. I just do not see why it  is the end of the world to delete something I, and  another editor, actually went to the trouble of researching, and  that is  a unique fact. The article is  full of facts like that already. Ansell 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think FA's shouldn't be expanded upon; however, I do think that whatever additions take place should be in accordance with the style that attainment of FA status was contingent on. I disagree with the idea that, because a fact is  unique (or referenced, as you initially proposed), it  merits inclusion. To mention that voting is  compulsory is  a reflection on the system; to mention turnout and  fines is  more in-depth and  opens up the issue of elections and  procedure. it  should be noted that the edit you wish included makes the unsuported (and potentially contentious) assertion that high turnout is  because of expiations. I do not support that text.

The only thing that I could see mising from the statement about voting in Australia is  age of franchise. I have  thusly changed it  to "Voting is  compulsory for all enroled citizens 18 years and  over in each state and  territory, and  at the federal level." (the "enroled" part is  there because enrolment is  voluntary in SA). --cj | talk 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is  a case for including the high turnout figures, but it  must be brief. it  is indeed high compared to other countries. But listing fines, etc, is  just not important for this article. How about "Voting is  compulsory for all enroled citizens 18 years and  over in each state and  territory and  at the federal level, and  turn out rates exceed 90 per cent."????????? --Merbabu 03:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's better, it's really all we need to say on this main page. We can link to pages with more  detailed explanation. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from WP:AWNB). The page already specifies that voting is  compulsory - of course the turnout would be high. I think adding such a comment would just be redundant. From looking at the actual edits they are  far too detailed for the general Australia article. -- Chuq 01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Inserting material like this into Australia when it  is not yet in Politics of Australia or  even Elections in Australia is  bound to meet resistance. We just don't work that way. Here's how you can get information on compulsory voting into article Australia:

1. Insert it  into article Elections in Australia. it  really is  terrible that Elections in Australia doesn't mention this important fact. There is  room in that article for a thorough discussion of the implications of compulsory voting in Australia, if you're so inclined.
2. Create a section entitled "Elections" in Politics of Australia, to be a summary of Elections in Australia. As a summary, it  should briefly mention the fact that voting is  compulsory in Australia, without going into all the details. it  probably only needs a sentence or  two, as Politics of Australia has an  awful lot of material to cover.
3. Go to Talk:Australia. Advise that Politics of Australia has recently seen the addition of material on compulsory voting, remind us that Australia#Politics is  supposed to be a summary of Politics of Australia, and  propose the inclusion of a sentence on the material.

Hesperian 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it  is actually quite interesting that the number of valid votes cast is  exceptionally high, as voting is  not actually compulsory, only attendance at a voting booth. it  is therefore interesting that 96% of people that turn up to tick their name off go on to cast a valid vote - which is  high even under compulsory attendance. it  is also one of the most interesting facets of Australian politics and  society, so I think it  should be included. Sad mouse 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jones

Lively debate about to occur at Alan Jones (broadcaster). Tony 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-governing ACT?

Bit rich to call it  that in the lead, when the feds come along and  overrule ACT legislation whenever they like. Tony 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] head of state

Tony1 apparently has problems distinguishing between the head of state of two nations being the same person, as is  currently the situation between Ausralia and  the UK, and  constitutional ties between the two countries which were severed in 1986. Please explain --Michael Johnson 13:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? The House of Representatives can in fact overrule any laws sanctioned by the states or  territories. They did so recently when the NT legalised Euthanasia. SolitaryWolf 13:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the federal government can do nothing about the laws of state government, They can reverse the laws of territories, as these are  established by act of the federal parliament. --Michael Johnson 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael, can you explain your position a bit clearer? I think there are  two issues here. Firstly, the head of state is QE2, the GG is  just her representative. As for constitutional ties with Britain being "finally" severed in 1986, how does the head of state currently fit into the constitution? --Merbabu 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it  the queen of course relates to HM the Queen of Australia, who is  a different entity to HM the Queen of the UK, even if the same person. Imagine two public companies, one of which once owned the other, but now share no connection except for the same chairman of the board. The Act of Settlement, as with all British acts prior to responsible government in Australia remains in force until amended or  repealed by an  Australian parliament. So it  is competent for Australia to amend, maybe making Princess Anne the next queen for instance, but of course this would make the whole situation even more  absurb than it  is now. As I said this is  the constitutional position as I understand it. more  to the point, this is  obviously how the original author understood it, and  so I think it  encombant on Tony to provide a source to the contrary if he wishes to change it  --Michael Johnson 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care what the original author intended.

• First, Michael, the federal government can indeed override laws passed by state governments in a number of areas, under s. 51. Second, the UK government has the power to ask the Queen to disallow Australian legislation. Third, and  most decisively, the Australian Constitution is  still an  act of the UK Parliament, which has the power to change it. By analogy, Pierre Trudeau managed, finally, to repatriate the Canadian Constitution back in the ?1980s. This third point was reason enough for me to strike "final" from the text. Tony 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Tony is  right. As far as I understand... there is  a lot of convention involved. The theory is  different to the practice. The Governor Gerneral, for example does in fact have  the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, he did so in 1975. But 1975 aside for the main part he never has. SolitaryWolf 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Australian constitution is  indeed part of a UK act, but acoording to Wikipedia Constitution of Australia is now regarded as fully separated from the text in the original Act, and  has always been subject to amendment by referendum and  without the UK amending the act. Theoreticly the UK parliament might revoke the act, butin fact gave up the right to do this by the Statute of Westminster and  subsequent acts. I am  sure you will find the UK government and  parliament has no residual powers regarding the constitution or  government of Australia, which is  the question at hand.

• • Yes, it's subject to amendment by referendum, but is  still an  act of the Westminster parliament. Please provide evidence that the Statute of Westminster and  subsequent acts remove the power of London to do anything it  likes with the act. I think you'll find no such evidence.

• From the Statute of Westminster article:

The key passage of the Statute provides that:

   "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or 
be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it 
is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and 
consented to, the enactment thereof." 

I thought that was pretty straightforward. --Michael Johnson 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Australia Act 1986 - you're entirely correct. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right: after the commencement of that act. The Constitution Act was passed decades earlier. Tony 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's an  interesing interpretation. --Michael Johnson 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • It's nothing to do with "residual powers", as you state—this is  a notion concerning the powers of our head of state and  her representatives in Australia, not of the UK parliament.
  • When you say "theoretically", are  you stepping back from the notion that all power is  theoretical? Just because a power has never been used does not mean that it  doesn't exist.

• It has already been pointed out that the Australian Constitution is  now regarded as having been separated from the Act. The British parliament may amend or  repeal the Act, but by doing so they achieve nothing. it  is s dictum of British constitutional law that the British pariliament has the power to legislate to prohibit Russians spitting in Red Square. Whether they have  the power to enforce that legislation is  another thing. --Michael Johnson 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref 1975 Whitlam in fact had the power to remove Kerr by advising the Queen to sack him. He never did because he believed Kerr would never sack him.

• • Well, no. Whitlam had the power just to recommend to the Queen that he be sacked. If the Queen had not accepted this, the sacking would not have  occurred. This is  the invidious situation that Australians find themselves in, comforted only by the small likelihood that this situation will arise. While on the subject of Whitlam, I don't have  a reference for this, but I'm pretty certain that the Whitlam government asked Westminster whether it  would alter the Australian Constitution, and  the reply was that this would be done only with the consent of the federal and  all six state parliaments.

• This really has nothing to do with the subject, but you seem intent on debating it. The most basic cornerstone of constitutional law is  that the Monarch always accepts the advice of her Ministers, and  has been this way since the reign of Queen Victoria. The Queen would had had no choice but to remove Kerr on Whitlams advice. I'm surprised you don't know this. As for Whitlam asking the British government to change the constitution, I've never heard that, and  it sounds most unlikely. --Michael Johnson 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref sect 51, this refers to areas reserved for the Federal governement, and  of course the states cannot legislate in these areas. But the comment was about euthenasia, and  no the Feds could not legislate to reverse state law in this area (or many others). This is  in contrast to territory governments. All of which has nothing to do with the topic. --Michael Johnson 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • You stated above: "Actually the federal government can do nothing about the laws of state government". This is  untrue. If a state parliament legistlates in certain areas, this legislation can be overriden by federal legislation. Read the secion.

• Which is  exactly what I said. Those "certain areas" are  listed in Section 51. But why harp on this red herring? --Michael Johnson 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The legislation cannot be "overridden". The State act actually continues, as does the Federal, but in any conflict the Federal act takes precedence. Only a High Court case can strike legislation down, as happened with the Native Title situation in WA in 1995. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Further from Wikipedia Constitutional history of Australia

In an  important constitutional case (Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648), three justices of the High Court of Australia (the ultimate court of appeal) expressed the view that if the British Parliament were to alter the law of succession to the throne, such a change could not have  any effect on the monarchy in Australia, because of the Australia Act: succession to the throne would continue in Australia according to the existing rule, unless and  until that was altered in Australia. None of the other four justices in that case disagreed with this reasoning.

and

The same case decided (and on this point the decision is  binding) that the United Kingdom is  a "foreign power" within the meaning of the Constitution,

• • These cases are  irrelevant to whether there are  still constitutional links between Australia and  the UK.

Now I'm off to bed. --Michael Johnson 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• With respect to Tony's argument that the UK Parliament can amend the Constitution - there's a distinction between autochthony and  autonomy. The Constitution certainly derives its original legal status from an  Act of the UK Parliament. But that doesn't mean that the UK Parliament still has power to repeal or  amend the Constitution. The Australia Acts closed that door off. See Sue v Hill for example. --bainer (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the UK government definitely does not have  the power to ask the Queen to disallow Australian legislation. I don't know where that idea came from. JPD (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Um, no, Sue v Hill has nothing to do with the UK paliament's power to amend the Australian Constitution; rather, it  deals with the fact that the succession of its and  our head of state is  governed by acts of parliaments in both countries. Now, I want solid evidence cited here that Westminster has no power to alter the AC unilaterally. Otherwise, "final" is  destined to be "further" in this article. Tony 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The succession was an  example used by the judges to illustrate their point. Sue v Hill concerned whether the UK is  a "foreign power" for the purposes of s.44(i), and  in answering that question, the majority considered whether the UK had any legislative, executive or  judicial power over Australia. They held that it  didn't: there was no judicial power since appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, and  no executive power since with respect to Australia Betty acts as Queen of Australia, and  doesn't take advice from UK ministers. There was no legislative power because of s.1 of the Australia Act.

What this means: if the UK parliament were to try to change the Constitution, it  would have  to be via an  amendment or  repeal of the Constitution Act, and  any such amendment or  repeal would have  no effect in Australia because of s.1 of the Australia Act.

Naturally the question hasn't been finally and  completely answered since the Brits have  never tried this. But it's almost certain that any attempts to do so would have  no effect in Australia. For the purposes of this broad summary article, "final constitutional ties" is  accurate enough. You can add a footnote pointing to the more  detailed articles on constitutional law if you want. --bainer (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the Australia Act, which according to the Wikipedia article eliminated the remaining ties between the legislature and  judiciary of Australia and  their counterparts in the United Kingdom. or  the opinion of three High Court judges (metioned above) who stated that the UK parliament is  unable to legislate on even the most basic element of Australian government, the Head of State, and  by implication on any other element of Australian government. or  the opinion of the authors of Wikipedia articles Constitution of Australia and  Constitutional history of Australia, neither of which you have  appeared to have  read. or  the opinions of editors JPD and  bainer given above. or  the opinions of the original authors of this article.

You are  the one who wishes to change the status quo. I think it  is up to you to produce just one example of a situation where the British parliament can legislate to affect Australian government or  law. Up to now all you have  provided is  personal opinion and  off-topic arguments to support your edit. --Michael Johnson 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP article the AC says "The only United Kingdom law which today has application for Australia is  the law governing succession to the throne". Its assertion that the text of the constitution is  "now regarded" as separate from the UK act is  unreferenced—just a bald statement. I'm not satisfied in the least. When I have  time, I'll return to this issue. Tony 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Using sources other than Wikipedia articles or  editors would definitely be a good idea, as would starting the sentence with "The final", rather than "Final". I am  slightly bothered by Tony's change to the mention of the Statute of Westminster. I am  not sure that all of it  required official adoption by Australia. At any rate, by WWII, the government weren't clear on whether it  needed to be formally adopted and  in 1942 adopted it  retrospectively from 1939. I don't know what the best way to put this is. JPD (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Canada, South Africa and  the Irish Free State, Australia, New Zealand and  Newfoundland didn't automatically adopt the operative provisions of the Statute, rather their Parliaments had to specifically adopt them. See s.10 of the Statute of Westminster. See also Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. --bainer (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that technically the parliament had to adopt the statute, but the retrospective adoption makes it  hard to describe in this article. JPD (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the constitutional articles need better referencing. Unfortunately I am  not the one to do it  as I do not have  access to an  appropiate library, and  internet references in this area are  sparse. I have  added two references in the article for the disputed sentence; a link to the text of the act itself, and  a commentary by an  interest group. I would have  thought that a reading of section 1 of the Act would have  been sufficient for anyone, but the second reference should more  than satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Michael Johnson 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The text of Constitution of Australia has been edited in a way that supports my contention that "Final" (better "The final") should be "Further": "These Acts had the effect of severing all constitutional links between Australia and  the United Kingdom, except for the fact that the same person, Queen Elizabeth II, is  the head of state of both countries." Tony 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had put that one to bed. I suggest you read what Monarchists have  to say on the subject. --Michael Johnson 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right that the wording supports your view, because the wording is  inaccurate. The fact that the same person is  monarch is  not actually a constitutional tie. That sentence should say "even though" and  not "except for the fact that". it  doesn't matter that Betty is  both Queen of the UK and  Queen of Australia, when she is  acting in her capacity as Queen of Australia she acts in a distinct capacity, and  takes advice only from her Australian ministers, and  there is  complete separation of executive power. Again, see the useful case of Sue v Hill in this respect.

Since the 1926 Imperial Conference and  the Balfour Declaration, the monarch no longer takes the advice of British ministers in relation to reserving and  disallowing bills. Since 1931 and  the appointment of Isaacs as G-G, it  is established that the monarch acts on Australian advice in making appointments. I'll quote from Sue v Hill:

"The point of immediate significance is  that the circumstance that the same monarch exercises regal functions under the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and  Australia does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is  a foreign power... The United Kingdom has a distinct legal personality and  its exercises of sovereignty... themselves have  no legal consequences for this country." [1999] HCA 30

This point is  settled. --bainer (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So this ongoing discussion is  also wrong-headed? [1] Tony 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are  the one pushing it  along? --Michael Johnson 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is  not welcome. Tony 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it  a fair question, given the previous entry in that thread was on the 15th June, hardly an  "ongoing discussion". Anyway the use of the word "final" has been verified in the article with a reference, so surely the discussion is  closed. Any other discussion is  really just our (as editors) interpretation of primary documents, in other words original research. --Michael Johnson 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has changed my stance, but I won't be entirely convinced until I receive advice from a constitutional lawyer. Tony 05:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Market

Partial Deregulation? I'm not sure "partial deregulation" is  a terribly accurate term for WorkChoices. Nonetheless, removing "partial” would seem to make the article more  neutral. Fair?SolitaryWolf 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What are  you suggesting instead of "partial deregulation"? There are  still regulations, so what is  "full deregulation"? Laissez-faire#Economic_theory? --Merbabu 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither. I'm suggesting "including partial deregulation of the labour market" be changed to "including the deregulation of the labour market." Although, someone will need to recreate the hyperlink to WorkChoices. SolitaryWolf 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how removing the word "partial" makes the article more  npov. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

By not suggesting that the deregulations have  being either minor (through the word partial) or  major (through the word full) there is  no degree in our writing. By balancing the degree of our writing we are  able to be more  neutral. For example probably is  a greater degree of writing then what would be if we used the word possibly. The degree of our writing helps us be more  neutral in a topic. I think this is  good because of the controversial nature of WorkChocies. Hope this helps. SolitaryWolf 13:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We write what is  precise and  verifiable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The same rule works for words like hate and  dislike or  insolent and  contemptible. Notice the different and  precise degrees? But you do seem terribly disagreeable. I will not argue my idea for the sake of it. You are  either choosing not to understand this or  simply disagree (In which case so be it  I'm over it) - Night peoples -SolitaryWolf 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We write what is  verifiable. Your personal comments are  inappropriate. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound offensive... But I think you'll find it  is very verifiable to sate that WorkChoices is  a form of Labour Market deregulation. On the other hand I think you’ll have  difficulty verifying that it  is only a "partial" form of deregulation. SolitaryWolf 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue here is  the notion of deregulation. Does deregulation mean a state where no regulation exists at all, or  is it  a process of decreasing the amount of regulation. Perhaps if agreement can be found between these two different usages, then agreement can be found on what to use in the article. --Merbabu 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What if the word "partial" was replaced with "comprehensive"? In this sense the series of amendments are  not implied as either minor or  major. Rather they are  simply stated as comprehensive. SolitaryWolf 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little problems

"The mainland of the continent of Australia"—No, the first three words are  redundant. Tony 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I last reviewed this article, a lot of repeated links have  crept back in. Why are  the states linked again  and again  and again? The speckled blue appearance is  untidy, and  it dilutes the high-value links that we want readers to hit.

I have  to say that the whole article needs a copy-edit. I wonder whether it  should go to WP:FAR. Tony 14:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

lol at "that we want readers to hit". If only we can control people's thoughts too! (seriously, though - you do have  a point). --Merbabu 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See the landmass section above concerning the mainland. JPD (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... I've looked at that section, and  it doesn't enlighten me. "The mainland of the continent" is  clearly a ridiculous expression. I've fixed one of the two occurrences. In the same league is  "made a contribution to"—why not "contributed to"? Tony 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The continent of Australia comprises all the land masses on the Australian continental shelf, i.e. the Australian mainland, New Guinea, Tasmania and  some other islands. The first three words of "The mainland of the continent of Australia" are  not redundant, because this phrase does not mean the same thing as "The continent of Australia". However, I think it  does have  the same meaning as "the Australian mainland", so perhaps just replace it  by that. Hesperian 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tony 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to delink words that are  repeatedly linked throughout the article: see above. Tony 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Seats in the House of Representatives are  allocated to states on the basis of population"—This is  untrue for Tasmania, so the text will have  to be changed. Tony 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much untrue as lackign detail, and  possibly misleading. The seats are  allocated on the basis of population, it's just that the method of allocation includes a minimum of five seats for each state. Do we need to go to that level of detail in this article? JPD (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be fixed: Tasmania has a far greater representation than it  would deserve purely on account of its population.

In "Politics" it  says that the Queen is  "nominally represented by" the GG. Later it  says just "represented by". The wording should be the same. My new passport says "represented by" on page 1. Tony 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New map with links

A new map has been added with links to states, cities, etc. I think the concept is  a great one and  clearly some good work has gone into it. Two points though - which i think can be fixed: it  still seems a bit, um, "messy". Can it  it be tidied up some how? A border? Secondly, is  it in the best position? In fact, does it  mean that the existing map in the states and  territories section can now be replaced with the new one? I don't think there is  a need for both, and  with a few more  improvements, the new one could be clearly superior to the old (which i don't think actually says that much). Nice work Zondor --Merbabu 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing is  that I made a Java tool to help with this tedious task. Resized to show border. -- Zondor 13:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A little more  background at the top and  bottom would allow the links to be laid out more  neatly. Also, the link to Perth should be to Perth, Western Australia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the simple fix would be to drop the refs along the top - ie, to Indonesia, East TImor, etc. --Merbabu 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

True - especially since East Timor is  not on the present map. The Arafura Sea link belongs though, and  would still look squeezed in without a bit more  space. more  space at the bottom could lower the Tasmania link, to make space for Bass Strait. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've altered the template that generates the map as discussed. Tweaking turns out not to be all that hard. How does it  look now? --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the only thing left that is  missing the scale to measure distance that the previous map has. The image can be simply updated for that. -- Zondor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it  doesn't look too bad. But it  might be too big for the article as it  is now. How does it  look shrunk 30%? By the way, Zondor did another for Sydney. Again, great concept (particularly as it  uses an  aerial shot) but again  it needs a tidy up. it  cut off the northern beaches peninsula. have  these link maps been used in other articles? --Merbabu 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re the latest version with state flags, can the title Arafura Sea be brought down a bit - there is  still space. and  maybe the left could be trimmed a bit. The map is  BIG and  we don't really need all that Indian Ocean there. --Merbabu 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can the dots representing cities be enlarged? They're pretty hard to locate with the mouse. Tony 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the flags make the image too cluttered. JPD (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the flags – keep it  clear, please.--cj | talk 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for removal of flags - they look pretty unreadable at that sort of size. Everything else is  great though! -- Chuq 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, chop the flags. In which case we could also shrink the map a bit more  and it  is still clear. Also, doesn't it  affect download speeds as the whole flag is  donwloaded not just the tiny thumb - or  am I wrong on this point? --Merbabu 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put in a vote for adding city labels, it  would make it  a little more  cluttered, but right now it's not obvious at a glance that the city points are  links and  they are  a little small to easily get the rollover effect with the mouse. Kmusser 14:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New language info

I removed the passage below. There's no doubt so good stuff here that can be incorporated into the article. But at the moment, it  needs work:

• No references
• Wrong place within article
• No clear identification of what these 267 languages are  (apart from "many are  aboriginal").
• Younger and  different to American English is  not that helpful

There are  267 languages in Australia (many being Aboriginal languages.) Of those, 234 are  living languages, 2 are  second languages without mother tongue speakers, and  31 are  extinct. The Australian English language is  the most common and  has a formal style as well as a colloquial style. Australia still has a formal style in writing while it  sustains an  informal style in speaking. In the history of the Australian English language, the language has its own background when compared to American English. Australian English is  younger than American and  its history is  different and  less complex. There has been no Australian Declaration of Independence like in America. However, Australian English has not moved as far from British English as American had in the period. In the greater part of Australia, the vocabulary is  still Standard English (Hansford 67). --Merbabu 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, English definitely has official status in Australia.

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-2people

[edit] Settlement Vs Invasion (or a suitable compromise)

Yanksox says "invasion" is  too extreme a word, yet settlement is  far too "soft" a word, anybody got any good alternatives? I'm Australian and  I don't call it  "the settlement", I call it  "the invasion", no other word I can think of accurately describes what occured. Settlement has "peacful" connotations and  I believe it  is misleading. If a whole bunch of unwanted people turned up with guns and  started shooting you and  members of your community, you would not call it  a "settlement" (I hope)....

To be honest, I'm not Australian. I do agree settlement is  too soft, invasion is  a bit extreme. The situation is  similar to where all indigeous people were forced out. I normally call it  "rape of the land," but I suppose we can't call it  that. I defer to anyone with more  expertise. Yanksox 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

cool, yeah I agree, maybe "occupation" is  a bit more  neutral, I'm not going to change it  now (and will consult here before doing so again), but I might do a bit more  research, I'm fairly sure the academic term would be invasion, but I'll ask some lecturers on what the consensus would be, anyone else feel free to leave suggestions.

Occupation is  a military term for an  ongoing state of affairs and  implies it  is not permanent. Correct, or  not, settlement is  the accepted terminology. Invasion just smells of POV and  statement making--Merbabu 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Never you mind my POV, I, as an  Autralian resident am  saying that IMOO settlement is  too soft a term for what amounted to the genocidal takeover of the peoples of an  already occupied country. If what happened then happened now, it  would not be called a "settlement". "Settlement" sounds like what happens when you freight potato chips around. If I came to the shores of your country, made a token offering of peace then began a capaign designed at culling the majority of your population, you would still call that a "settlement"? Don't ever assume that someone is  "making a statement", I thought wikipedia offered the locals POV before the world communities views anyway?

The indigenous inhabitants certainly would have  seen it  as an  "invasion", but to the UK government and  its colonists it  was a peaceful "annexation" of unclaimed lands. Neither of these descriptions is  appropriate except in the context of a balanced discussion. "Occupation" has wartime connotations; according to its disambiguation page, it  means both "the period of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops" and  "the act of settling onto an  uninhabited tract of land". I propose "colonisation". it  is accurate, it  is neutral with regard to the legal and  ethical aspects, yet it  correctly connotes the atmosphere of Western imperialism and  colonialism that prevailed at the time. Hesperian

That's spot on, all in favour say ay! I agree it  is neutral yet still conveys the notion that the land wasn't empty when they arrived. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheOriginalSesquipedalian (talk • contribs).

I tentatively support "colonisation" - i coudl change my mind depending on the reasoning of other editors. (By the way, my suggestion that that "invasion" was POV and  "statement making" was refering to how I am  predicting it  would be read, and  did not represent my views of the editor above as assumed). --Merbabu 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the above "colonisation" came to mind, ant then Hesperian came up with it  first. Definately "colonisation" describes what happened. --Michael Johnson 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thus, do we have  a consensus on "colonisation"? --Merbabu 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think colonisation is  right for the use The Indigenous Australian population, estimated at about 350,000 at the time of European colonisation, and  perhaps a few other places, but it  definitely should not be substituted for settlement throughout the entire article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Colony" was widely used, both as the title for the entities that became states (Colony of Victoria) and  by the colonials themeselves ("Wild Colonial Boy", "Old Colonists Association", "Colonial Mutual" etc etc.) Colonisation describes what happened, and  was what those who did it  thought they were doing. --Michael Johnson 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Replacing the verb usage is  fine I think. Some of the noun uses of settlement (a place where people live) would be wrong to replace with colony (a political construct). --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Anyone guess why the sudden incidence of vandalism? is  it bad enough to ask for a partial restriction? Tony 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is  a fairly high profile article, it's not unusual that it  attracts plenty of vandalism. But there are  plenty of people with it  on their watchlists, so vandalism never stays around for long. I doubt protection's necessary. --bainer (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bainer makes a fair point - but as an  article matures to reach the standard this one has - I can't see what's wrong with partial protection. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

its because of the ashes, england vs australia

[edit] recent edit

"The Australian economy has not suffered a recession since the early 1990s. As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed."

This raises the problem of why the fact that x number of people are  employed supports the assertion in the first clause. Unemployment of 4.8% may be a useful statement, but is  only one of a number of determinants of "lack of recession". It's fuzzy. Tony 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) There are  arguments on both sides.--Darrendeng 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia Part of Asia?

Today on the news there was somthing about Australia now officially being classified as part of Asia, anyone got any info on this?--Rob 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Media nonsense.--cj | talk 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because we are  geographically Asian (something none of us can deny), but culturally, we are  largely "Anglo", hence the Union Jack on our flag and  the Queen's head on our coins. I suggest that this point be mentioned in the article. Aussieaussie 21:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographically we are  in "Australia and  Oceania". Economically we may seek a membership in ASEAN or  something but it  does not change the geography. Alex Bakharev 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographically, no matter how you look at it, we are  not part of Asia but are  our own continent. Heck, other continents such as Europe and  Africa actually touch the continent of Asia, something that Australia does not do. Now, no one would ever claim that "Europe and  Africa are  geographically Asian". Even the North American continent (tip of Alaska) has a point almost touching Asian continent. Asa01 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Touché SolitaryWolf 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And culturally, we are  North American :P -- Chuq 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, I disagree with that. We are  a multicultural country and  cannot be classified as following any main culture. it  is important that we are  recognised as Australian and  therefore accepting all cultures, religions, peoples etc. Can we stick with the Australia and  Oceania tag for geographic location and  make a note of our multiculturalism? Yuanchosaan 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was half joking - but you can't deny we are  probably influenced more  by US culture than any other! -- Chuq 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right,<laugh>. Sorry if I offended. Keep the Australia and  Oceania tag? Yuanchosaan 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unemployment Figures

Hi, I noticed while reading the section about the economy, this interesting sentence: 'As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed'

That's more  like 48% of the population. Which digit needs to be removed?

10M people are  working, 500K are  unemployed, the rest are  not participating (not interested) - children. retirees, housewives, etc. Alex Bakharev 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I read it  as 10M person UNemployed. 150.101.96.241 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Original Poster

[edit] Water as % of area

According to the infobox 1% of Australia is  water. Acc to the infoboxes for the individual states, most of the states are  all between 4 and  6.6% water, Tas is  25% and  NSW is  just over 1%. it  seems impossible for the states to average maybe 5% and  the whole country to be 1%. Nurg 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No its not - its maths! -- Chuq 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nurg is  right - the current figures are  not consistent. JPD (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked the specific figures, so there may well be errors, but it  is not impossible for the figures above to be correct. Because the states have  different areas, its not just as matter of averaging the eight state/territory percentage figures. Because Tasmania has a such a small total area, its 25% water doesn't influence the national water % at all. -- Chuq 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course Chuq was also right in saying that Nurg's last sentence was incorrect, but he had already implied that the smallest value was just over 1% in NSW, with all the others over 4%, which cannot be consistent with a 1% total. JPD (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the figures and  Nurg is  probably on to something. First off, I guess that it  depends on the various sources used. The total area in the infobox is  different from the total area given in the geography section. The geography section uses the CIA as a source and  the infobox area comes from  and  outlying territories by total area">List of countries and  outlying territories by total area which does not list a source. In any case, if you add up the water areas in the state's infoboxes you'll get a total of 158,677 sq mi of water. Divide that by the total sq. miles of 2,988,888 (and multiply by 100) and  you'll get 5.3%. According to the figures from the CIA you'll get 0.8% water. So maybe some sources need to be double-checked. —MJCdetroit 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a large discrepancy. Possibly refering to "internal water bodies" (ie. Lake Eyre) vs "portion of territory which is  water" (ie. including Bass Strait and  a certain distance out from the coastline around the whole country?) -- Chuq 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial inequality

Indigenous Australians have  higher rates of imprisonment and  unemployment, lower levels of education and  life expectancies for males and  females that are  17 years lower than those of other Australians.[19] Perceived racial inequality is  an ongoing political and  human rights issue for Australians. Australia has the worst racial inequality of any developed nation. I could quote many academic articles that cite examples, but many points are  already listed here. The most striking is  the 17 year life expectancy gap, as a comparison the life expectancy gap between white Americans and  African-Americans has now shrunk to 5 years. I changed "perceived racial inequality" to "racial inequality", which was reverted back to "perceived racial inequality" on the basis of "speculation and  OR". This reversion is  just trying to inaccurately water-down reality and  is actually quite offensive, dismissing gross inequality as merely "perceived". Sad mouse 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi SM. "Perceived" does not in any sense means it's not real. After all, it  could be real and  unperceived. This article simply can't take a Point of view on the matter - it  should be something that John Howard or  Keith Windschuttle can read and  not have  factual issues with. Even they can't deny that there is  the perception of racial inequality in Australia. My advice to strengthen this point is  to add citations and  evidence demonstrating the poor position of indigenous Australians. After all, external sources are  much more  pertinent and  valuable than Wikipedia's say-so. Slac speak up! 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... I see your point. But the data in the article already (higher unemployment, higher imprisonment, lower education, a 17 year lower life expectancy) are  signs on real racial inequality not signs of the perception. Also, they are  already referenced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I could add extra citations, but they are  already present in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today - how much longer should this section be expanded? In fact (and this is  speculation) I would say that Australia has a real and  unperceived racial inequality, since most Australians rarely think about indigenous peoples (who are  a very small minority outside the NT), but the problems they face are  statistically demonstrated. Where is  the citation for anyone to say that there is  a perception of inequality? There currently isn't one. Trying reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today and  coming to the conclusion that the issue is  simply perception. Sad mouse 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On a separate, and  more minor, point, the politics section mentions three major parties and  then the minor parties. I edited out that the minor parties "influence has been marginal" for two reasons : 1. in the hung Senate when Howard attempted major legislative changes, the support or  lack of it  of these minor parties was essential. I wonder about the burden of "marginal" if they are  dismissed as such - perhaps in that case the Nationals should be listed as a marginal party because their influence in the Coalition legislative agenda at times has been less  than that of Senate Democrats. 2. it  is really just unnecessary, the parties are  already called minor, this isn't an  article on the politics, why go out of the way to make a contentious statement as fact? Sad mouse 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This point, as you say, is  minor, and  I don't think there's any problem with removing "influence has been marginal" since this will always be a judgement call. Slac speak up! 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, it  has already been reverted twice.Sad mouse 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I made two minor changes which turned POV statements into NPOV and  I posted a discussion topic for them (above). Xtra reverted the changes three times without commenting on the discussion page and  putting notes on my personal talk page threatening me with being blocked from wikipedia. is  that allowable? Sad mouse 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "perceived". I'm not aware of any qualified person who denies that there is  racial inequality, or  suggests that there is  only a perception of inequality. Racial inequality is  the reason why we have  affirmative action policies - policies that seek to redress that inequality. Here's a link to a speech on the website of the Australian Human Rights and  Equal Opportunity Commission which says:

Special measures permit action to be taken that assists disadvantaged racial groups. Special measures recognise that historical patterns of racism entrench disadvantage and  that the prohibition of racial discrimination alone is  not enough to overcome racial inequality.

Evidently the HREOC thinks its reason for existence is  to overcome racial inequality in Australia. Here's a link to the abstract of an  academic paper in which "The empirical context of the problem of racial inequality in Australia is  presented".

In light of this, the "perceived" in "perceived racial inequality" is  itself a POV word; it  suggests that there may only be a perception of inequality, which may not be grounded in reality. is  there any evidence of that? are  there any scholars out there who take this position? --Hesperian 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I included "perceived" when I wrote that part of the article, mainly because I didn't do any reading and  was unwilling to make the firmer statement. If there is  a supporting body of literature to support the idea that racial inequality goes beyond perception, add a reference. it  probably needs a qualifier though to say that inequality mostly effects indigenous Australians. Old speeches and  articles on the theorhetical basis inequality in Australia vs America, probably aren't good sources.

The question of racism in general would need another ref. Be aware that someone will probably insert another one denying that inequality exists, much like the Windschutle quote that has made their way into the history section of this article. --Peta 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a quick look around, it  is hard to get a definition of racial inequality beyond "society contains different races with different levels of performance on social indicators". If someone has a hard and  fast rule for how different they have  to perform we can address that, otherwise the ABS reference demonstrates the point. The other issue you raised - that of racism, really is  seperate, and  if it  can be supported it  would need new references and  should be in culture and  not demographics probably. Sad mouse 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the following on Sad mouse's page and  stand by it  even though Sad mouse deleted it:

I have  reverted your edits for two reasons. 1) Australia is  a featured article, which means that it  has been judged as one of Wikipedia's best and  has been thouroughly checked by editors. Such pages should only be edited to update or  improve, but not to change facts, especially without a reference. 2) Your edits seem to be both original research on your part and  your point of view, both of which are  not allowed on wikipedia. Please consider this when editting in future. Xtra 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Xtra 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the marginal influence comment is  unnecessary. I was probably too quick to put it  back in, partly because the edit summary did not justify removing it. As for perceived racial inequality, let's take a step back and  look at what the sentence is  actually saying. It's not talking about the reality of the inequality - as has been said, the data is  in the article already. The sentence is  commenting on the fact that it  is a political and  human rights issue. it  is definitely the perceived inequality which is  the issue, real or  unreal, and  not any real unperceived inequality. In fact, politically, the perceptions of inequality themselves are  often treated as the issue. These doesn't mean that including "perceived" is  necessary (Peta's original version didn't have  it, and  resulted in this), but it's worth keeping in mind. If anything, this sentence needs citations/clarifications for/of the idea that inequality is  "a political and  human rights issue", not a discussion about whether it  is perceived or  not. JPD (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Two points to make on that : the original was racial discrimination which is  different than racial inequality. it  is fair to say that the ABS data does not show there is  racial discrimination (there is, but that would require additional references) but it  absolutely does demonstrate, unequivocally, racial inequity. As you have  said, it  is clear there is  racial inequality, so that should be said in the article. Also, I would say that the actual racial inequality is  the important human rights issue (and, I think, as a political issue, since no politician can 'win' on inequality until the stats improve). The point you raise about perceived inequalities I understand, but it  is a little vague and  unreferenced - is  the racial inequality perceived by the Australian public greater or  lesser than the actual level of inequality? I would guess the perceived inequality is  actually lower than the actual inequality, but I have  no references to demonstrate that point so it  has to be left out. My solution is  to call it  what it  is, racial inequality, ignore the part about politics and  just say it  is a human rights issue, adding references from AI, HRW and  the UN:

This racial inequality is  an ongoing human rights issue for Australia. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/08/31/austra721.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA120072000?open&of=ENG-AUS http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/98726FA71877A16EC125693C002968F6?opendocument Sad mouse 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The text Alex Bakharev quoted as "racial discrimination" was actually "racial inequality". I am  not necessarily supporting his change. Having said that, your references cite racial discrimination as the human rights issue, not inequality. However, I am  not really sure what being "a human rights issue for country Z" or  "for Z-ians" mean. Maybe it  would be better to be more  specific and  say that it  has been raised as an  issue by A, B and  C. As far as I do understand it, I would have  though the inequality itself would be more  of a political issue, and  isn't one that gets as much attention as it  could, but if it  is given a mention in this context, this mention should probably be more  specific too. JPD (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how is  this version? The inequality is  in with the statistics, and  it just says that discrimination has been raised as an  issue by several groups. That could be fleshed out with better references, including internal Australian groups as well as the UN groups I mentioned, but it  seems a decent start. Sad mouse 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see that these sources are  cited in the correct format. See WP:CITE.--cj | talk 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just the facts please...

Instead of arguing how to describe things, and  what adjectives are  POV and  what are  NPOV, why not just let facts speak for themselves? Read this - it's not long. [2] --Merbabu 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[ more  on Racial inequality">edit] More on Racial inequality

"...with higher rates of imprisonment and  unemployment, lower levels of education and  life expectancies for males and  females that are  17 years lower than those of other Australians..." Although I will not deny there are  issues this statement seems grossly POV.

For one the sources from which the stats were taken are  not dated. Additionally, the possible reasoning behind these stats is  not mentioned. For example Indigenous Australian communities are  largely rural based. This is  important because rural areas traditionally experience higher rates of unemployment. These rates are  felt regardless of class or  race. Consequently, higher crime rates become an  issue. The isolated nature of Aboriginal communities also makes it  difficult to supply them with public goods and  services in a logistic sense.

Finally, the fact that many indigenous Australians have  attained high levels of education and  hold respectable positions in society should not be overlooked.

For an  overview, I think Sad Mouses contributions demand a great deal of excess information to remain balanced. Until this issue can be resolved (scans history) I felt it  was neccesary to tag the demographics section. SolitaryWolf 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the POV tag really needs to be removed, most of the data you ask for is  already referenced. "...with higher rates of imprisonment and  unemployment, lower levels of education and  life expectancies for males and  females that are  17 years lower than those of other Australians..." Although I will not deny there are  issues this statement seems grossly POV. How is  that POV? They are  simply data. If you go to the link most of your further questions are  answered, for example the data is  the most recent available (2005 and  2002). Also if you look at the breakdown the high unemployment rate is  not only rural, it  is also higher in the urban population. In terms of education, you can look at the percentage that finished school at grade 9 - it  is double the non-Aboriginal population.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/294322bc5648ead8ca256f7200833040!OpenDocument

This is  a better comparison than tertiary education (where they perform five times lower) because you are  right that rural areas have  restricted access to universities but secondary education is  legislated to be available to everyone. Crime rates are  not only higher (and despite what you say, this is  not associated with rural areas), but of Aborigines that go to jail, they have  a much greater rate of suicide. In health, the remote and  non-remote population have  exactly the same increase in health problems (same reference as above). In other words, there is  racial inequality even in the urban population, and  even in those areas where the government has legislative duty to perform (ie comparing basic health and  basic education, not luxury health and  luxury eduction) the rural Aborigine population is  worse off than the non-Aborigine population. Finally, you note that many Aborigines have  high education and  respectable positions - yes that is  true, but the point is  not as many proportionally as non-Aborigines which is  the very definition of racial inequality. We could make this section an  entire page, but that would make a long article longer and  the reference contains the required data. Sad mouse 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we hide all mention of racial inequality despite it  clearly meeting the definition (differential performance of a racial group on social indicators) and  we delete all references to concerns by international human rights groups on racial discrimination. How is  removal those facts now a POV action? Sad mouse 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Well, such is  wikipedia, those with the most time on their hands to revert get their way over those who discuss the point. Sad mouse 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I never personally reverted anything. SolitaryWolf 03:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad mouse's contributions changed a fairly vague sentence to a referenced one which was completely NPOV. The data was not put there by Sam mouse, but has been there for over a year. it  is quite reasonable for a demographics section to speak about averages, without having to spell out that many individuals are  far from average. Having said that, the current version hardly hides all mention of racial inequality - the data is  given, and  the reader would have  to be fairly stupid not to understand that it  implies inequality. As Merbabu says above, often it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. I'm not sure how appropriate it  would be to describe inequality as an  issue if there were references for it. However, only one of the references Sad mouse added actually addresses inequality, and  I don't think allegations that specific policies are  discriminatory are  really necessary for a demographics section. JPD (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the new architecture of this section and  I appreciate that the reference has being singled to the ABS given the ABS’s regular updates. Also that the stats from the various human rights organisations have  being removed in particular, substantially improves the neutrality of the section. SolitaryWolf 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate articles?

I think it's time to separate articles about the Commonwealth of Australia and  the continent. Note that we already do have  separated articles for America and  United States of America, for Europe and  the European Union and  do not mix the terms. I was very surprized to hear from this article that Australia is  a country. it  sounds something like "America is  a country", i.e. non-encyclopedic.--Planemo 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have  Australia (continent). Your comparisons are  incorrect however: the United States and  European Union do not comprise their respective continents.--cj | talk 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Australia does not as well. Read the Australia (continent) article. Since this article exists I suggest to move Australia to Commonwealth of Australia since this is  the official name of the country.--Planemo 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions are  determined by common usage, not official usage. As the word "Australia" most commonly refers to the country, this article is  located here.--cj | talk 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"America" is  also commonly refers to a country. But the article is  named The United States of America. Wikipedia uses official names for countries.--Planemo 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is  contrary to common sense. Compare United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and  Northern Ireland; Iran, (not Islamic Republic of Iran) and  Russia (not Russian Federation). Slac speak up! 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Russia" is  the official term. Russian constitution states it  is equal to "Russian Federation". Anyway I think UK should be move to the official name with a redirect from "United Kingdom".--Planemo 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, get that one moved first :). In any case, it's United States, not United States of America. Slac speak up! 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, at least since the Whitlam era, the federal government has almost ignored the title "Commonwealth of Australia" for the simple "Australia". Look for instance at the coat of arms. --Michael Johnson 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the continent should have  priority over country.--Planemo 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? The question isn't which one is  bigger, the question is, given that "Australia" can mean two things, which one does it  most often mean? "Australia" as a continent defined geologically is  not often talked about. Australia the country is. JPD (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When I type "Australia" I search information on the continent, not about country.--Planemo 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect Planemo, you are  the only one thinking this way. Yeah it's a fair point but it  isnt what is  done at wikipedia.--Rob 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Australia is  the official and  common name of the country. The Commonwealth of Australia is  its official title which should be, and  is, noted in the first line of the article. I would point to http://www.un.int/australia/ - "the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations" - versus http://www.un.int/usa/ - "United States Mission to the United Nations". The Parliamentary website, http://www.aph.gov.au/, is  titled "Parliament of Australia", while the US equivalents, http://www.house.gov and  http://www.senate.gov, clearly state "United States House of Representatives" and  "United States Senate". The two situations are  not comparable at all. Orderinchaos78 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth-largest country

I think we should say in the introduction (or at least in the geography section) that Australia is  the sixth-largest country in the world. After all, it's huge size is  one of its defining characteristics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wideywideboy3 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

If you do, be sure to mention in what terms Australia is  the 6th largest country in the world. Its population for example certainly is  not the 6th largest in the world. SolitaryWolf 06:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[ again  (*sigh*)">edit] Racial inequality once again  (*sigh*)

We have  a few people abusing revert. After all the edits and  consensus revisions were reverted multiple times, I thought it  appropriate to simply provide a link to direct people to the Indigenous Australians article if they want to read up further on the issues facing Indigenous Australians.

All I added to the section was (see Issues facing Indigenous Australians) (which I thoroughly updated to remove some POV material, update the statistics and  provide links) yet even this was reverted. Can we get someone to stop the reverters? Sad mouse 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That is  incorrect - I see no sign of consensus with your views - at least not on the talk page. Human rights and  other activist groups are  completely unreliable as sources. Why not just let facts speak for themselves? Read this - it's not long. [3] --Merbabu 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to let the facts speak for themselves, hence I provided a link to a wiki article about the facts, written from the ABS data and  not from activist groups (which are  not "completely unreliable" anyway, you are  showing your bias). Yet the link to the data has been removed - that consists of trying to hide the issue, not "letting the facts speak for themselves". Sad mouse 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse people of bias just cos they don't agree with the way you want to edit articles. You know nothing of my views and  you'd be a fool if you presume you do. please assume good faith. What is  your bias? ABS is  a good objective source. If not try some peer reviewed academic articles. They may too have  a bias, but at least they are  of quality and  are forced to show some sort of discipline, rather than just advocate a position which is  the sole purpose of lobby group or  advocacy group (no matter how admirable). --Merbabu 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

One wonders if you have  actually read the link I provided. The way you keep bringing up human rights groups makes me think you didn't even click on the link, since the article it  connects was written solely from ABS data. Consistently removing a link containing objective data (and coupled with personal comments against me) is  biased. Calling human rights groups "completely unreliable" is  biased (note, if you had called their conclusions into question based on objective data that disputed it, that would be fine, but to automatically group all human rights organisations together and  prejudge them as completely unreliable is  biased). "Good faith" can only stretch so far. Sad mouse 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and  say that a single link should indeed be in this section of the article - in my opinion, without it, several statements are  made which aren't illustrated for the non-Australian observer. While some of the edits (eg "suffer from racial inequality") are  vague and  should not be in an  encyclopaedia at all, the information to which Sad mouse refers seems fairly safe territory - if one wanted to make it  safer, finding the Royal Commission report and  a few HREOC papers wouldn't go astray. Orderinchaos78 05:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

An "issues" section would be the place for it  rather than demographics. On the other hand there are  no other "issues" mentioned in the article.--Merbabu 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the other discussion on this topic so this may have  been mentioned before, but we have  human rights in Australia and  many other Australian topics which could be expanded, and  may form the basis of a summary section. --bainer (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There are  a thousand things that can be mentioned about Australia, and  especially relating to it's demographics. What we have  here is  a misguided individual on a petty mission to bring attention to our indigenous people. This article is  an inappropriate place to put such information; it  is better dealt with on the Indigenous Australians page. I would strongly object to a "human rights" or  "issues" section in this article... they are  things that are  partisan and  very much irrelevant compared to others such as the economy, history and  demographics. it  would be quite a pity to scar such a well-written and  neutral article. michael ^talk 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the new architecture of this section and  I appreciate that the reference has being singled to the ABS given the ABS’s regular updates. Also that the stats from the various human rights organisations have  being removed in particular, substantially improves the neutrality of the section. SolitaryWolf 07:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is  interesting. Do you have  any reason for why Indigenous Affairs is  such a "petty issue" that we shouldn't have  a simple link to it? That is  all I put in, a simple link for people that might actually want to know more, isn't that what wiki is  about, interlinks to articles to have  information at the fingertip? I gave up actually trying to mention social inequality, but is  it that much to ask to link to a relevant article? The sad thing is  that many Australians do have  such an  underlying and  unacknowledged racism that they are  unwilling to even accept a link to Aboriginal Issues in an  article, because anything that suggests Australia isn't perfect ruins the "neutrality of the article". I guess I won't be surprised if the next time I visit this article Aborigines have  been deleted from it  completely. Enjoy yourselves. 10:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the references to indigenous Australian's? That was stupid. If your really are  so adamant about including the link. You could add it  to the see also section with the words special interest in brackets next to it. SolitaryWolf 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete the reference to indigenous Australians. After I put the link in (and nothing but a link), Beneaththelandslide deleted it  with the comment rvv; rubbish! take your advocacy elsewhere. Someone I feel that two users in particular are  going to revert any change I make (one has even stalked me into other articles as "punishment"), but I would like to see someone insert the link. Why don't you give it  a try? Sad mouse 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I in part agree with Beneaththelandslide. I suggest you try to add it  to the see also section or  similar with the words special interest in brackets next to it. Like I have  said earlier, I like the article the way it  is now. All the same, it  is an  issue and  as such I won’t object to it  being added into another section as a special interest. SolitaryWolf 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it  is rather POV to call Aboriginal Equality issues a "special interest". The obvious place to link to it  is in the demographic section with just a simple link, not calling it  special interest or  anything else. and  even if you have  graciously given your permission, that isn't going to stop the POV-reverters from controlling the article. Sad mouse 19:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Graciously given permission", this is  open source, I have  no authorization to give.

There are  similar links in the see also section already. As such it  seems to be a very appropriate section to add the link, even if it  is not the “obvious” section. SolitaryWolf 03:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)