Talk:Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAustralia 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
June 22, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 29, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article


Colonial expansion, treaties and land rights[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for that settlement wording tweak, I had trouble with that. Implemented. CMD (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"settlers spread sounds like a really bad brand of butter".
That made me laugh. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to Australian culture section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry what does RS mean? Safes007 (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks Safes007 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Australian culture - Food[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sport[edit]

@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.[5] You could perhaps divide it into team sports vs individuals sports. Safes007 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Health[edit]

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)[reply]

Government type in Infobox[edit]

(Tagging Safes007 as they were involved in reverting)

I altered the Infobox country government parameter to be "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" (I should have linked to Federalism/federation as opposed to just federal but that is mostly besides the point) from the former/current "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy". That version is unlike almost every other country page which broadly follows the general format of "Unitary/federal presidential/semi-presidential/parliamentary republic/constitutional monarchy". Examples of this format are fellow Commonwealth realms Canada (Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy) and New Zealand (Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy). The "under a" part is usually only featured in extraordinary cases like Russia (Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship) or Venezuela (Federal presidential republic under a centralized authoritarian state) to highlight circumstances. Tombricks (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy" isn't what the infobox parameter is meant for. That definition describes the parliamentary nature of government in the federated units of the country rather than the government of the whole country. Tombricks (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the phrasing could be improved, however I think the goal of separating out the elements of the government (namely federal, parliamentary and constitutional monarchy) so the blue links aren't all together is needed. Australia is a weird hybrid of systems and there is no page for federal parliamemtary constitutional monarchy so I think the links need to be separate.
Perhaps you could have three as a plainlist with the elements. E.g.:
  • Federation
  • Parliamentary democracy
  • Constitutional monarchy
Or maybe "Federal and parliamentary government as part of a constitutional monarchy" or "Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary and federal government". Other phrasings are welcome if someone can make it more concise.

I prefer the plainlist option looking at how other elements in the infobox use it. Do you think this or another rephrasing would be an option? Safes007 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is correct and more concise. The infobox isn't the place for nuances and complex detail. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP is relevant, as the changes aren't about increasing the information in the infobox, but just making what's already there clearer.
No version is perfect, but here are what I see as the options for this parameter and the pros and cons.
1. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Australian Government|Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy]
I think the link here is misleading, as the point of this parameter is to link to the type of government in the broader sense. Currently "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" links to Australian Government, which is incorrect as that page is about the group of Parliamentarians that form the government, not the broader political structure of the country. Politics of Australia is already linked as the parameter "Government:" (like most other countries), so it would not make sense to have two links to that page.
2. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Federalism|Federal] [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]
This is what is used for Canada, however the links are a WP:SEAOFBLUE. It also suggests 'federal' and 'parliamentary' are modifiers of 'constitutional monarchy', when they are actually independent of each other
3. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Constitutional monarchy] with a [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] and [Federalism|Federal] government
This solves the sea of blue issue, whilst increasing the height of the infobox less than the list. Its downside is that it is longer than option 2.
4. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- (list below to go here)
  • [Federation]
  • [Parliamentary democracy]
  • [Constitutional monarchy]
This slightly increases the height of the infobox, but I think solves the problem of sea of blue whilst showing each element is separate. I also think it makes comparing government types of different countries easier by seeing the common and different elements more clearly.
For these options, I would prefer them in order of 4, 3, 2, 1. I believe the benefit of solving the sea of blue issue and making comparisons easier is worth the very minor increase in words and/or height of the infobox. Safes007 (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed 1st, 3rd, and 4th solutions are just more complicated and needlessly different, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no reason for the Australian infobox to be any different than every single other country infobox which all follow the same format. The Australian government isn't special and neither is its infobox. Tombricks (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a problem does exist, it's WP:SEAOFBLUE. That's basically the whole problem I was trying to solve. It's valid to argue the other options aren't preferrable due to other problems, but I strongly disagree that no problems exist.
I think maybe adding an and would go a little bit to addressing SOB whilst keeping changes to a minimum. I.e. "[Federal] and [parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]".
What do you think of this as a compromise? Safes007 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is one independent country, not six independent countries. Best we keep that in mind, as Safes007's initial changes in the infobox gave the latter impression. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view inportant to say "Constitutional monarchy" so its clear to all that the monarch do not rule they are ceremonial. Moxy- 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do need a link to Constitutional monarchy, at least. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal anthem[edit]

@Aemilius Adolphin I don't see how MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE supports the view that the royal anthem shouldn't be in the infobox, apart from perhaps moving the text in the footnote into the main page. It's an option in the template and I don't see it is so irrelevant that the field should be ignored. I don't think it is of lower relevance than other many of the other fields in the infobox. It's also consistent with Canada, New Zealand and many other countries. The anthem is also mentioned immediately after the national anthem on the government page about anthems so its not some technical and obscure trivia. Safes007 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether the Royal Anthem is such a key fact about Australia that it should be highlighted in the info box and given the same status as the Australian national anthem. Policy states that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts. I quote: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." The Royal Anthem is only played (along with the national anthem) at official functions whenever a member of the royal family is present. That is, it is relatively rare. In practice it is no different from playing any foreign anthem during an official function when a high ranking foreign official is present. It is irrelevant what the Canada or NZ article does. The current treatment of the anthem in the info box has been long standing and requires a clear consensus to change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not follow how it's done in the infoboxes of the other non-UK Commonwealth realm pages. See New Zealand, Tuvalu, Canada, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Australia is not NZ or Canada or Tuvalu and there is no reason why the Australia page should follow other articles in this:WP:OTHERCONTENT. NZ has 2 official national anthems, Australia only has one. God Save the King is not a national anthem. It does not have equal status to Advance Australia Fair and should not appear in the info box as if it does. It isn't a key fact, it is a minor detail which rightly appears as a footnote to the national anthem. But we'll see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think it should be in any info box ...but it will be a tough sale now that this has happened...."God Save The King’ was proclaimed as the Royal Anthem on 27 October 2022 Moxy- 22:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call it Australia's royal anthem. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That proclamation was simply updating the existing royal anthem from "God Save The Queen" to King? JennyOz (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. God Save the Queen is mentioned here Safes007 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT says a change can't be justified solely based on other pages. It does not say other pages aren't relevant and notes they may form part of an argument. I also don't think any particularly high standard of consensus is needed here—just good old fashioned consensus.
Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant. It also demonstrates Australia's relationship to the monarchy and local traditions. If it was abolished, seeing that other comparable countries had it and we didn't would tell you something about Australia. Even the fact that we have a royal anthem when our monarch lives thousands of kilometres away is interesting and relevant. The possibility of it replacing the national one at some events also gives context to the national one. An anthem that can be replaced for a personal one of the monarch tells you about the status of national and royal institutions.
Also, frankly I find the footnote ugly. This was the main thought in my head when I changed it in the first place. I think it would make the info box look better to just have both anthems and explain the royal anthem in the text. Safes007 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, the fact that the monarch does not visit often doesn't make the royal anthem totally insignificant."
You don't put something in the info box simply because it isn't "totally insignificant". Policy states you ony put key facts in the info box and the less the better. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding me. I was disputing your argument that that anthem is insignificant because it isn't used day to day. I then point out other reasons why it is significant.
That policy also states that "[g]eneral consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobx". I don't think we disagree on the purpose of an infobox. I just think that the anthem is a "key fact" that warrants its inclusion. The fact that the template includes it as an option and other similar countries also include it makes me think there should be a justification greater than a subjective view its not important enough to include to remove it.
Also to quote fully from the MOS, "the purpose of an infobox [is to] to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". They then note exceptions for info that are difficult to integrate into the article. Neither the anthem or the royal anthem appear in the main article. They are like other symbols like the flag and coat of arms that are best identified in a list rather than a long paragraph. I think it is more useful to identify the royal anthem next to where the national anthem is, to avoid having to expand the main article with a section that doesn't really fit anywhere. I think that looks cleaner outside of the footnote.
Also, I feel like the info about the royal anthem is already in the infobox more or less because of the footnote, so just putting it in the infobox mostly just makes it look cleaner and more consistent, with the infobox having the same "key facts" at the end of the day. Safes007 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this InsertNameHereOrElse (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Willem Janszoon in lead? Naming anyone in lead?[edit]

Only two people are named in the lead, those being in order: Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon, and Cook. I bothered to link Janszoon, and mentioned his nationality and career, because so few people know who he is. Yet, going by the lead, many non-Australians will probably walk away thinking he is the most celebrated person in the nation's history. Again, one of only two mentioned. Someone whose fame must be on par with or exceeding that of Columbus in the US (note the United States lead does not mention Columbus). Maybe we should have been celebrating Janszoon Day all this time? But we don't. I don't think Janszoon is worth mentioning, nor anyone else. In a history cut down to a paragraph, there isn't anyone of such prominence they are worth elevating above many millions of others. Australia isn't a country that revolves around a personality, like Ho Chi Minh. Note that India's lead doesn't even mention Mahatma Gandhi. Apart from extreme cases of sustained national influence, leads should really be condensed to events. I propose an edit along the lines of: "Australia's written history commenced with European maritime exploration. The Dutch were the first known Europeans to reach Australia, in 1606. In 1778, the First Fleet of British ships arrived at Sydney to establish the penal colony of New South Wales." - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead here needs a big fix ......or should i say update like many other pages as per WP:COUNTRYLEAD."
Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples.....see India for an example of a very bad lead.".... Should drop sources, drop repeating stats, random examples and naming people just for starters. Moxy- 21:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the Infobox, IMHO. European "exploration" of the Australian region is complicated. It cannot be easily and meaningfully summarised at all. No names in lead please. Note that we don't celebrate Cook with a special day, and Columbus never made it to what is now the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiculturalism and ethnic diversity in lead[edit]

Hello all

There has been a recent spate of edits to the wording of this issue in the lead. The stable verion read: "It [Australia] is multicultural and ethnically diverse, and is the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas." The current versions reads, "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas." I prefer the current version because multiculturalism isn't a product of high immigration, it is a government policy aimed at managing cultural diversity. If we want to be more accurate, we could change this to: "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse as a result of high immigration from most regions of the world since the 1980s." Or words to that effect.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level. List based on Fearon's analysis
I have always been concerned with the statement "ethnically diverse" as most measurements of this do not consider it very diverse placing it in the middle. [1][2][3]The source for this does not say anything about ethnicity.... It discusses language and culture.[4] I suggest we change it to linguistically diverse (this is due to all the indigenous languages).Moxy- 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the phrase 'Australia is ethnically diverse'. Diverse just means involving different types and pretty much every country on Earth has people with different ethnicities. It could be useful if Australia had a higher than average ethnic diversity. However, this list seems to suggest otherwise and so I think the current text is misleading. As the high percentage of Australians with a parent born overseas is high comparitively, I think it's more useful to include. I would suggest: "Australia is the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas. Governments have promoted multiculturalism as an official policy since the 1970s." Safes007 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for random stats in the lead (already to many WP:COUNTRYLEAD). KISS principal with useful links that explain more " Australia is a multicultural and linguistically diverse nation, the product of large-scale immigration. " Should deal with government policies and statistics in the article body and sub articles.Moxy- 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for the reasons above. Apart from the last phrase, that sentence is applicable to almost every country in the world. Safes007 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply wrong....as most western nations had/have subversive immigration policies limiting specific ethnic groups from immigrating. [5] Less guess work....best follow sources. Moxy- 02:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing multiculturalism and ethnic diversit. Multiculturalism is the policy that replaced assimilation in the 70s, which encouraged migrants to leave behind their cultures. This is a possible source of confusion, as stated in the Human Rights Commission source I added. "What has been called multiculturalism in France and Germany does not accord with the policy of multiculturalism in Australia." As wikipedia isn't the place to decide which definition to use and whether a country is multicultural, its better to just state its gov policy in the lead. Safes007 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree...... we should follow academic sources not just government policy. If we were to do that Russia would be classified as a democracy. Moxy- 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to support the change, not the current version. Describing it as a government policy means not following the government's assertion about what society is.
For sources, see the four different definitions of the concept on Multiculturalism. Britannica [6] describes the concept as acknowledging 'the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities ... deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture.' i.e. a policy, not a description. The Human Rights Commission defines it as 'public endorsement and recognition of cultural diversity'.[7] This also suggests it an a government policy.This book [8]also goes through the concept as a policy one. [9]This parliamentary library report describes it as 'a concept and policy devised to respond to the increasing ethno‐cultural diversity of Australian society resulting from mass immigration in the decades following World War II, and the abandonment of racially restricted immigration policies in the 1960'. This UNSW journal [10] talks about criticism of the policy and this [11]discusses some of the failures of Australia to integrate migrants as distinct from the multicultural policy.
Basically, the point of the point of the change is to highlight which definition we are using and to avoid making a value judgement about the success of Australia's policy and integration. Safes007 (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Culturally diverse is the term used in almost all sources and there are many stating that Australia is culturally diverse. One is cited in the article. The Fearon analysis was done in 2003 and Australia's cultural diversity has increased significantly since then. "Linguistically diverse" is just one factor in cultural diversity. The reason Australia ranks in the middle in most of these studies is because they all weigh linguistic diversity highly: eg if you have more than one officially recognised national language you will rank highly on cultural diversity. The percentage of parents born overseas tells us nothing about cultural diversity. In 1900 Australia had about 60 per cent of the population with at least one parent born overseas but almost all came from Britain. The phrase, "Australia is the product of large-scale immigration" is almost meaningless. Australia is the product of its history of which high immigration is only a part. Cultural diversity is a result of high immigration from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Americas and the Pacific Islands since the 1980s. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural diversity is directly related to immigration.[6] I agree there are many other aspects related to cultural diversity but the lead is not the place for analysis of multiculturalism..... We should simply state the facts and lead our readers to other articles and sources on the topic... As is our purpose as a terrestrial source. Moxy- 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point of the edit. By saying it is government policy, we don't have to conclude whether or not Australia *is* multicultural. Safes007 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is one reason why I prefer two sentences. "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse as a result of high immigration from most regions of the world since the 1980s." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean your suggestion. My criticism of "is ethnically diverse" is above. Safes007 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone reading the sources provided....the country was multicultural long before multicultural policies of the late 70s and early 80s.... Pls review White Australia policy. Moxy- 02:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say Australia has increased its cultural diversity since the 80s as that is statistically verifiable but wikipedia isn't the place to debate which criteria we should use to define if a country *is* culturally diverse. Many people say it is, others say it isn't.
Also the sentence about foreign born parents may not tell you everything about cultural diversity, but that's not its only purpose. It's a distinguishing feature of Australia regardless. Also, British culture is not the same as Australian culture.
The last sentence is clumsy, but I read it as just saying that Australia's population has been heavily sourced from immigration since 1788. How about changing to "Australia's current population is the product of..."? Safes007 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again no guess work pls. Immigration has dropped by half since the late 60s.... The only thing that's changed is where they come from but the amount of diversity is much less. The reason there's a policy of multiculturalism is because of what happened after world war II and acceptance of the fact that by the seventies it was a multicultural Nation. The multicultural policy is about accepting the diversity that already existed and a change of government view about assimilation. I suggest you search the term ‘populate or perish’. Moxy- 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Australia's current population is the product of..." is unnecessarily wordy. Whether or not you like the phrase "culturally divierse" is irrelevant. Australia is undoubtedly culturally diverse. No one is stating that it is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world and no one is debating the criteria. It is culturally diverse full stop and I can produce hundreds of high quality sources stating this. In the 2021 census Australians nominated more that 220 different ancestries. If you want to put in something about migration, I suggest: "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is culturally diverse and has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the world." The source is this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anyone here is saying it's not culture diverse. Moxy- 04:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Safes007 wants to remove the phrase from the lead. I contend that it is commonly cited as an important characteristic of Australian society. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Moxy- 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, but I won't belabour the point. I support the wording of Aemilius above. Safes007 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come in late to this discussion and not to be up to speed on government policy, but a policy of being culturally diverse is not the same as encouraging immigration from diverse ethnic groups. Also, encouraging cultural diversity and encouraging assimilation are not mutually exclusive, one is not the opposite of the other. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to get a handle on this lead..... too many sources, sea of blue, example after example, convoluted organization. Do we not have many Australians watching over this. Article keeps heading in the wrong direction. Moxy- 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]




References

  1. ^ "Most Racially Diverse Countries 2023". Wisevoter. 2023-06-09. rank 107 out of 165 countries
  2. ^ Morin, Rich (2020-05-30). "The most (and least) culturally diverse countries in the world". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
  3. ^ "Most Racially Diverse Countries 2024". World Population by Country 2024 (Live). 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2024-02-20.
  4. ^ "Culturally and linguistically Diverse Australian". Australian Government, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2024. Retrieved 20 February 2024.
  5. ^ Phalet, Karen; Baysu, Gülseli; Van Acker, Kaat (2015). "Ethnicity and Migration in Europe". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. p. 142–147. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.24040-3.
  6. ^ "Multiculturalism, Immigration, Diversity". Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998-08-05. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

New Zealand Wars[edit]

An editor recently added this sentence: "During this period [ie the 1860s], thousands of Australians joined the New Zealand military to fight in the New Zealand Wars." I suggest we delete this for the following reasons:

1) This event is a minor detail of Australia's military history and is covered in the main article on this topic.

2) This is a general article on Australia. The history section of this article should be very concise and written in a summary style, highlighting only the most important aspects of Australia's history.

3) The vounteering for the NZ Wars did not change the course of Australian history or shape modern Australia. There are many, many more significant events which could be mentioned in the history section of this article, but alas space is limited and that's what detailed child articles are for.

4) Sure, it's only one sentence, but is it really more important than Australia's official military expeditions to Sudan, China etc? More important than people volunteering for charities, sports clubs etc? More important than a list of colonial premiers? More important than the invention of the stump-jump plough? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also due to the difficulties of writing a sentence that doesn't imply this was an action organised by Australian colonial authorities while also not stressing a distinct Australian identity that doesn't make sense at a time of a more unified British empire. Safes007 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NZ Wars prompted the notion of an "Australian corps". This was unprecedented. It was the first time Australian colonists organised en masse to fight in an overseas conflict, and in contingents with Australian identifications (eg "Melbourne Contingent"), and with the backing of Australian colonial governments. It inspired a nascent Australian foreign policy independent to that of Britain's. Sudan (1885) and China (1900) are weak comparisons. These Australian forces did not see action and had no influence on outcome of either conflict. In NZ, contingents formed in and sent from Australia helped conquer Māori land in a colony that until recently was an extension of NSW. This link was sufficiently strong for Australia to invite the colony to join the Federation (Australian Constitution still permits NZ to merge with Australia). Australia's important role in NZ Wars serves as colonial prelude to the ANZACs "that forged [Australia's] identity" (to quote history section), and relates directly to the theme of the section: colonial expansion. The stump-jump plough is cute but I think thousands of colonists crossing an ocean to conquer land is more noteworthy, and the number of "firsts" in the Australian context validates its inclusion. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to your source we are talking about 2,500 British colonial troops recruited in the Australian colonies under a New Zealand settlement scheme. Most didn't even come back to Australia. It is more important to NZ history than Australia's. They didn't fight together as an Australian corps and all this stuff about inspiring a nascent Australian foreign policy is nonsense: I have read hundreds of general and specialist histories of Australia and none of them state this. The general consensus is that it was the Boer Wars that had an impact on Australian nationalism. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Most didn't even come back to Australia." From the source you referred to: "While some remained to take up their allotments of land, most found the prospect unappealing and either moved on, or returned home to Australia." The settlement scheme then wasn't the motivating factor for most involved, many of whom were Australian-born colonists, not "British colonial troops" stationed in Australia, as you seem to suggest. I said NZ Wars prompted notions of an Australian corps. Such terminology was used during Australian colonial government-approved recruitment drives, and again, Australian-named contingents took part in the wars. NZ Wars more important to NZ, but "Both in material and manpower terms, [Australia's] input was of considerable importance to the outcomes of the wars that plagued New Zealand during the 1840s and 1860s. These conflicts were also Australia's only substantial war of Empire."(1) From source cited in article: "The willingness of Australian colonial governments to interact with both the imperial authorities and the government of New Zealand during the 1860s, although sometimes grudging, and with an eye to self-interest, suggests that a nascent form of Australian foreign policy was emerging." Many Australian general histories have massive blind spots. Even in NZ the NZ Wars were hardly studied or commemorated until recent decades. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source you shared convinced me, I had never heard about the participation before. I think Boer War sentence needs to be edited to flow on from this event though, so how about: "During this period, thousands of Australians joined Imperial forces to fight in the New Zealand Wars. Later, units formed by the colonies themselves participated in the 2nd Boer War." This gets across the Imperial connection and what distinguishes the two conflicts. Safes007 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's interesting how it has been overlooked. There's a knee-jerk trivilisation of it. It's some frontier conflict in a far flung colony, so it must be unimportant, kind of thing. Yet looking at the evidence, Australian colonies, and military units raised in said colonies, played a significant role in outcome of NZ Wars, and therefore the destiny of a future nation. The most noteworthy thing is that distinctly Australian units were raised expressly for an overseas conflict. So it's a first. A first such as this is intrinsically interesting and noteworthy, and speaks to Australia's growing regional impact. The contemporaneous blackbirding practice reflects this also. The distinction you mention re colonial forces is there, but I think less notable. The most noteworthy thing about Australia's involvement in Boer War is that it's the overseas conflict the colonies threw the most soldiers at. These essential facts I tried to get across with current wording. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think its incorrect to say they were "Australian units" though without qualification. Pages 5–6 of that source talks about how its wrong to call the units wholly NZ or British, but saying the opposite and calling them "Australian units" is equally misleading. They were Australian soldiers fighting in NZ/imperial units at a time when the British identity was the most important. While some units may have been referred to as the "Melbourne Contingent", etc this was just a nickname given by the newspapers (at least from my reading of pg6 of that source). I think the Boer war is significant because it pushed Australia further along the road to thinking and organising military units independently, as opposed to just being a manpower source. The seeds of this started in NZ, but it was much more fully formed in the Boer War. I personally think that is more important than the raw numbers of 3000 vs 15000. Safes007 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians and military officers also referred to the units using titles such as "Victorian Contingent". Interestingly, the "Melbourne Contingent" fought as a distinct unit, retaining both its title and Australian enlistees. Everything you mentioned is significant, but I don't know how to cover it in a small handful of words. We have to be extremely concise and selective. I'm not sure it's incorrect or misleading to call them "Australian military units", in the sense that they are military units from Australia. It should be clear to readers that we're still in the colonial period, and so there's no confusing them as Australian (national) military units. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. They were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units. The current consensus is that confusion would be best avoided by cutting the entire sentence. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked The NZ Wars by James Belich earlier today. Mention of Australian troops was brief and was in the context of FitzRoy having very few soldiers in NZ and appealing to Sydney and to London, ie separately, for reinforcements, and, in the 1840s, receiving such from Sydney/Australia. This implied independent Australian policy making. I have also looked at some Paul Moon writings on the NZ wars and mention of Australian troops is similarly brief. These are top rate historians on the topic. I note the source offered above is a PhD thesis. Can that be used as an independent RSS? I find this discussion interesting but at the moment I don't have an opinion either way. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? And what confusion? "They were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units." It is reasonable to refer to them as Australian in the broader historical context. That is precisely how scholars approach the subject, eg "The New Zealand War was distinctly the one in which Australia was first involved to any significant extent". The use of "Australian" can encompass both the specific colonial origins and the collective identity that predates formal federation, and the overarching geographical region. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to do better than some dodgy unofficial website. The sentence is a recent inclusion. You are the only one arguing for it. We have two editors who object to it and one who doen't have an opinion either way. The comment by Roger 8 Roger above indicates that this involvement is only briefly mentions in specialised studes of the war. It isn't mentioned at all in most general histories of Australia. I reiterate that this is a general article on Australia, not an article about colonial military history. If this sentence belongs anywhere perhaps it is as a footnote to the main article on the history of Australia and a mention in the main article on Australia's military history. You are giving this minor detail euqal or more prominence than the gold rushes, the building of the railways, the laying of the telegraph, and many other things that have to be left out because this is supposed to be a concise summary of the most important events in Australian history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "dodgy unofficial website" is a condensed copy of a study commissioned by the Australian War Memorial and published in the journal of the New Zealand Military Historical Society. The author Frank Glen was the journal's editor. User Safes007 initially objected to inclusion but said they were "convinced" by the thesis (free pdf download), which addresses the lack of coverage in earlier histories (apologies Safes007 if I have misrepresented you here). You may be right that this isn't worth including. Reliable sources characterise it as colonial Australia's first and most significant involvement in overseas conflict. Yes, this is a general history, not a military one. Of the 326 words that currently make up the "colonial expansion" section, 32 relate to war (this includes the disputed NZ Wars line). So roughly 9%. A tinier portion than most nations' comparable history sections, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm curious to know what other editors think, and will drop this if there is a consensus against it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant I think the phrasing should be different, not that the section be expanded to include all that. Perhaps: "During this period the nation participated in overseas Imperial conflicts, with thousands of Australians volunteering to fight in the New Zealand Wars and each colony sending their own units to fight in the Boer War." This is more concise then the current version too. Safes007 (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"During this period the nation participated in overseas Imperial conflicts, with thousands of Australians volunteering to fight in the New Zealand Wars and each colony sending their own units to fight in the Boer War."
This gives equal prominence to Australia's participation in the Boer War which most historians agree was an important factor in developing national consciousness and 2,500 people volunteering to go to NZ in exchange for free land where they could settle which most historians don't even mention in general histories of Australia. Just to make it clear: I am not arguing for an expansion of this section I am arguing that the sentence about participation in the NZ wars is a minor detail of military history which should be removed and placed in one of the main articles on Australian history. Even mentioning it in a general article about Australia this article gives it undue prominence. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been established, the volunteers went for various reasons, and most returned to Australia. That the NZ Wars occurred before emergence of national consciousness does not diminish its notability. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I feel that the thesis linked is a solid argument that the NZ wars participation are significant enough to be included due to its early importance in shaping an indepdendent Australian identity. I also don't think the comparative lack of other writings tells us much, because there could be lots of reasons for that, including racism and the desire to write about things that fit with existing national narratives. In the absence of sources saying specifically the wars weren't that important, I therefore lean towards including it. Safes007 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian military history nerd, I'd note that military histories of Australia tend to give very little or no coverage to the contingents that fought in the New Zealand Wars. Coverage of the topic tends to be limited to relatively specialist works. As such, I don't think that this needs to be covered in this very top level article. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for input. What do you think of this compromise? "Australian colonial forces were deployed overseas in support of imperial military operations, starting with the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and continuing through the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." More concise, one sentence, NZ Wars highlighted only to give sense of a timeline. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think "Australian colonial forces" is misleading, even more so if you add the link. The linked page discusses British garrisons and colonial armies, which aren't applicable to New Zealand.
How about this: "Australians soliders supported overseas imperial military operations, with a number of volunteers participating in the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and larger colonial units serving in the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." Safes007 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too wordy. Just drop all reference to the NZ wars. Not important enough for an article at this level. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The focus of Australian military historians of this era is the Australian frontier wars. The NZ Wars involved far fewer Australians, and modern historians tend to see them as a side show to the much larger conflict in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. I still think it's underrated. Have now gone over specialised histories of it by three different authors, and all characterise it as colonial Australia's first significant, and most sustained foray into an overseas conflict. The one Australian colonists profoundly influenced, and the one that they (colonists) perceived to hold greater significance for Australia. "[We should not] lose sight of the means of general defence accumulating round this battlefield. They are not for New Zealand alone, but for the whole Australian world. Had no such war arisen, probably no sense of danger would have led to effective measures of precaution and defence." (Sydney Morning Herald) It's interesting that the NZ Wars meet such criteria, yet are deemed a footnote of a footnote. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The colonies actively supported imperial military campaigns overseas, starting with the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and continuing through the deployment of colonial forces in the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." This compromise is more concise, encompasses all overseas involvement, establishes timeline and avoids the whole "forces raised in as opposed to by the colonies" conundrum. Broadens NZ involvement to one of support, which extended far beyond the 1863–64 volunteer contingents, eg Victoria sending all of its naval forces, with HMVS Victoria being in 1860 "the first time an Australian warship had been deployed to assist in a foreign war." - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't the first troops sent over in the 1840s? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were British regiments stationed in colonies, operating under authority of British Army. NZ Wars occurred during shift as colonies developed greater local autonomy, including raising their own defense forces. Hence the colonies began "actively" supporting imperial military campaigns, as opposed to passively hosting British regiments that were answerable solely to British military authorities. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support this for the reasons I and Nick-D stated above. Given that two editors oppose this inclusion and other editors can't agree on the wording for the proposed inclusion, I will remove the sentence. If you can get a clear consensus for its inclusion, including exact wording, it can be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you concede that some of your reasons aren't tenable? Firstly, saying it's "nonsense" to suggest that the NZ Wars shaped early foreign policy thinking in Australia. The Australian colonies closely followed the NZ Wars, and it inspired much discussion in the press about the need to bolster local defenses and raise regular armies. The relocation of British garrisons to NZ exacerbated this type of rhetoric. You also claimed that the volunteers from Australia "were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units." They were both. There is an ongoing trend in recent scholarship to acknowledge the link between Australia's modern military and its colonial antecedents. For example, the 1863–64 contingents are now commemorated at the Australian War Memorial, which recognises the NZ Wars as "a relevant chapter in Australian military history". And following a 2010 review, the Royal Australian Navy now recognises "New Zealand 1860–61" as the RAN's earliest battle honour. This involved the Victorian Navy participating in coastal bombardments and land combat for several months. Half a century would pass until the RAN was again directly engaged in combat, in WW1. This makes the NZ Wars the only such battle honour to be completely omitted from the history section (all others captured within their broader conflicts, from WW1 to Iraq). You also sought to diminish Australia's involvement in the NZ Wars by saying that the Australian volunteers were recruited "under a New Zealand settlement scheme. Most didn't even come back to Australia." As I pointed out earlier, most did. But isn't this also indicative of the level of support from Australian colonial governments? That they willingly dispensed with 2,500 able bodied men and their families for the sake of a foreign land war. As far as local industry was concerned, 2,500 men just evaporated from the labor force. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HappyWaldoYou added the content about the NZ wars and two ediors objected to it in toto. 1 editor objected to the wording. Therefore it is up to you to seek consensus for your added content. see WP:BRD Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this wording for the record. Safes007 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Also, to follow up on my previous response, regarding the number of volunteers the Australian colonial governments agreed to re-settle, during a crucial time of colony building. To put Melbourne's contribution in perspective, volunteers' families included, the per capita equivalent in today's terms would be the population of the Melbourne central business district emptying out. Compared to, for example, the Iraq War, with Australia contributing only 2,000 personnel, out of a population of approx 20,000,000. Yet Iraq gets a mention in the history section. This makes the NZ Wars a victim of protracted WP:RECENCY, and it would only be fair and balanced to include it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all unsourced original research and highly dubious. The population of Melbourne increased from 75,000 to over 600,000 from 1850 to 1870. 1,000 Melbournians settling in NZ over 10 years had no impact on the history of Australia or the history of Melbourne. You obviously have a keen interest in this topic so I would suggest that you submit an article on Australians in the NZ wars. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are side stepping the crux of it: the NZ Wars were more impactful on Australia in their day than more recent wars have been, both in terms of manpower and resources. Again, WP:RECENCY. Saying it had "no impact" is perfectly absurd in the face of increasing commemoration, scholarly attention, and how it has been officially absorbed into Australia's military history. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian government or federal government?[edit]

Hello all,

I propose that we consistently use the term Australian government, rather than federal government when referring to the Australian government. While it's true that some sources, especially the media, use the terms interchangeably, the fact is that the term Australian government is universally in official use. All Australian government websites and official publications refer to the government of Australia as the Australian government. For example here, here, here, and any other official government website or publication you care to google. One editor has argued that it is useful to use the term federal government when we need to distinguish it from other levels of government such as state governments and local governments. But the official term Australian government does just as well: eg the Australian government has power over this but the state governments have power over that. Of course, the term "federal" can be used in other contexts when that is the official term: eg the Federal Executive Council. Some might argue that the official name of the Australian government is the Commonwealth Governnment, as this is the name given in the constitution. But the constitution is not the only official document governing Australia, and the term Australian Government has been in official use by all government since the 1970s.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it the Australian government doesn't make it clear that it IS the federal government in a multi-level system. And there IS confusion internationally. During COVID, I saw a lot of comment, often surprisingly from Americans, that the Australian government had imposed all the tough restrictions that had, in fact, been imposed by state governments. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't change official Australian usage for the benefit of myopic Americans. The article makes it clear that Australia is a federation of states and that there are state governments and an Australian government. See the official advice to Australian parliamentarians: "In the context of the government, the three terms ‘Australian’, ‘Federal’ and ‘Commonwealth’ can be used interchangeably. However, Australian Government is preferred usage within the government itself. An advantage of using the term ‘Australian Government’ rather than ‘Federal Government’ or ‘Commonwealth Government’ is that there is less likely to be confusion in the minds of those not familiar with Australia’s system of government. For example in this context ‘Commonwealth’ can often refer to the Commonwealth of Nations, and ‘Federal’ may be used by Americans when referring to their national government." See: "What's the difference?". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just myopic Americans. That was simply one example of the problem everywhere outside Australia. It's quite common to see someone not familiar with our system to write "the Australian government" when they mean "AN Australian government", i.e. an Australian state government. I mentioned Americans because they, of all people, should understand a federal system, but often don't seem to. "Federal government" removes that confusion. Wikipedia is global. We need to write for people who don't realise that there are many governments in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the terminology "Australian Government" by the Commonwealth government is not a neutral one, but specifically designed in order to blur the distinctions between federal and state governments and to justify increasing federal power.[1][2] While the federal government may really want you to use its new official name, wikipedia isn't bound to follow its preference. I assume WP:COMMONNAME applies equally to the names of bodies in the text such that the common use of the term "federal government" in the media supports the use of this term in the text. Also, DFAT recognises the use of federal government as a name and it is used by the NSW government.
I think we should use the name that is the most useful in context. Usually this is the Australian Government, but when comparing between both levels of government the use of names like Commonwealth and federal government are useful at emphasising the fact that Australia is a federation with states that are as sovereign in their respective spheres as the Commonwealth. Safes007 (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of official/government sources that use "federal government" see here. As HiLo noted above, there is good reason to use this terminology to avoid confusion with the states. This is not some sort of recent Americanism, it's been in use since day dot. In any case we have a Washminster system so it's natural there will be some overlap. ITBF (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presume outside Australia, it's known as the Australian government, where's inside Australia, it's known as the Federal government. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is officially known as the Australian government inside Australia, as has been so since the Acts Interpretation Act was ammended in 1973 to refer to the Australian Government."What's the difference?" it is also widely used in the media: eg: here.[12]https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/australian-government-paid-millions-for-unusable-covid-face-masks-from-obscure-online-retailer-ntwnfb. Although in the media, Australian government and federal government are often used interchangeably. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, use Australian government. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only officially known as the Australian Government by institutions under the authority of the federal government, not Australia as a whole. Constitutionally, it is officially the "government of the Commonwealth" (s 62), which is the name used in courts and often by that states, who rejected the new name as inaccurate. Safes007 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am happy to accept the compromise suggested by Safes007 whereby we use Australian government in most contexts, but federal government when we are distinguishing between the federal, state/territory and local levels of government. Commonwealth government should only be used for direct quotes or when referring to specific constitutional provisions using the term. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I wasn't trying to set down a universal rule. I think its ultimately a case by case basis and I don't think it's useful to set down general rules. I think Commonwealth government can be useful in many different contexts and I don't agree that it should only be used in direct quotes. Safes007 (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Twomey, Anne (2006). The Chameleon Crown. Sydney: Federation Press. p. 113 – via Internet Archive.
  2. ^ "The term "Australian Government"". Australian Law Journal. 48 (1): 1. 1974 – via Westlaw.

How to deal with 'as of year'?[edit]

I notice that many sentences in the article contain an expression like 'as of [year]' or something similar. Are there any general rules for when this is needed or can it be implied when a source is available? Safes007 (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is WP:ASOF. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks. Safes007 (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]