Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 2

message: The newspoll question says "NOW THINKING ABOUT WHETHER AUSTRALIA SHOULD BECOME A REPUBLIC, ARE YOU PERSONALLY IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST AUSTRALIA BECOMING A REPUBLIC? IF IN FAVOUR - IS THAT STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OR PARTLY IN FAVOUR? IF AGAINST - IS THAT STRONGLY
AGAINST OR PARTLY AGAINST?" (capitalisation from the pdf, sorry)
The values in article are 'total in favour' which includes those who are 'partly in favour'. The word staunchly does not fit and it those who are uncommitted are an important segement of the community. There are no fluctuations in opinion to which an unbiased person could come to a unambiguous interpretation in the past 10 years. --Lawe 02:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  newspoll results 

message: I was just wondering, what is the difference between this article and Republicanism in Australia? --Draicone
:None. That article redirects to this article. --Lawe 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Republicanism:Republicanism in Australia? 

message: Peter Lalor, the 'Commander in Chief' of the Eureka Stockade, went on to publicly repudiate republicanism. Like most of the demonstrators inside the Eureka Stockade when the clash with the authorities took place he was just a bloke who was peeved about the price of mining permits.
The Eureka Stockade was firstly and foremostly a GOLD MINERS UPRISING and to lose sight of this fact is a pretty strange interpretation of history indeed.
Republicanism wasn't central to the Eureka Stockade. Most accounts talk only about the miners flying the rebel ‘Eureka Flag’ and make no mention that many carried the flag of the United Kingdom as an expression of their loyalty to the Crown.
124.183.230.177 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you can verify the above claims you're more than welcome to add them to the article. IMHO the actual nature of the uprising - much like the Easter Rising of 1916 in Dublin - was lost to the aftermath; which is where the republican influence grew from. --Lholden 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's a POV source rather than something you could actually verify; your edits aren't in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Lholden 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me, though I'm no expert on the topic, that the sources claiming that Eureka was some birthplace of Australian republicanism are themselves POV.  It seems to be that both sides of the monarchist/republican debate have interpreted the rebellion in a way that favours their cause. --gbambino 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that maybe so, but the article is fairly carefully worded - "The actual significance of Eureka is uncertain; the use of the diggers' rebellion by labour orgainisations as an example of revolt against a privileged ruling class has led to its association with republicanism." That to me is a fairly NPOV statement; hardly putting a pro-republican slant on the events. Moreover, the problem I have with the edit in question is that it doesn't seem to be able to be verified anywhere except a POV source. --Lholden 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not disputing your actual edits, nor am I disputing the validity of your viewpoint. I'm simply asking that the edit made, which I have tagged, be verified. There is no question about popular perceptions of Eureka here, no statements made in the article relate to how much the people of Australia know (or don't know) about it. --Lholden 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that's a much better source. The edit is a good toning down IMHO. --Lholden 09:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eureka 

message: I have removed "Many believe Howard has only delayed the inevitable" from the section on Party Political Positions. It is unsourced and meaningless. Who are the "many"? What is "the inevitable"? What has the connection with Party Political Positions on the republic? This comment also implies that it was Howard, not the voters, who rejected the republic in 1999. --Lawe 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh indeed. Although Howard did say he didn't think the monarchy would last beyond the reign of QEII. --Lholden 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what he said was he didn't know what would happen after the end of EIIR's reign. --gbambino 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semantics ;-). In any case, it should be noted. --Lholden 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmm... hardly.  There's a big difference between declaring that there will be a republic after EIIR, and saying you don't know what will happen after EIIR.  The article used to explicitly mention his comment, though someone removed it in a cleanup/condensing of the paragraph.  His words are in the cited link. --gbambino 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's right. Anyway, the comment has been removed now. --Lholden 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delaying the inevitable? 

message: I remember hearing that the UK laws of succession were changed in recent years to favor the eldest child of the monarch, either male or female.  If this is so, how would the British monarchy at all violate anti-sexism laws?  Or am I remembering wrongly?  Nyttend 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can recall the Bill was never passed, in any case it only covered the sucession with respect to the United Kingdom, not Australia, which would have to amend the law itself - which was the main reason for dropping the UK Bill, because by convention all the other Commonwealth Realms have to agree to changes to the sucession. --Lholden 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, under the Statute of Westminster, in order to modify the order of succession, you would need the support of not only the UK and Australian parliaments, but also that of every single parliament of which the Queen is a part - i.e. 16 or 17 in total, I can't remember which. Slac speak up! 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexism?