Talk:Australia/Archive 7

message: I changed an opening sentence in the Demographics section from: "The Australian Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state; there is no state religion" to "The Australian Constitution guarantees a limited form of the separation of church and state; there is no state religion." (Emphasis obviously not in original.)
This was challenged: "why do you say it is limited? the terms are absolute."
Separation of church and state is only partly about:
* Not having governments nominate a state church (as happens in much of Europe, for example); and
* Governments not running churches' day-to-day business.
The term can have a limited meaning, which is covered by the two items above. It can also have a broader meaning, such as is found in the US, where for example if legislatures have opening prayers they cannot be limited to a certain faith (as compared to Australia, where the Lord's Prayer is the only one used to open the sessions of the federal houses of parliament). It can also have the broadest meaning, perhaps shown by countries like France where the separation extends to the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools.
===Australia has many examples of close church-state relations===
Here are just a few examples of how governments in Australia engage with churches in ways that contravene the strictest notions of the separation of church and state:
* About 1/3 of school children are educated in independent, mostly Catholic systemic, schools. When the federal government made its controversial decision to fund private schools by the income of students' parents, it explicitly excluded Catholic systemics, which were instead funded through multi-billion dollar grants to the centralised Catholic education offices.
* Here in the ACT, there are two main hospitals: the Canberra Hospital (government-run), and Calvary Hospital, run by the Little Company of Mary. Calvary is publicly funded, but has a gigantic illuminated cross on its exterior and sells anti-abortion paraphernalia in its shop.
* After the federal government, church agencies are the biggest providers of welfare in the country - much of it provided through government grants.
* A large portion of government-funded aged care is done through the Anglican Church.
* Most public schools have Scripture Week when the Easter and/or Christmas stories are taught from explicitly Christian perspectives.
* Most schools engage in Aboriginal dreamtime mythology (which of course is as much a faith as the Christmas and Easter stories).
Etc etc. etc.
Furthermore, the vast majority of jurists agrees that the separation clause in the Constitution is not interpreted as being a "high wall". It is a restriction only on compelling membership of a church. It was largely a result of Catholics (then a small minority compared to Anglicans) being concerned that they would be compelled to belong to the C of E. It is not about forcing the government to bow out of religious and spiritual matters, as the strict form of separation entails. A good example of that recognition was the High Court's DoGS case in the 1980s, which found with only one dissenting opinion that the clause is about preventing the creation of a state church, not about any other restriction.
Australia's is hence only a limited form of separation, so my edit was wholly and totally correct - and indeed more correct than leaving the term unqualified. As such I'm reverting to my edit, since it is demonstrably beneficial to the accuracy of the article. El T 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing freedom of religion with separation of church and state. El T 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one who raised issues about separation of church and state. Xtra 06:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not religion specific"? Where are you from? How many Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or athiests recite it?  Trekphiler 14:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That material should not confer the incorrect notion that freedom of religion in Australia is somehow limited. If something is a religious practice (as defined by the High Court) the government cannot prevent the free exercise of it. The only exception is where there are competing issues of public policy. E.g. a religion that allows murder. Xtra 06:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point, Cyberjunkie. However, rather than reverting to the previous version, we need to fix problems like the silliness of discussing rights & freedoms and school attendance policy in the demographics section. Keep in mind that the definition of demography is: "The study of the characteristics of human populations, such as size, growth, density, distribution, and vital statistics." In other words, the metadata of a nation's population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El T (talk • contribs) 09:56, 30 October 2005 (ACST).
(Please don't forget to sign) As this is a feature article, I felt it necessary to revert to the last stable version. Some of what you now find in demographics are remnants of a previous much larger section which included sub-headings for "Education" and so on. That section was whittled down to its present form in the process of becoming a feature. Compare with other country articles and I'm sure you'll find similarities. And I think it's fine to mention in passing the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state when delineating religious adherence. Remember this is only a summary or overview article. We'd welcome more coverage on the separation of church and state in Australia. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You'll never find a reference work of any quality referring to political rights & structures in a demographic summary. The only possible exception is if it explained something wholly abnormal, so for example in far-gone times you might have noted for England: "Church of England: 100% (NB - membership is compulsory)". El T 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England no matter where she is, but the Anglican Church in Australia is not the Church of England, and she isnt' Supreme Governor or anything like that of the Anglican Church of Australia. The constitution isn't what removed "Defender of the Faith", either. JPD (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Defender of the Faith' was removed from the Australian style and titles by the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. It was included in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. Alan 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of church and state 

message: Here are just a few examples of how governments in Australia engage with churches in ways that contravene the strictest notions of the separation of church and state:
* About 1/3 of school children are educated in independent, mostly Catholic systemic, schools. When the federal government made its controversial decision to fund private schools by the income of students' parents, it explicitly excluded Catholic systemics, which were instead funded through multi-billion dollar grants to the centralised Catholic education offices.
* Here in the ACT, there are two main hospitals: the Canberra Hospital (government-run), and Calvary Hospital, run by the Little Company of Mary. Calvary is publicly funded, but has a gigantic illuminated cross on its exterior and sells anti-abortion paraphernalia in its shop.
* After the federal government, church agencies are the biggest providers of welfare in the country - much of it provided through government grants.
* A large portion of government-funded aged care is done through the Anglican Church.
* Most public schools have Scripture Week when the Easter and/or Christmas stories are taught from explicitly Christian perspectives.
* Most schools engage in Aboriginal dreamtime mythology (which of course is as much a faith as the Christmas and Easter stories).
Etc etc. etc.
Furthermore, the vast majority of jurists agrees that the separation clause in the Constitution is not interpreted as being a "high wall". It is a restriction only on compelling membership of a church. It was largely a result of Catholics (then a small minority compared to Anglicans) being concerned that they would be compelled to belong to the C of E. It is not about forcing the government to bow out of religious and spiritual matters, as the strict form of separation entails. A good example of that recognition was the High Court's DoGS case in the 1980s, which found with only one dissenting opinion that the clause is about preventing the creation of a state church, not about any other restriction.
Australia's is hence only a limited form of separation, so my edit was wholly and totally correct - and indeed more correct than leaving the term unqualified. As such I'm reverting to my edit, since it is demonstrably beneficial to the accuracy of the article. El T 05:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing freedom of religion with separation of church and state. El T 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one who raised issues about separation of church and state. Xtra 06:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not religion specific"? Where are you from? How many Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or athiests recite it?  Trekphiler 14:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia has many examples of close church-state relations

message: A more obvious question about this whole business is why on earth a discussion of rights in the Constitution is being discussed in the "Demographics" section. I'm moving that bit into "Politics" and adding some more material. El T 06:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That material should not confer the incorrect notion that freedom of religion in Australia is somehow limited. If something is a religious practice (as defined by the High Court) the government cannot prevent the free exercise of it. The only exception is where there are competing issues of public policy. E.g. a religion that allows murder. Xtra 06:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point, Cyberjunkie. However, rather than reverting to the previous version, we need to fix problems like the silliness of discussing rights & freedoms and school attendance policy in the demographics section. Keep in mind that the definition of demography is: "The study of the characteristics of human populations, such as size, growth, density, distribution, and vital statistics." In other words, the metadata of a nation's population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El T (talk • contribs) 09:56, 30 October 2005 (ACST).
(Please don't forget to sign) As this is a feature article, I felt it necessary to revert to the last stable version. Some of what you now find in demographics are remnants of a previous much larger section which included sub-headings for "Education" and so on. That section was whittled down to its present form in the process of becoming a feature. Compare with other country articles and I'm sure you'll find similarities. And I think it's fine to mention in passing the constitutional provision for the separation of church and state when delineating religious adherence. Remember this is only a summary or overview article. We'd welcome more coverage on the separation of church and state in Australia. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You'll never find a reference work of any quality referring to political rights & structures in a demographic summary. The only possible exception is if it explained something wholly abnormal, so for example in far-gone times you might have noted for England: "Church of England: 100% (NB - membership is compulsory)". El T 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess she is Supreme Governor of the Church of England no matter where she is, but the Anglican Church in Australia is not the Church of England, and she isnt' Supreme Governor or anything like that of the Anglican Church of Australia. The constitution isn't what removed "Defender of the Faith", either. JPD (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Defender of the Faith' was removed from the Australian style and titles by the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. It was included in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. Alan 03:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A better fix

message: Nothing on IR? Why's that? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where you could put it in.  The US has frankly a bloody awful IR system, and nothing in the article; we don't have one (yet).  When we do actually start developing a working poor (only a matter of time, obviously)  we can then put that in.  Slac speak up! 07:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Unions have been such a major part of our nation, I find that an interesting comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the ecomony section about the current batch of workplace reforms. Other than that there isn't really much scope for a history of trade unionism and industrial realtions in this article. Does anyone know what the name the article about the most recent reforms (proposed) currently goes by? --nixie 07:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is currently called Australian industrial relations legislation, 2005. Xtra 07:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a mention of the current legislation is necessary, but a sentence about the role of trade unions in our history wouldn't go astray. Ambi 12:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial relations 

message: I recently was at a concert with australian contemporary music. One piece was utterly interesting and moving. It tells of the story of settlers and the hardships they had to endure. I forgot the name of the music. Anyone remember? I remember that crickets were played by violins. Anyone have a clue? They should put something like that in the culture part. It's simply a masterpiece, I am german, and I think that if there's anyone who can write more on australian contemporary music, it would be great. - 200.56.172.126
:Score one for the Aussies! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By your description, you probably mean a contemporary piece of Australian classical music.  Unfortunately, AFAIK none of the Australian contributors to Wikipedia know much about the Australian classical repetoire; frankly, not much of it has reached the popular consciousness in a way that Germany's greatest composers have.  Probably the most famous contemporary Australian classical composer is Richard Mills, and, historically, the most famous was Percy Grainger, though he lived and worked mostly outside it, and is probably almost as famous for his personal proclivities than for any of his music.  But I'd bet that 90% of Australians couldn't name an Australian composer who worked in the classical tradition, though most could name at least two or three Germans.  --Robert Merkel 11:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that Peter Sculthorpe, Ross Edwards and Elena Kats-Chernin would be just as well known as Richard Mills these days.  JackofOz 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well-known, definitely.  But superior? - now that's POV, neither provable nor disprovable. :--)  But seriously, what are you saying?  Are you saying that most people model their interest in/knowledge of contemporary Australian classical composers after your personal level of knowledge of them?  How many people do you claim to know, and how come you're so incredibly influential over all of them?  JackofOz 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: In the 1980s, the Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating, started the process of modernising the Australian economy by floating the Australian dollar in 1983, and deregulating the financial system.[9] Since 1996, the Howard government has continued the process of micro-economic reform, including the partial deregulation of the labour market and the privatisation of state-owned businesses, most notably in the telecommunications industry.[10] Substantial reform of the indirect tax system was achieved in July 2000 with the introduction of a 10% Goods and Services Tax, which has slightly reduced the heavy reliance on personal and company income tax that still characterises Australia's tax system.
This paragraph needs to be pulled apart.  I've never voted liberal in my life and even I can see the npov in this!  It highlights the achievements of the labor party, omits the 'recession that australia had to have' the unemployment levels and interest rates born by Paul Keating's labor government and fails to acknowledge the achievements of the liberal government.
I'm not the right person to do it but this certainly needs to be rewritten! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Factoid Killer (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand your objections. That paragraph seems to be talking about changes made to various regulations and systems, and simply states who did what when, mentioning both Labor and Liveral achievements. The next paragraph talks about recession and indicators such as unemployment, and avoids attributing these to anyone. What is POV about that? JPD 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is POV, but not for the reasons the anon states, which make no sense whatsoever. The problem with the paragraph is that is entirely supportive of "economic  reform" as being a good thing - even effectively praising the controversial GST. While it gives equal praise to Hawke, Keating and Howard, as much as the anon seems to believe otherwise, it neglects to even hint at the other side of the coin. It could be worse, however, and it's a minor blemish in an otherwise beautiful article. Ambi 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose if either "modernise" or "reform" are taken to be have a positive meaning, or "reliance" is implicity negative, then you are right. I don't tend to read things that way, so I don't see it as positive or negative, but I suppose the last part could be changed to something like "which has slightly lessened the importance of personal and company income taxes to Australia's tax system" to make it more obviously neutral. JPD 18:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, but deregulating is already used in the same sentence and (I think) in different context. - Squilibob 14:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-NPOV Big Time! 

message: Re-insterted the reference to 2 major territories, which seemed important to me. A small question - apart from Jervis Bay territory, which other regions fall into this category? - pretty sure Lord Howe (for example) is just part of NSW, but wondering about other tiny islands etc. - will research myself and update here, unless someone beats me to it...... Petesmiles 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include Coral Sea Islands, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Heard and McDonald Islands, Australian Antarctic Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I think Norfolk Island depends on who you ask whether it's "part of" Australia, or "administered by" Australia. After doing this from memory, I discovered they're already listed in the States and Territories section. --Scott Davis Talk 08:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People get Lord Howe Island and Norfolk Island confused.  Lord Howe is an integral part of NSW, and is every bit as much a part of Australia proper as Tasmania is.  Norfolk Island is an External Territory of the Commonwealth.  It is self-governing to an extent.  It has a Legislative Assembly that is empowered to make laws about certain matters that the Commonwealth has decided are Norfolk's prerogative (such as the health system).  Other matters (such as taxation and currency) are administered by the Commonwealth through the operation of Commonwealth acts that extend to Norfolk Island. As to whether Norfolk Island is "part of Australia", it depends what you mean by "Australia".  In some contexts, the term "Australia" means just the 6 states and the 2 internal territories.  In other contexts, it means those places plus the external territories.  JackofOz 12:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: States and Territories

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Guys, let's look into this...--Robert Merkel 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, not in the way thats suggested there, which pretty much means blocking the article from editing Astrokey44 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't stop the article from being edited further in the main Wikipedia, but creates a frozen, stable, and well-checked version in a separate namespace that will remain the same for some time (I would think a period of months in most cases).  And endless editing doesn't always actually improve articles, particularly when the article has already reached a high standard.   --Robert Merkel 05:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: The 2005–06 budget provides A$2.5bn for development assistance;[7] as a percentage of GDP, this contribution is less than that of the UN Millennium Development Goals.
Haven't most countries fallen short of the goals? Andjam 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. What were you getting at? --cj | talk 13:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should their failures be mentioned on their main article pages? Andjam 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.--nixie 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's really only mentioned in passing as it is. I don't think we need expand upon it.--cj | talk 11:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development aid 

message: Is there a special reason why this article has its own infobox, which just uses  in turn, anyway? We're currently standardizing all country articles to use the latter, but I want to clarify first whether there's a special reason for the anomaly. Cheers!  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not its own infobox: it is Infobox Country transcluded from Infobox Australia; a metatemplate. This is done to avoid a large slab of code at the beggining of the article which may confuse contributors, attracts highly visible vandalism, and significantly increases the article size. It, along with similar templates, was nominated for deletion back in October (see here) and was kept.--cj | talk 10:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, however, only Australia, the Cayman Islands and Spain have it this way, and consensus at WikiProject Countries is to use . Would you be diametrally opposed to that? It seems to work for most other countries...  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct, many of the templates listed in the TFD discussion use the same method. We are not duplicating templates here, we just use one template to call another. It saves having huge wads of template code at the top of each article. Read the comments in the deletion debate for more on this. --bainer (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me on this, I've just compiled a list, going through all 240-something country articles one by one - the only countries to use an infobox which in turn call on the standard infobox are the three I mentioned. Besides, I thought that templates that call upon templates were frowned upon? My only goal is standardization - if consensus is reached, we can employ this out-templating method in all articles, but the last time it was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, consensus was to use  directly...  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiProject has no authority over individual articles, unless it can set up policy, which it hasn't nor will. As for Infobox Country, it should be standardised, but this article is not of concern in that regard. As for metatemplates, some of the developers are non-plussed about their use, but there seems (as is apparent in the abovelinked deletion debate) to be community support.--cj | talk 13:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't appear to be using the template still on the main country article, but there is , , , , , , ,  and so on. It seems that since WikiProject Countries couldn't get them deleted, they decided to change the use on a one by one basis. Well that may be fine, but we like our infobox, so we'll be keeping it. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact is, as bainer mentions, this article still does use Infobox Country. Editors of this article found that for fuctional reasons, it was better to shift it to another template.--cj | talk 11:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: If you read the 'history' section too on quickly, you'd miss out discovering that Australia ever had a convict shipped to it. I think there needs to be a fuller account of the reasons for the British foudning of a colony, and the nature of early colonial (pre-gold rush) society.  PiCo 11:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; I think it's covered as needed. Convict transportation is an important but minor and isolation component of Australian history, and one that needn't be further explored in this summary article.--cj | talk 12:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No convicts? 

message: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English suggests:
Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
and
Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.
[For example] Article on Uluru (Ayers Rock): Australian English usage and spelling
Andjam 11:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style on English 

message: I removed the reference to indigienous first peoples arriving "by land bridges and short sea passages" from India - there were never land bridges between Australia and India, and the sea passages are far from short. This relates to geography, not ethnology - if someone wants to put back the reference to Aboriginal Australians having the latter kind of connection with India, they're welcome, but it should be drafted in a way that makes the difference clear.
Also noticed this: "The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland..." So far as I'm aware the TI people never inhabited any of the mainland. But maybe someone with detailed knowledge can check this. PiCo 23:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, during the Ice Age, waters between the lands that are today Australia and Indonesia receded as massive ammounts of water was frozen and the polar caps grew. As a result, this meant that a small section of land was uncovered by the receding waters that connected Australia, the Torres Straight Islands and Papua New Guinea (and possibly some Indonesian Islands too but I'm not 100%sure). People migrated across these "land bridges" and into parts of northern Australia. I do not know how long humans have inhabited the Torres Straight Islands, and I do not know whether humans inhabited modern day Australia prior to the Ice Age. Nick carson 03:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the last Ice Age took place 10,000-20,000 years ago, they must have. Slac speak up! 03:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - removed India as origin 

message: I recenly switched the article to footnote3 since footnote4 is no longer recommended for use. A 203. anon keeps restoring the old referencing system for no  apparent reason, I'd appreciate it if people could watch out for these edits.--nixie 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That change of the referencing was a mistake, was not done deliberately, sorry for my error. 203.164.184.34 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbering system was thrown out becuase the ref in the infobox is read as "1" in my browser but points to an external link. So ref 2 points to endnote 1, 3 to 2, etc all the way to 20. I also find it a bit odd stylistically when the number 13 (the 2001 census) appears in the text out of order (eg between 18 and 19). The reference for the langauge stuff seems to have been removed (it should be another 2001 census reference, except for the Auslan estimate, for which the reference is here (it's a better guess than the census). ntennis 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Link in infobox now removed :) numbering is back to normal. —ntennis 22:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: The article states the coastline length to be 25,760km; Geoscience Australia (http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/coastlin.htm) states the mainland coastline to be 35,877km, island coastlines to add to 23,859km and the total coastline to be 59,736km. This seems a fairly basic fact for a previously featured article to get wrong, so I thought I'd check here before changing it. On what basis was the 25,760km figure chosen? --Blinken 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without defending the earlier figure (I dunno where it came from, possibly the CIA world factbook) coastline length is a matter of definition, see Lewis Fry Richardson#Research on the length of coastlines and borders.  Additionally, one possibility is that the coastline mentioned is the sum of that of the mainland and Tasmania.  --Robert Merkel 23:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coastline length depends on how you measure it. If you go on the distance between major capes, then it is at a minimum. If you go from headland to headland it becomes more of a zig-zag and hence longer. If you go up every little indentation, every creek mouth, every river estuary, it becomes longer still. If you begin to include the length of small protrusions such as boulders, it gets longer yet. Where do you stop? Every grain of sand? There is a minimum length, but the upper limit is effectively infinite. --Surgeonsmate 11:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - in which case I imagine it would make sense to choose some official figure published by the Australian Government as being the 'official' coastline length, as they are more likely to have determined a figure using some standard process. Geoscience Australia seems to look like the people to ask on this, though if there is a more relevant government department then we should contact them. In any case we should probably make it clear in the article what islands (Tasmania, smaller islands etc) we are including in the coastline length, if any. --Blinken 03:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coastline Length 

message: I've been doing a bit of work on the White Australia Policy and have been trying to see if anyone has done something on the transportation of convict labour to Australia. Perhaps I'm just tired and can't find it. But if anyone does have some info on this it would be good to know rather than start something fresh. Harrypotter 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation 

message: Okay, now I know it's not perfect, but personally I think it's pretty darn good ;-). If you'll ignore the occasional edited-in corrections, and don't mind hearing a 15-year-old rant on about Australia, then everything should be good. The opening five minutes isn't very good, but I think it gets better after you get used to my voice and I start using a bit of expression.
One more thing. You will probably notice music towards the last ten minutes. This is because my mum decided to crank up the damn stereo right in the middle of my damn recording. Let me stress that this is by no means a professional job. ;_;
When I made this, I put a big emphasis on making my words loud and clear, and made as few mistakes as I could. Whenever I made a particularly obvious mistake, I went back and re-did the paragraph. This took me from about 2pm-10pm to do, so please be nice :-(.
Oh, and you might notice a bit of a wierd accent at the opening. I have no idea how this happened. It dies away after only a few minutes, so please bear with it :-).
Babij 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just created a spoken article 

message: hey what is up i ma going to go to australia in a few days ii wanted to ask if any one of you know any spots
well you'll definatly want to go to queensland and tour the reef. Cairns is a good place to get some snorkling and scuba-diving done. Sydney is good if you want some basic history, australia has changing dramatically over the last 200 years, its quite remarkable. South Australa is a good place to go, the fruit yards and philip island is nice. ballartt, bendigo and eucuka are interesting towns regarding their involvment in the gold rush. appart from that, there isnt much else...
--There's wikitravel for this --84.249.252.211 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so australians what is up 

message: The current introductory paragraph states: "The current population of around 20.4 million is concentrated mainly in the large coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin.".   I don't think any of the population is concentrated in Darwin - as most larger country towns even have a higher population.  There is very little of the population concentrated in the NT - I think Darwin should be omitted. Davez621 14:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've removed it. It would be more appropriate to list Newcastle and the Gold Coast with the big 5 than Darwin, but I think that listing cities over 1 million is sufficient. - Randwicked Alex B 14:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population concentrated in Darwin??? 

message: Paragraph censored:
:In 1606 Luis Váez de Torres discovered Australia. He sighted the hills of Cape York, but was Pedro Fernandez de Quirós, who had deserted the expedition, who in 1610 claimed he had discovered the Great Southern Continent in a narrative he published about the voyage and in which he announced that the region should be called Australia del Espiritu Santo in honor to the king of Spain Philip III a member of the House of Austria (Habsburg)  as well as to convey the meaning (austrio means south in Spanish) that this land was a southern continent. --tequendamia 14:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, the entire history section of this article is unsourced and speculative.--tequendamia 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats simply not true. If you want to make your addition do so at History of Australia before 1901 where this kind of detail is relevant.--nixie 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another taboo, the Spanish in Australia 

message: Does anyone know why the spoken article icon at the very top right of the article, links down to external links and not references, which is where the actual information, and links to the spoken articles are?  If anyone can fix it, that'd be great, I just don't know how it's controlled...Brendanfox 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The icon always links to the "external links" section because that is where the template is supposed to go. I've moved it there now. --bainer (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoken article icon

message: Australis is a latinization of Spanish the word for South "Austrio". The Latin word for South is Meridionalis.
So, it ows its name to the Spanish language and its condition of being a Souther continent, not to Latin because otherwise it would be called Meridionalia.--tequendamia 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might be confusing Latin and Italian. JPD (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're sort of half-right. "Meridies" is the Latin noun for the south, but the adjective form for south is "australis". The complete phrase is "Terra Australis", which translates as "south land". "Australis" is also the word for "southern", so an alternative translation is "southern land". Without checking, I would presume that the Spanish derives from the Latin. --bainer (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australis or Meridionalis 

message: What is Australia's famous food?
: Australia is (in)famous for its vegemite. To my dying day, it will be the taste that stays with me when thinking about my country of residence.
: Aussies also have quite a liking for lamb chops. --Marc pasquin 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food 

message: Below are figures of participation at affiliated clubs (note: not schools, or social comps or sampling programs):
 
*Football        425,261
*Cricket         273,434    (ACB census/annual report)
*AFL             268,761    (AFL annual report)
*R League        130,983   
*R Union         97,184    (ARU annual report)
Schools data is as follows:
 
*Football        120,479
*Cricket         122,239    (ACB census/annual report)
*AFL             56,239    (AFL annual report)
*R League        34,028
*R Union         67,884    (ARU annual report)
Rob van den Honert
Manager - Research, Analysis & Strategic Projects
Football Federation Australia
T +61 2 8354 5504
F +61 2 8354 5590
M 0422 200 905
E Rob.NOvandenSPAMHonertPLEASE@footballaustralia.com.au 
I can't find the news article from last year that uses the Sweeney Sports data that includes social Football which highlights this even further. Will this do for now? --Executive.koala 06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid confusion, please don't refer to soccer as football here, that is just causing problems. also why are you mucking around with the email address rob dot vandenhonert at footballaustralia dot com dot au? Also please provide links or further details. I am only not removing the stupid things you have done above because it is bad form to edit other's comments. Xtra 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (Xtra, it's wise to not write an email address out in full on Wikipedia lest it is used by spamming agents [we are one the most frequented websites in the world]) EK, no this won't do. From where have you sourced this data? It needs to be citable. Surely the ABS has something on sport participation?--cj | talk 07:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably went off a bit too hard ar EK there. However, I will put back up the  tag if a solid citation is not found that can be easily referenced. Xtra 07:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about participation, but here's a series put out by the ABS about attendance. It was last done in 2002, and in 1999 and 1995 before then. Aussie rules is top (17.1% of people 18 and over attending at least once in 12 months), followed by horse racing (12.9%) and motor sports (10.2%). 5.5% attended soccer at least once. --bainer (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Football? Do you mean Australian Rules, Rugby Rules or Association Rules? I have not problem with mentioning all forms of football that are played in Australia. Xtra 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're genuinely confused, you’re not fit to edit articles on Wikipedia.  There’s only one sport called football. Your small minded parochialism is embarrassing. Thank God SBS’ distinguished coverage of The World Game gives us some respite from this kind of sports coverage in Australia.  --Executive.koala 00:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I think that classifies as a Personal Attack and is factually wrong. Xtra 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what the problem is here.  If EK wanted to talk about Aussie Rules, Rugby or Rugby League he would have used those names.  He was talking abouit football and used the sports name.Tancred 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Participation rates for Football, Rugby codes and Aussie Rules

message: I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. Snottygobble 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: Australia is the biggest football nation in the world per population. This needs to be stated. Also soccer is soccer in Australia and football is football(AFL and NRL).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomn DOGS RUN FREE (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 April 2006  (UTC)
:If you read this page, you would see this has been discussed ad nauseum and a compromise has been reached (association football is "football (soccer)", australian football is "Australian rules football", I don't really deal with articles involving rugby football but I would guess "rugby", "rugby union" or "rugby league" are used. -- Chuq 09:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Mr nice guy's last edit as that was a revert by over 24 hours and wrapped up several unrelated edits. I have also been discussing this issue on his and my talk pages, and believe we have achieved some understanding that Rugby (League) is more popular in some places, but Aussie rules is more popular overall  (PDF, page 35) and . I think we have acceptable words now in in Sport in Australia. I came to try to modify the words here and think they're now OK. It says in the international paragraph that Australia has strong Rugby League and Rugby Union teams. The national paragraph adds sports we like, but aren't good at :-) — Australian rules football, football (soccer), and motor racing --Scott Davis Talk 14:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  football 

message: This issue has drawn a lot of attention over the past 9 months or so.  In The Australian newspaper, Patrick Smith, a regular columnist, writes:
:Vigorous administration will chase its vision at rapid pace
:COMMENT
:Patrick Smith 
:April 27, 2006
:THE AFL is doing very nicely, thank you. It is not just the 91,234 crowd that turned up for Tuesday's Anzac Day match that is the undeniable indicator. The AFL commission has recently viewed a 67-page document that says the competition is in health so rude it is borderline boorish.
:Look every which way, for it doesn't matter. The AFL is the dominant national sport. Here's a snap shot: 
** The league draws the largest weekly TV audience; 
** It generates more than double the income of any competing code; 
** It is the most affordable sport; 
** It has the highest total audience; 
** It has the richest broadcast deal; 
** It has the biggest following; 
** It leads sport in total TV audience; 
** It dominates participation (a player must be registered and played minimum six games) and talent nationally; 
** It leads sporting industry in brand recognition; 
** Print coverage nationally doubles exposure of other sports;
Armed with these facts, it is clear that this article does not really reflect where aussie rules sits in the sporting landscape.  I am not going to change anything, I will just continue copying this quote in the talk pages until the message slips under that thick tape wrapped around those cauliflower ears.   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Being the richest and watched is not more important than being the most played..." - it's a question of degree, when the indicators of the AFL are absolutely trouncing those of the other codes put together, well....  Also, according to Patrick Smith above (and I really do not have a feel for this stat at all), the AFL may have struck the trifecta, including participation.  If that is true, where does that leave us - still absolutely balanced?  mmmm.... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adult particiaption (which could be argued as a type of popularity) in organised aerobics, golf, tennis, netball, soccer, swimming, yoga, cricket and lawn bowls - are all higher than participation in aussie rules. --nixie 08:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I didn't know that.  So why aren't we waxing lyrical about Australians' love affair with aerobics, golf, yoga and lawn bowls?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Because its all relative, that's why the neutral statment that is currently in the text of the article works just fine.--nixie 08:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand the problem here, Pippu. As Peta says, the version of the article before Sliat started playing with it did not say or imply anything about whether any of the mentioned sports were more or less popular than others. If we do start trying to say which are the more popular, then we have to go into details about what sort of popularity we are talking about. This is meant to be a summary article, and is not meant to go into that amount of detail. If there is any place for a discussion of the comparative popularity of different sports, it would be at Sport in Australia. JPD (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What JPD and Peta says is reasonable, but I have a nagging doubt.  We are talking about Australian culture.  We are talking about the importance of sport to Australians.  We mention a half a dozen sports that do well internationally, and then subsidiary to that point, we mention some "other" popular sports, with aussie rules mentioned in the same breath as soccer.  Now you may not be meaning to do so, but it is definitely implying that both are equally important to Australian culture, and that the "international" sports are even more important to Australian culture - when the truth is, it is hard to imagine any sport that is more important to Australian culture than aussie rules.  I refer to an article that backs up what many of us already know, that AFL memberships, crowds, TV earnings and merchandising are absolutely streaks ahead of every other sport in Australia (that is before we even consider its long history and its influence in other cultural persuits).  If I'm not told it's not true, I am told it is of no importance.  I'm told that participation for aerobics and yoga is greater.  Fine - let's weave that into the discussion on Australian culture.  I can't understand how a discussion on the importance of sport to Australian culture can merely mention aussie rules as an obiter dictum.  It in no way reflects the position of aussie rules within Australia's cultural milieu.  That is my basic argument.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree that the current wording implies that the international sports are more important. I think that implication is only felt if the reader comes to the article already thinking in terms of an argument about importance. Having said that, I agree with the point that the article does not reflect the importance of Aussie rules as an individual sport to Australian culture. The question is whether it needs to, and I tend to think it doesn't. At the moment no one sport is emphasised, but if one was, then the relative importance of others would need to be spelt out, and so on. We can't do that in a summary article. I think the suggestion of mentioning the game's popularity in the image caption it probably a good way to mention it without disrupting the paragraph. If anything needs to be done to the paragraph itself, I think it would be making more clear the importance of the spectator sport culture in general. JPD (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that I come from a perspective and background receptive to the viewpoint that aussie rules is extremely important in cultural terms to Australians.  Equally, a large minority of the Australian population is not receptive to such a viewpoint (in fact, is down right hostile to such a viewpoint).  And this is where we currently find ourselves in a number of talk pages around Wikipedia.  We need an independent foreign scholar who has lived in all the capital cities of Australia to adjudicate!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that this argument is going on on Wikipedia, but I don't think that's the issue here. I don't think you could say anyone in this discussion is hostile to that viewpoint! I think any Australian who is thinking objectively would agree with the statement that Aussie rules is extremely important to the culture of a large group of Australians and fairly unimportant to the culture of a different, slightly smaller, group. The only question is how much of this needs to spelt out in an already long paragraph in a summary article? All I'll say now is that at the moment, the paragraph doesn't read like a "discussion on the importance of sport to Australian culture" - it simply states that it is important, referring to participation stats, then lists popular sports and important international events, with a small reference to the economic and tv-viewing effect of sport at the end. JPD (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I now support the caption idea.  YOu're both right that it is far too difficult to go into details, even if I still think the cultural importance of Australian football is not really being portrayed at all (even with the change in caption).  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know many struggle to understand the prime position aussie rules has in Australian history and her culture, perhaps this quote from today's Age, by John Harms, will assist in a small way:  As I clicked through the turnstile at the MCG...I was reminded that the battles on Corio Oval during the 1880s, when Geelong won half a dozen premierships, weren't just footy matches, they were about Geelong people righting injustice (that Melbourne had connived to become the capital city of Victoria over Geelong).  Similar tales can be told about most senior clubs in Australia, they all have a similar tale to tell, and invariably they take us back to pre-Federation days - even in Sydney, which has a few clubs dating back to the 1890s.  More often than not, the tales, the folklore, the mystique, of certain clubs take us back to the 1860s and 1870s (1859 in the case of Melbourne).  Now, apart from the Melbourne Cup and cricket, both extremely important in terms of Austrlian culture, what other sport in has left as large a footprint on Australian history, folklore and culture as Austrlian football?  Certainly not aerobics and yoga!  It is this sense that I fear has been lost completely from the section that supposedly covers the importance of sport in Australian culture.  (I know I sort of promised to leave this bugbear alone, but, well, I couldn't help myself...)  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity of Aussie rules revisited