Talk:Advance Australia Fair

message: When I look at http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/fair  the definition of fair begins:
FAIR, adjective
1. Clear; free from spots; free from a dark hue; white; as a fair skin; a fair complexion. hence,
Recent definitions and use of "fair" has clearly changed and many people now intend it in an almost exactly opposite meaning. They intend to include all people of all colours.  Surely, the intention of the original author is relevant, and also relevant is the intention of the current users of the song.  
How should this be discussed or ignored in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:311:5440:5F0:817E:7B1C:494F (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have wondered the same thing myself. It's hard to get into the head of someone back in 1878. We cannot add anything without reliable sourcing, and I don't know where we would find anything to help. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Lots of speculation here. I'll add my own. Maybe the word's meaning is related to that in a fair go. HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually both literary and your suggestion are correct. at least that's what he told my grandfather. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair - what does it mean now, and what did it mean when the song was written? 

message: User:AussieLegend
I disagree that it's at all clear what the rationale for changing “young” to “one” is. The official media release (https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australians-one-and-free) states that it was changed “for all Australians”. 
“'During the past year we have showed once again the indomitable spirit of Australians and the united effort that has always enabled us to prevail as a nation. It is time to ensure this great unity is reflected more fully in our national anthem,' the Prime Minister said.” 
A part of the reason may be to recognise Aboriginal history, but nothing suggests that it is intended only to recognise that. See:
“Also, while Australia as a modern nation may be relatively young, our country’s story is ancient, as are the stories of the many First Nations peoples whose stewardship we rightly acknowledge and respect.”  Steepleman (t) 07:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I indicated, the reason is everywhere on the internet. The wording of the PM's press release makes it clear that the change was made to be inclusive of Australian Aboriginals and everyone has accepted that as the reason. Ironically, Australia as a nation did not formally exist until only 120 years ago and even if you go back to the First Fleet when we were only a British colony, that's only 232 years ago, which is pretty young for a nation. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The press release indicates that it is one reason (and your sources suggest that it is more recognising the history of Aboriginal people), but that was not the sole purported purpose. “It is time to ensure this great [united effort that has always enabled us to prevail as a nation] is reflected more fully in our national anthem.”  Steepleman (t) 12:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was the result of an older proposal by the NSW Premier. If it was anything more than acknowledgement of the Aboriginal people, then "young and free" did not need to be changed as "young" still applied. The change to "one" was specifically to recognise that Aboriginal society is not young. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thnk that a clarificatory ref was needed and have added the first of those suggested by AussieLegend. Errantius (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for “one and free” 

message: Is the anthem usually sung in the key that's shown in the example? Some people can't sing that high. A lot of people can sing that high, too - but in my experience even most of those who can are reluctant to do so. TooManyFingers (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key 

message: I don't think it's fair or correct to say that the viceregal salute has been influenced by Advance Australia Fair, because it was either established custom or some type of regulation or law that dictated the inclusion of part of the country's national anthem in the salute. That is to say (at least as far as I can tell), when a viceregal salute is wanted, part of the home country's national anthem *will* be in there, that's simply how it's done. Its inclusion would therefore be expected and required, not a result of any influence from this particular anthem. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable case of "influence" 

message: Hi peoples
I have had a look at the image on this page of Advance Australia Fair and I am pretty sure that the word ‘young’ has become ‘one’?. Anyway, if anyone could change it that would be great. Thanks! Someone764 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the infobox image? That image is from an 1878 postcard so use of "young" is correct. Regardless, the words of Advance Australia Fair are as they were up to 1984. Only the words used as the National Anthem, which is a variant, are changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics 

message: It is commonly accepted that Advance Australia Fair was first published under the pen-name "Amicus", Latin for "Friend", and attributed to McCormick who later published under his own name. The decendents of John McFarlane passed down orally the story of John McFarlane, a teacher colleague of Peter Dodds McCormick, writing it together, with McFarlane penning the music and first verse. 
https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mccormick-peter-dodds-7323 
The wording implies clarity to who "friend" was at the first publishing, should that be less absolute in phrasing? Greg (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McFarlane Cowriter 

message: Why does the lyric under The lyrics published in the second edition (1879) were as follows: say Australian's all, when the linked reference at says Australia's sons? Jmz668 (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article's wording is correct, though it can take a careful reading see that. In 1879 the word "sons" was used, but it was changed to "all" in 1984, when it became the national anthem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sons vs All