Talk:Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Featured article star Australia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 16, 2005.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Australia
Australian Wikipedians
Forums:
Meet-Ups:
This box: view • edit

Contents

[edit] Early European Colonisation

"...350,000 at the time of European settlement". European sounds weirdly vague, pointlessly so. Australia was almost exclusively colonised by the British, for the first hundred years. There weren't any Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or any other European colonies, just the British! There might have been a few non-British whalers paying visits to ports but so what! They had about as much impact, and probably less so, on the early colonisation of Australia as the British pirates had on the early Spanish colonisations of Cuba or Peru. The Spanish Colonised Peru not Sir Francis Drake, the Spanish destroyed the Inca empire not British pirates and similarly the British took Australia from the Aborigines and brutalised them, not the Europeans whalers.

Non-British colonisation of Australia before 1900 was almost insignificant. The colonisation of Australia was very different from the colonisation of America, the USA. There was only one European nation involved in the colonisation of Australia, solely Britain.

I agree. By using the term 'European settlement' it lets the British off the hook too easily. And the only Irish in amongst those first settler were Irish who were arrested and tried in Britain and sent out here as convicts. They didn't elect to migrate, so it was still British settlement of forced transported prisoners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.4.26 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So, the native population of Australia was 350,000 at the time of British settlement. Britain maybe part of Europe but it also part of Eurasia, the northern hemisphere and the world, but Britain is far more specific and much more relevant a concept than Europe, in this context and time period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.251.23 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the settlement of Australia was an enterprise of the United Kingdom government, there have always been noticeable minorities of non-British settlers, dating even from the convicts of the First Fleet. You also run against the problem of the Irish, clearly a very substantial part of the European invasion, however many Irish would object to being lumped into the "British". --Michael Johnson 22:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: What became the continental United States was originally settled almost exclusively by the British ( or English, if you prefer ). The French were more concerned with their interests in what is now Canada, and the Spanish were more focused on what is now the American Southwest ( Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona ) and Latin America ( now Mexico and points south ). While subsequent waves of new people came ( to what became the US ) from various countries, including those in Europe, the first to break ground and settle were English. ( I exclude the Norse settlements, because they left or died off. ) ( The Discovery of North America © 1972 American Heritage Press ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski mohawk (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This might seem kind of picky, but could somebody change "South Australia was founded as a "free province"—that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free", but later accepted transported convicts." It seems kind of contradictory. It seems that from the first sentence that "free province" implies "never a penal colony", which seems to be contradicted in the second sentence. I think "South Australia ... 'free province' rather than a penal colony..." would work better. This seems like a minor and obvious change but apparently I don't have access to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbrinda (talk • contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ally

Would anyone have an objection to the statement "New Zealand is Australias closest friend & ally"? (♠Taifarious1♠) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Or is that just your personal opinion? If you can reference it, then we can discuss whether it would be appropiate to include it. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I object. Apart from verifiability concerns (let alone accuracy), the statement seems meaningless and vague to the point of being useless. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true. We should have at least a paragraph on our relationship. Trans-Tasman government committees are routine. The NZ government stationed a squadron of strike aircraft here for some years. --Pete (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and think Australia and New Zealand are much closer than allies! Aussies and New Zealanders are like siblings: always squabbling with one another over petty issues but having a deep love and respect for each other. The bonds that tie us together are very strong. We are two isolated sisters alone in a huge antipodean world with very parallel histories, similar qualities of life and an "interchanging" population. Many New Zealanders come to live and work in Australia and most Australians love New Zealand! New Zealand seems to "balance" Australia with its magnificent mountain and lake scenery whilst Australia has the beaches, big cities and deserts. Whenever I travel to Europe or America and hear that familiar, friendly Kiwi accent, its like a member of the "family" is in the room. We were recently at The Oktoberfest in Munich and I noticed how Aussies and Kiwis always gravitate towards each other. I really cannot think of two other countries that are closer. KathyBoots; 4.20 pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by KathyBoots (talk • contribs) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a kiwi, and I agree with the dude above. The first time I travelled by myself was a three-month backpacking trip through Southeast Asia, and it was always great to shack up with some Aussies and (invariably) get drunk. More recently, my girlfriend and I bumped into a couple of Aussies in Nepal and ended up spending two weeks hiking 210km over the Annapurnas with them. Despite all the bitching and moaning, Kiwis and Aussies get on great when they meet on "neutral turf".

This all seems a bit personal, anecdotal and subjective. Just because you hang out with a few NZ backpackers then suddenly Australia and NZ are the closest friends. Lots of countries have similar relationships that are geographically close - the Australia/NZ one isn't unique or worthy of a mention at all, you're just being typical jingoistic embarrassing Australians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.4.26 (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


I think that mention of A.N.Z.A.C May be of note the Joint Australiain New Zeland Army Core —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.128.127 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Australia Extends Territorial Waters

I have added to the article what I have found by following this link: Australia Extends Rights over Sea. If there are any objections to my addition, please let me know --Maurice45 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, it was the rights over the continental shelf, not the waters. Apart form that, is this detail really important enought to be included in this summary article? JPD (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I figure that, if it's important enough to be on the BBC news website, it should (again, not sure, so don't attack this) be on the article --Maurice45 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important. Australia's sovereignty has been extended significantly. It potentially has significant economic prospects; Australia wants the shelf for oil drilling. And yes, it owns the waters as well as the shelf, as reported here ion Australia (obviously one cannot have sovereignty over a shelf while not over the water above it!)--Gazzster (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

But it is news, not encyclopedic material. Yes, the rights are imnportant, but in a few years, it will simply be true that Australi claims a certain amount of continental shelf, and exactly when the limits were determined will be a historical detail at the same level as many other things not mentioned here. (And yes, it is possible to have rights to do with the shelf, but not the waters above it - not all the reports were sloppy enough to imply that the water was included.) JPD (talk)

[edit] First european sighting is off by 1500 years?

> The first recorded European sighting of the Australian mainland was made by the Dutch navigator Willem Janszoon, who sighted the coast of Cape York Peninsula in 1606. <

This is not ture in the strictest sense. There is a rock carving of latin text on the northern shore of Australia. A 1st century AD ancient roman ship participating in the yearly exotic goods trade shuttle between the Red Sea ports and India was swept away by winds and ended up down under. The poor imperial guys probably did not last long in that deserted area, so it is not a "discovery" where return of the crew is a must, but it still counts as a "sighting" and as a "landing". 91.83.19.148 (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you have a reference?--VS talk 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statute of Westminster

I just made this edit and realised that my edit summary is very poorly worded so I thought I'd clarify it here. What I was trying to say was that while the Statute of Westminster was ratified in 1942 the adoption date was formerly backdated to 3 September 1939 within the Act itself[1][2] so that is the adoption date, not the 1942 date. While the document was formerly assented to on 9 October 1942 not 3 October 1942 as edited)[3] the commencement date is the more important date. This is no different to The Constitution, which received royal assent on 9 July 1900 but did not come into force until 1 January 1901. The commencement date of both is what is important. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about if further, since the date of commencement is the more significant date, the link should probably be [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|commenced]] rather than [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942|adopted]] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities. Australia did not have the power to legislate itself completely freely before 1942, the backdated adoption date is a legal technicality, as shown by your own cite (11). It says "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" which was 9 October [[1942]. History documents when things actually happened - the backdate is a legal technicality. When your cite (11) says the law was "adopted" from 1939 it means they will apply it from 1939 if anything is discovered in that past time that relates to the law, but when it says it comes into "operation" in 1942 it means that they can only start applying the law from then because laws can't travel through time.
What I am trying to say is that the backdate is just to deal with the past and doesn't change the date the law actually came into force. As I said in my last edit, I apply the same logic to the Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1901 like the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 came into force on 9 October 1942 (I did accidentally type type 3 October rather than 9 October).--Supertask (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the template instructions and I didn't see anything about actual independence dates vs legal technicalities not that it really matters because it's irrelevant. Requiring Royal Assent itself is a legal technicality since the Governor-General normally gives assent to any Act passed by the parliament. Using your logic, "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" is also a legal technicality because you can't just pick one part of the Act and claim that it is a legal technicality while claiming that another part isn't. Royal Assent gives the whole document authority so section 3 has just as much authority as section 2. Yes, Royal Assent was given on 9 October 1942 but that same Royal Assent made the document effective as of 3 September 1939 and that's a significant point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about royal assent I care about when things actually happened. Australia actually attained legislative independence on 9 October 1942 thats what I care about.



AussieLegend: Using your logic, "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" is also a legal technicality



Operation means when things started operating, so the law stated it started operating in 9 October 1942.



AussieLegend: document effective as of 3 September 1939



It didn't make it fully effective as of 3 September 1939 because the Act allows Australia to legislate itself fully but Australia couldn't legislate itself fully until 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't care about royal assent I care about when things actually happened. Australia actually attained legislative independence on 9 October 1942"
This statement is contradictory. 9 October 1942 is the date on which the Act gained Royal Assent and Royal Assent has been a critical component of your argument since the Act relies on it.
"It didn't make it fully effective as of 3 September 1939 because the Act allows Australia to legislate itself fully but Australia couldn't legislate itself fully until 9 October 1942"
In practice, Australia had been legislating itself fully since before the war. This is acknowledged by the fact that the Act backdated itself to 3 September 1939 to clear up any doubt. Since you claim that you care about when things actually happened, the 1939 date should be quite acceptable to you. I don't see what the fuss is about. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal Assent has nothing to do with my argument, as I have said it is about when the act actually was operational (as your cite 11 says, this is the day it received Royal Assent), it just happens to have started to be enforced on the day of Royal Assent - in some cases, such as the Constitution, this didn't happen. In practice, Australia had been legislating itself way before even 3 September 1939 but the act wasn't backdated to clear up doubts, there were freedoms Australia didn't have before 9 October 1942, this was not noticed because Australia never needed to use those freedoms it was granted in 9 October 1942 for a long time prior to the act, so Australia seemed to be fully legislatively independent before way before then - so in that way the act was clearing up doubts but it still gave Australia freedoms it didn't have but never thought about needing anyway.--Supertask (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the date of Australia's independence is a grey area. At List of Australian monarchs (Yes, I know-why a list of Aus monarchs as if they needed to be distinguished from English monarchs!) we had this discussion: when did Australia become independent? 1939, 1942 Westminster)? 1926 (Balfour Declaration)? Or even 1986, when the states, which are Australia, became legally independent of the British Crown? And some might suggest that since we are still dependent on the English monarchy and its laws of succession we are still not entirely independent. I feel myself that it was (and still is) and ongoing process. And so it's academic to try and thrash it out.--Gazzster (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to respond AussieLegend?--Supertask (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As Gazzster stated, just above your last post, it's academic to try and thrash it out so lets just stick to the relevant facts which are:
What I've written in the article presents the facts so I really don't see what your problem is or what can be achieved by continuing this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is academic, my point is that it actually happened on 9 October 1942 (it came into force) everything else is just legal technicalities and we should go by what actually happened. The section of the infobox says 'Independence' and Australia didn't actually get that until 3 September 1942 - that was the date that it actually was permitted to legislate itself. If it had tried to legislate certain aspects between 3 September 1939 and 9 October 1942 it would have still needed British approval so the actual date is the effects of the act happened (it was allowed to legislate itself completely without any British approval, with the exception of changing the constitution).

The act itself shown in your cite 11 says the act came into operation 9 October 1942 but was adopted 3 September 1939, well the why chose the date it was 'adopted' over the date it came into 'operation', operation is when something actually happened - when Australia actually gained independence - the date it was 'adopted' is just a legal technicality. Even if you don't agree with this logic, we then have two dates the act says, one titled the date the act came into 'operation' (9 October 1942) the other the date it was 'adopted' (3 September 1939) - surely the decision should rest on the date when the act actually came into force - that would be when it came into 'operation' - 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you've once again asked me to reply to this discussion I'll do so but I really don't see that we're getting anywhere.
"Yes it is academic"—You've possibly missed that when somebody says "it's academic", what they're saying is that the discussion will be a discussion for discussion's sake and that there will likely be no practical result. There's also usually an implication that there's no point continuing with the discussion for that very reason.
"my point is that it actually happened on 9 October 1942"—The Act recieved royal asent, which you've said you don't care about, on that date. What actually happened, and you've already said this yourself, was that Australia had been legislating itself even before 1939. The Act itself was a legal technicality to cover something that had actually been happening. That was the purpose of backdating the effect of the Act to 1939.
"The section of the infobox says 'Independence' and Australia didn't actually get that until 3 September 1942"—What had actually been happening was that Australia had effectively been independent for a long time before 1942. Again, the Act itself was a legal technicality to cover something that had actually been happening. That was the purpose of backdating the effect of the Act to 1939.
"why chose the date it was 'adopted' over the date it came into 'operation'"—Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science.
Addressing now an earlier argument of yours that I didn't address in my last response because I didn't see any point in continuing the discussion since everything had been covered already:
"In practice, Australia had been legislating itself way before even 3 September 1939 but the act wasn't backdated to clear up doubts"—I refer you to the very first page of the Act,[4] which states, "An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany" Please pay particular note to the bolded sections. They should be self explanatory.
May I also respectively suggest that you read WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." Please don't use a immature insult when you yourself do not know what I'm referring to: The act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942 so your assumption that backdating backdates when the act came into operation is shown to be untrue by the text of the act. You say in practice Australia had been legislating itself but you ignored my point earlier that there were still some powers it didn't have. Please don't refer me to WP:DEADHORSE of course I know about that but the discussion has not come to an end untill you answer my points.

Even 3 September 1939 is not the date Australia was practically legislating itself, that was a gradual process not able to be pinned down to a single date (Sorites paradox). The only way you can pin it down is to see where Australia got the rights to fully legislate itself and that was when this act came into operation - 9 October 1942. You haven't answered my point that even if we assume the two dates are on equal footing (the act saying that one was when it came into operation and one when it was adopted) mine has the vital support that thats when the act was actually acknowledged. Finally, of course I know what "It's academic" means, however that was used in reference to the independence of Australia, not to the date this act came into effect.

"Act,[5] which states, "An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany" Please pay particular note to the bolded sections. They should be self explanatory."

It adopts it from the 3 September 1939 but this is just a legal technicality - the act also says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, so which should we chose? Well a date people actually knew it existed would be a start.--Supertask (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please don't refer me to WP:DEADHORSE of course I know about that but the discussion has not come to an end untill you answer my points."
It appears that, while you may know about it you haven't read it.
“ If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away. ”
--AussieLegend (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened.--Supertask (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And it goes on...

The following discussion is copied here from Supertask's[6] and my talk pages[7] because Supertask doesn't seem to want to give up on this, even after a month of fruitless discussions.

Originally I posted the following at Supertask's talk page, rather than here, because that seemed more appropriate:

[edit] Statute of Westminster

I'm addressing this here, rather than at Talk:Australia because this is a more appropriate place for this discussion.

I directed you to WP:DEADHORSE and quoted a specific section[8] to which you responded "Yes, I read that, it hasn't happened." It's an interesting statement to make because, like your arguments at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster, it ignores reality. Other than you and me, the only person to join in on the discussion was Gazzter and he made only one post, over 3 weeks ago. My only responses to you in those three weeks[9][10][11] have been as a result of your demands on my talk page. More than just the community losing interested, it was never interested to start with. So yes, it has happened. Accept it, drop the stick and back slowly away. This is my final word on the matter. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This resulted in a long discussion at my talk page which eventually drifted back into a discussion that is best addressed here. Please note that, in the following text, all but the last of Supertask's posts have been re-formatted for readability and to avoid wasting page space.

[edit] Statute of Westminster

Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way (it hasn't shown interest in showing your point of view either) and WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't. If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation because this is when it made its dent on history 9 October 1942.--Supertask (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "Funny you accuse me of ignoring reality, the 'community' has not shown interest either way" - Yes, I said that on your talk page.[12]
  • "WP:DEADHORSE is about an argument coming to a natural end which it hasn't." - Again as I pointed out on your talk page, apart from me, only one other person has joined the discussion and he made a single post. I've been trying to get away from the discussion for 3 weeks and the only reason I haven't been able to is because of your incessant demands for replies to the same arguments that you keep making over and over. The only person interested in continuing is you. The only community members involved, other than you, have lost interest so yes, the discussion has come to a natural end, exactly as stated in WP:DEADHORSE, ie:
“ If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing ”
As you are well aware, I posted that quote at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[13] but, like every other response, you just ignore it, or misunderstand it, and come back with the same old arguments, just as you've done here. To be quite frank, it's more than just annoying and gives nobody any incentive to discuss things with you.
  • "If this is your final word I will change the date to represent the date the act came into operation" - There is nothing in the template to state that the date is to be the date it was formally adopted. One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[14] and I rebutted that immediately.[15] What you claimed is not true. Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 states the date of royal assent as 9 October 1942 and the date of commencement as 3 September 1939 so these are obviously the important dates. In the amendment that I made to Australia after you raised your concerns,[16] which you might note I explained by creating Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster[17] and which was not opposed by anyone else, I have clearly explained the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Act. There is therefore no reason for you to change anything as your apparent concerns are completely and accurately covered by what is written. I pointed this out at Talk:Australia back on 21 May 2008[18] and you haven't made any attempt to explain why what is written does not satisfy you. Instead you've just continued on about legal technicalities and how it was actually adopted on 9 October 1942, which is explained in the note any way, making it impossible to know exactly what would please you and what exactly you find wrong with the current article. Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.
All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits. Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely, then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


AussieLegend: One of your first arguments was "The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities"[7] and I rebutted that immediately.[8]
Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent which I wasn't, apart from that I still have questions that haven't been answered, the argument continues but you want to block me out.
AussieLegend: All that aside, the 1939 date has been present in the article for a long time. You wish to change it so the burden of proof is upon you and so far you haven't met the burden. Your changes have been opposed so consensus is needed in order to incorporate your edits.
There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up. There is no consensus because no one has supported your point or mine and I have already said this. There is no policy on Wikipedia which says those defending the status quo get a boost of any kind.
AussieLegend: Where no consensus has been reached the status quo is supported and that means the changes shouldn't be made. Threatening to make controversial changes as a way of forcing somebody to continue a conversation is reprehensible. Unless somebody else is willing to weigh in on the discussion, and after a month it's highly unlikely
I wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed. You have not answered some of my points properly and are now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'. Your argument is not the default because it's the status quo, they are still equal, you only supporting yours openly and me only supporting mine openly.
AussieLegend: then you really should give up and stop pestering people to continue a dead conversation that only you are interested in continuing.
It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view.
AussieLegend: Why exactly is it so important to you that the date be shown as 9 October 1942 in the infobox without any reference to the backdating, rather than being fully explained in the note which includes references to the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 article? What you seem to be proposing will hide relevant facts.
What about this as a compromise: I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence so what if rather than saying: "- Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 (commenced 3 September 1939)" it said: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)"--Supertask (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Actually you didn't, you misrepresented it by saying I was using royal assent" - I suggest you read what was actually said. I provided a link to it but you apparently didn't bother reading it so, for your benefit, here is a copy with the relevant statements bolded:
The Independence section of the infobox detail actual independence dates, not legal technicalities. Australia did not have the power to legislate itself completely freely before 1942, the backdated adoption date is a legal technicality, as shown by your own cite (11). It says "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" which was 9 October [[1942]. History documents when things actually happened - the backdate is a legal technicality. When your cite (11) says the law was "adopted" from 1939 it means they will apply it from 1939 if anything is discovered in that past time that relates to the law, but when it says it comes into "operation" in 1942 it means that they can only start applying the law from then because laws can't travel through time.
What I am trying to say is that the backdate is just to deal with the past and doesn't change the date the law actually came into force. As I said in my last edit, I apply the same logic to the Constitution, which came into force on 1 January 1901 like the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 came into force on 9 October 1942 (I did accidentally type type 3 October rather than 9 October).--Supertask (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked the template instructions and I didn't see anything about actual independence dates vs legal technicalities not that it really matters because it's irrelevant. Requiring Royal Assent itself is a legal technicality since the Governor-General normally gives assent to any Act passed by the parliament. Using your logic, "This act shall come into operation on the day it receives Royal Assent" is also a legal technicality because you can't just pick one part of the Act and claim that it is a legal technicality while claiming that another part isn't. Royal Assent gives the whole document authority so section 3 has just as much authority as section 2. Yes, Royal Assent was given on 9 October 1942 but that same Royal Assent made the document effective as of 3 September 1939 and that's a significant point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no definition of a status quo in Wikipedia policy you just made it up." - Wikipedia doesn't generally redefine words and phrases that are already in the dictionary, like status quo.
"wasn't threatening to make controversial edits, I just said if you want to back down thats fine and I will change it, then unopposed." - That's not what you said at all. You said "If this is your final word I will change the date". In other words, "if you don't respond i'm going to change it" and you could add to that, "despite no consensus having been reached to change it". The edits were controversial because they were opposed and reverted and because they are at odds with other articles, as I've already pointed out. What you were saying was "Despite discussion and clear opposition from at least one other editor I'm going to change it anyway, as soon as he has gone". That's not the way it works. You're supposed to work towards consensus.
"now trying to back out of the argument while thretening that me then daring to change it it 'reprehensible'." - I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here.
"It's not pestering if someone is stepping away from an ongoing argument saying it's natualy ended when it hasn't, but still enforcing their point of view." - It is pestering if the other person has made it clear that they don't wish to continue the discussion. The discussion has naturally ended because everyone that has been involved has lost interest. It's not a discussion when there is only one person talking. I'm only responding here, now, because you keep asking me to respond on my talk page but I see no point in the discussion continuing for reasons that I've already made abundantly clear and that you keep ignoring.
"What about this as a compromise:" - That doesn't answer my question. You expect answers from others but you don't seem willing to answer questions yourself.
"I think that the Statue of Westminster Adoption Act passed by the Australian paliament is more important to its independence" - I think most Australians would disagree with you. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 is just an Act that does nothing more than formally adopt the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Statute of Westminster is the more important of the two Acts. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented. When I said there is no Wikipedia definition of status quo I meant there is no policy on it - you are putting your argument on higher ground by saying that if the discussion stops (despite the fact your the one stopping it) your view automatically stays just because it is the status quo - you could have saved loads of time if you had only responded to me once, then flashed WP:DEADHORSE and said "actually I think the discussion has come to a natural end and you can't edit this article because my view is the current status quo" - show me anything like a WP:Status Quo and OK.
I thought the Australia act was more important because it's when the Statute of Westminster 1931 actually took effect, and it would allow the infobox to display both dates. My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is that the actual date that act had an actual effect on Australia's independence can't have been your date because the act hadn't been invented then. In addition, even if beyond that you say they are equal dates, both being in the document of the act, then which one should be picked? Well the one which has a being on physical reality would be the one. The act that Australia used to ratify the Statute of Westminster, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is even Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (emphasis mine). You mentioned earlier that not showing the backdate would be excluding relevant information, so please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)".--Supertask (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Basically your saying you want to leave the discussion because it is your opinion that it has come to an end, but I can't change anything anyway because the community hasn't commented." - No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic.
"I thought the Australia act was more important" - You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?
"My point on legal technicalities vs actual dates is......" - I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again.
"please accept my compromise which will show both dates: "- Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)" - That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you. You just don't seem to want to acknowledge it and, based on the fact that I've done my best to point it out and that you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it, I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend: "No, I'm saying the conversation did come to an end a long time ago. You just won't let it die until you want it to and keep insisting that I continue this pointless discussion. It's pointless because the concerns you raised in your edits back on 5 and 6 May were addressed in an edit made on 8 May, as I've already mentioned, and provided diffs for. You're arguing about something that was fixed for you a month ago. I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."
It's just your opinion it's ended, they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page, the date it actually happened it important enough to be in the infobox. Just putting "did" in italics still doesn't make it anymore your opinion.
AussieLegend: "I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic."
Immature insults don't help a discussion.
AussieLegend: "You've only raised the Australia Act in the past day or so. Until now the thrust of your arguments has been about the adoption date of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Australia Act is not relevant to the discussion that we've been having. Why the sudden change of tack?"
What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily! I'm fine to have it list the date of the Statute of Westminster 1942 and the date it was adopted, but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 isn't relevant at all other than to display both dates and reach a compromise.
AussieLegend: "I'm really not interested in going over the same arguments over and over and over and over again."
No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion because you can't be bothered to continue.
AussieLegend: "That information is already in the article. It has been there since 8 May 2008 in response to your concerns. I've told you that and provided diffs to it. I'm not sure that there is any more I can do to point it out to you."
The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date so this is not sufficient. In addition you misrepresented my argument at the bottom by saying "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 received royal assent on 9 October 1942" how many times do I have to say my argument for listing it with that date has nothing to do with royal assent? Even if royal assent was on a different day, I would still support the 9 October 1942 date because thats when it came into operation, thats when it actually started being enforced so that is when it affected Australia. Anyway basically the 9 October 1942 deserves to be in the infobox.
AussieLegend: "you've ignored my requests to explain what exactly you find wrong with it"
I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now, all you've been using is the 'ahhhh! stop pestering me with your discussion (but I still want to enforce my view)' argument so this is a new tactic.
AussieLegend: "I'm starting to think that you're arguing for arguments sake."
Yes, along with that I'm pestering, and that your really glad your not my mechanic, what more rhetorical gems of simple slander will you throw my way? I'm starting to think about what the next one will be.--Supertask (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
"It's just your opinion it's ended" - This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go.
"they weren't addressed on 8 May, just put at the bottom of the page," - There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written.
"Immature insults don't help a discussion." - It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about.
"What?! I can't believe this, I told you its so that both dates can be displayed easily!" - The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act.
"but to have both our dates on it would need more space and so we could use the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" - No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks.
"No, you just want to back out without continuing the discussion" - It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything.
"The 9 October 1942 date is put at the bottom but it is not a side note it is the main date" - It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality.
"I noticed this but didn't bring it up because you haven't used it up until now," - I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month.
We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend: "This goes back to my statement about you ignoring reality. You keep saying that the discussion hasn't ended but if you didn't pester people to respond it would have ended a long time ago. The community has no interest in continuing so it did end, just as WP:DEADHORSE says. You just won't let it go."
The community hasn't shown interest in either of our views so there still on equal ground, again you still pass silly judgements "ignoring reality" yet I have responded to this before and you keep bringing it up so it seems to be you who is ignoring the reality that I have already responded to this.
AussieLegend: "There's only so much information that you can put in the infobox. That's why the statement is included as a note, which isn't just at the bottom of the page. It appears when you roll over the note tag in the infobox. There's no way anyone is going to agree to a whole sentence appearing in the infobox. That's not the way it's done. What has been added as a note is far more accurate and descriptive than just adding a date. It expands on what is in the infobox in such a way that nobody reading the article could misinterpret what is written."
The date the act was passed is important enough to be in the infobox. It's amazing you are telling me no one will agree to a whole sentence in the infobox - what do you think I was talking about when I said we needed to save space and proposed my compromise which would show both dates in minimal space?!
AussieLegend: "It's not an immature insult. It's an analogy based on the way you've handled this. You raised issues at the beginning of May and what you wanted included was added to the article soon after. Here you are harping on about it a month later with still no sign of accepting that what you wanted in the article was included so you've got nothing to complain about."
"I'm really glad I'm not your mechanic." is just a quip and doesn't help the discussion. You are constantly passing false judgments on me with these silly statements yet I have not done the same disservice to you.
AussieLegend: "The Australia Act is irrelevant to displaying the dates. That's already been done without any hint of the Australia Act."
But the actual date the act affected Australia is not displayed on the infobox.
AussieLegend: "No, we don't need any more space. That's why we use notes, references and wikilinks."
While I'm trying to reach a compromise you are declaring by fiat that the 3 September 1939 date is more important.
AussieLegend: "It's not a discussion when you're just rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything."
Because you suddenly pulled out I am trying to get you to answer some of my points and defend your point of view.
AussieLegend: "It isn't the main date. Previous editors of Australia obviously disagreed with you and so do I. We've been over this before. The Act backdated itself to have effect from 1939 so that is more important, regardless of whether or not you think it's a technicality."
We have 2 dates, I argue mine is the main date because it is when the act actually took effect on Australia, when Australia was allowed to fully self legislate (yes, it had legislated itself before but it didn't have the independence of the British government to do this fully without the possibility of intevention, so don't bring that up), I have elaborated on this point a lot earlier. You, however, are just declaring by fiat that your date is the main date, regardless of the fact the act confirming the Statute of Westminster 1931, the one you showed me in your cite 11, official name is: "Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942" and regardless of the fact that my date is the one when the act actually effected Australia, as explained earlier. Now you are using the strange tactic of calling on the support of the original editor who inserted that date, again it is part of your unfounded notion that the status quo is automatically a stronger argument than objections on Wikipedia and that objections must overcome this advantage. I have already said all this, so now who's "rehashing the same old stuff over and over without adding anything".
AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."
No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.
AussieLegend: "We're clearly getting nowhere so, unless you can come up with a much better suggestion and some new material there I don't intend continuing this."
Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

“ An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany ”

—Long title, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour.

Now, two final points:
Point 1

AussieLegend: "I shouldn't have had to bring it up. The edits were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia. If you had issue with what was written or the way it was written you should have brought it up rather than expecting others to guess for a month."
No they weren't, I am referring to your edit which put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom.

This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did.

Point 2

Fine, but don't then have the arrogance to think you can ban me from editing that date.--Supertask (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939. You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR. If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are.

Conversation ended. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end. You haven't justified your desired change so it will just have to stay out. The simple fact is that even the Act states that the beginning of the war is the important date, and it does so in its long title:

“ An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany ”

—Long title, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939. I've pointed this out previously. Don't say I didn't, as you are wont to do, because here are the diffs. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 may have come into operation on 9 October 1942, when it received Royal Assent, but it immediately caused the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted as from 3 September 1939. Whether you think that's a technicality is irrelevant. Australian law says that 3 September 1939 is the date and if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour."


The act also says it comes into operation 9 October 1942. So which is more important, adoption or operation? Well, as I've pointed out before, the date it actually came into effect would be. It is convention that acts have the date they started in their title, again: Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942.


AussieLegend: "Your most recent post has added nothing. You've, once again, just rehashed the same old stuff so it appears we're definitely at an end."


Where I repeat stuff it is only because you haven't responded or have missed the point. For the record, you repeat stuff too.


AussieLegend: "if you want that changed you'll have to go before the Australian parliament and get the members to vote in your favour"


I wondered before what the next bit of simple, immature slander you'd throw would be, well here it is as predicted.


AussieLegend: "This is not the first time that you've claimed that I haven't said something that I have and you've done it even after I've provided diffs to the change. The edit where I "put the 9 October 1942 date at the bottom" was here at 06:10, 8 May 2008 UTC. Your first complaint at Talk:Australia#Statute of Westminster was here at 00:23, 9 May 2008 UTC so the edits "were made before you started complaining on Talk:Australia", 18 hours and 13 minutes before to be precise. It would be nice, just once, to see you actually acknowledge that you've made a mistake rather than ignore the fact that you did."


Your just using a simple mistake of mine to turn into as if I've been decietful all along, part of your false judgement thing earlier. I'd like you to show me the other times I've misrepresented you and these times I'm ignoring making a mistake. You have made mistakes before and I haven't passed judegement, such as this one "Because, by backdating the effective date of the Act the effective date that the Act came into operation became 3 September 1939. It's not rocket science." even though your own cite of the act itself says it came into operation on 9 October 1942, you choose to say that adoption makes the operation 3 September 1939.


AussieLegend: "The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 makes it quite clear in both the long title and the preamble that it causes certain sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931 to be adopted from 3 September 1939"


This statement makes no sense in our universe, how can something in 1942 cause something to happen in 1939? Again a mistake you have made and I can't believe you fell into it because I've been pointing it out all along.


AussieLegend: "You know that because the evidence has been presented to you a number of times over the past month. Your interpretation that the date is 9 October 1942 is WP:OR"


You sure are good at flinging accusations, but here is a change of tactic WP:DEADHORSE stops working so now you switch to WP:OR? It's all in the act, the act gives a date, it actually came into effect on that date, therefore the act originated on that date, I've elaborated on this a lot earlier.


AussieLegend: "If you insist on changing the date of adoption to 9 October 1942 it will be reverted and an appropriate warning will be placed on your talk page. If you continue to change it the changes will be treated as vandalism, for that is what they are."


Back to threats now I see. Ones you can't carry out, either.--Supertask (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In summary: The discussion relates to the Independence section of the infobox. Originally the article stated "Statute of Westminster (adopted 9 September 1939)"[19] Supertask changed this to read "Statute of Westminster (adopted 3 October 1942)". This was in error for two reasons. The first is that the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 received Royal Assent on 9, not 3 October. The second I will explain shortly. Because of this I reverted the changes, only to have that change reverted by Supertask. Later I amended the article, adding a note explaining the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in order to avoid confusion,[20], not to mention correcting the date of the start of World War II. There ensued a discussion which, after a month, has not achieved consensus.

Supertask initially insisted that 9 October 1942 was the appropriate date. After a strange diversion into the Australia Act, for reasons that are still not clear to me, he has changed his opinion and now insists that the article should read "Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 9 October 1942 (backdated to 3 September 1939)",[21] despite no consensus having been reached.

My argument stems from the fact that the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 states, quite clearly in it's long title and preamble, that it is:

“ An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of certain Commonwealth Legislation, to obviate Delays occurring in its Passage, and to effect certain related purposes, by adopting certain Sections of the Statute of Westminster 1931, as from the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany ”

—Long title, Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

That makes it pretty clear that the date of adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931 is 3 September 1939, which was "the Commencement of the War between his Majesty the King and Germany". The Statute of Westminster 1931 is the actual document that provided us with our independence. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act was merely the vessel used to formalise adoption of the Statute of Westminster and so the Statute of Westminster is the important document, not the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act. Because of this, I believe that my edit of 8 May 2008[22] is more correct and more appropriate for this article, although I do consider that "commenced" should be reverted to "adopted", as it originally was. Links and diffs to support my argument are included in the rather lengthy discussion above.

I would welcome the comments of others since it's clear that Supertask and I alone cannot agree on this. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this is stuff for a constitutional lawyer. I think it suffices to say something, 'the Statute of Westminster was adopted in 1942. By a legal fiction it was declared retroactively to 1939' It would be interesting to determine what this meant practically. For example, would this mean that the British declaration of war on behalf of Australia and subsequent British acts commanding Australian arm forces were null and void? But I don't think we can, or should, go into such details.--Gazzster (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Why does the CIA have different population statistics for Australia. For example, it claims Australia has a smaller population and is growing at around 0.80%. The French page uses the CIA factbook and thus looks completely different to the English version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.69.75 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

I don't know why the CIA is wrong but it is. The official population clock is a far more accurate estimate and that's what should be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
CIA is a projection based on god knows what, but I don't know that the population clock is accurate either. Wouldn't the most recent published number make the most sense? I think there is a September 2007 estimate on the same website as the population clock. -Rrius (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Early Australian History: Date of First Inhabitants

Just a point on the first human occupation of Australia...I had it in my head that Australia had been occupied for 50 or 60k years, rather than the 42k mentioned in the article. The paper referred to in the article (which I have only seen the abstract of, as I cannot find it for free on my uni databases) says 42 to 48k years, as mentioned in the article. I did a bit of research (uni database trawling) and found a paper by Bruno David, Richard Roberts, Claudio Tuniz, Rhys Jones, John Head that says:

"By implication, the 50,000-60,000year-old TL and optical dates from unheated sediments at Malakunanja II (Roberts et al. 1990) and Nauwalabila I (Roberts et al. 1994b) do not equate with 14C dates of less than 40,000 years b.p., as has been suggested (Allen 1994). The implication of the Malakunanja II and Nauwalabila I luminescence dates, coupled with the results presented here, is that Australian prehistory is considerably older than 39,700 +/- 1000 years b.p., which is currently the oldest reliable radiocarbon evidence for human presence on the continent (O'Connor 1995)."

The paper was titled: New optical and radiocarbon dates from Ngarrabullgan Cave, a Pleistocene archaeological site in Australia: Implications for the comparability of time clocks and for the human colonization of Australia. Bruno David, Richard Roberts, Claudio Tuniz, Rhys Jones, John Head. Antiquity. Cambridge: Mar 1997. Vol. 71, Iss. 271; pg. 183, 6 pgs.

I'm not sure how to reference these types of things properly, so I'm not really going to try. There are enough details there for you all to see what I'm on about.

I think this is something we should change, what say you wiki community? -- anon 22:12, 9 May 2008 (AEST)

Interesting. I reckon whatever we finally decide on, should also be used in the aritcles for the states' histories for consistency (e.g Queensland says the time of arrival was "between 40,000 and 65,000 years ago, according to various dating methods" and uses http://www.dreamtime.net.au/indigenous/timeline.cfm as the citation. I think your source is more scholarly, so it is probably more useful. Brisvegas 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Props for that most excellent link to a concise wrap up -- anon 00:42 10 May 2008, (AEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.63.84 (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] States and territories

Hi

I inserted the news under the section of States and Territories;

Australia's territory has expanded by an area almost five times the size of France, 10 times the size of New Zealand and 20 times the size of the United Kingdom, after the UN agreed to its jurisdiction over a massive amount of seabed, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson announced on 21/04/08.

Please correct it if it was not properly placed.

Thanks in advance --Donaldtong (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

An abbreviated version of this was added on 4 May and discussed then at Talk:Australia#Australia Extends Territorial Waters. Personally I'm not a great fan of comparisons with things like the size of foreign countries because they don't provide a familiar frame of reference for most people. I think 2.5 million square kilometres means far more to most people than x times the size of <insert country name here>. "3 times the size of NSW" or "roughly the same as the combined area of Queensland and New South Wales" are also better comparisons. Because of this and the incorrect date format used in the edit I've reverted it in lieu of the earlier edit, which is located more appropriately in the "History" section. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean-Australian: request for comment

Hi! A vigorous - and now somewhat nasty - debate has emerged over the article Chilean Australian over the size of the Chilean-Australian population. The sole protagonists are myself and User:TeePee-20.7, and much of the discussion is on Talk:Chilean Australian.

TeePee is referring to an essay, written by a student intern and published on the website of the Chilean Embassy in Australia, that details the history of the Chilean-Australian population. Much of the article is quite informative and reasonably well written. However she estimates the Chilean-Australian population to be 45,000 without explaining how she arrived at this number.

In other articles that look at ethnic groups in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data is used to present the number of persons (a) born in a particular country, and (b) declare to have ancestry to a particular country (either alone or in combination with one other ancestry).

TeePee is strongly opposed to using this data, and instead insists on solely referring to the essay reference. I do not think the essay's estimate is accurate.

There is one limitation to the ABS data - somebody who has a Chilean ancestry might only choose to declare themselves according to their new Australian identity, or their European heritage. However I have included a caveat which draws attention to this minor flaw, as well as a statistic on how Chilean-born Australians defined their ancestral backgrounds in 2001.

I believe this version should be used.

TeePee has adopted a highly aggressive posture (and has been previously blocked), and has claimed I do not adequately cite references (even though six out of the seven references in the version above go to my ABS sources). No amount of compriming, humouring, reasoning or exercising of a time-out has worked. Wikipedia would benefit from a third party opinion on this page.

And by all means, seek his side of the story. Kransky (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess, when I read that there were 23,000 Chileans born overseas, and only 25,000 in total by ancestry, I thought to myself: that looks odd. The Chileans are a relatively newish immigrant group (approx. 1970s onwards), so it's quite impossible that there can be 23,000 born here, but only 25,000 in total (if we accept that we are counting 1st and 2nd generation born here). For example, look at the 250,000 odd Italians arriving during the 50s and 60s, and counting close to 1 million claiming ancestry by the 90s. If we are all accepting that 23,000 is correct (and that's something we would know), then 25,000 is way, way wrong, and I don't care if it's Jesus Christ saying it's correct. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
YES! Thankyou! You understand, this was one point which I was trying my very hardest to get Kransky to understand but he does not listen! If you read the talk page for Chilean Australian you can see my comment saying by his logic there would only be 2,000 chileans born in Australia which is highly unlikely and then if you read down he tries to defend his logic which did it for me. (All this you can view in the discussion we have had over this article). Thankyou finally a third party so Kransky has to aknowledge what I say now and cannot ignore it any longer. Again thankyou if you have the time and patients you can read the whole history between us and understand why I have gotten so frustrated with Kransky. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm by no means an expert on matters Chilean Australian, but to offer some general advice, it's almost always useful in these sorts of situations to identify and explain the sources used. In this case, it would be worthwhile including all applicable sources, but identifying them fully: something like "according to 2006 Census data published by the the Australian Bureau of Statistics...", or "according to a study published by the Chilean embassy in Australia..." and so forth. Doing so allow readers to make informed conclusions about the information in the article. It's no problem to show differences in the sources because that's truly the situation out there: there are differences among the sources!
Also note that our own speculation as to any differences between the figures different sources give is original research and should not be included in the article. --bainer (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting through the Propaganda

1st point: True

2nd point: False, very vaguely True - I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.

3rd point: True

4th point: False - This is completely false and once again Kransky is lying! If you read the discussions between us you will be able to see this and infact you can even certify that the data has been used so once again Kransky has chosen to act inappropriately and lie once more.

5th point: True - This one took him a while. I had to tell him this because he could not comprehend it before hand but then he adds the caveat trying to shut me up hoping I would not revert his edit where he sneaked in unreferenced information which he has constantly been doing. Only he is not able to comprehend that just because you're Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory.

I believe the current version as of 20:41, 12 May 2008 should be used.

Once again he is disparaging me and behaving inappropriately. I will not even attempt to put into words the patients I have displayed with him you can see this when you intervine in our dispute.

Thankyou for your time and I hope we aren't too much of a burden on you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demonym

Should "Aussie" really be considered an demonym, as is currently in the infobox? Because its kind of a slang term. "Australian" is the official one. M173627 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's only people from English-speaking countries that use the term 'Aussie', and it can also be a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.4.26 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of Europeans use "Aussie" although they, particularly those from Scandinavian counties, Germany and Austria, pronounce it "Ossssee" --AussieLegend (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cities by population table

This table has undergone a number of changes over the past two days, all seemingly aimed at having João Felipe C.S's version of the table, which has the images in the middle of the table, rather than at the sides, included. The most recent changes made by him actually unlinked the template, which became an orphan. His changes have been reverted by a number of editors now,[23][24][25] both here and at the template page, so it seems that it's a good time to discuss the issue before an edit war starts. João Felipe C.S's version of the table and the template itself, which he has also edited, have a number of issues that are probably best addressed in the one place at Template talk:Largest cities of Australia#Recent changes. The single issue here would seem to be whether to use the template or an embedded table within the article. Comments? --AussieLegend (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Joao seems not to want to discuss these changes despite edit summaries requesting that he do so. Personally my interest in the table was only to ensure that it did not inaccurately reflect Albury (and later other cities) as single entities with a population that was vastly (by over 100%) exaggerated. My intention is to await Joao's comment here but if his only response is that he continues to change without discussion (even at this stage his action are bordering very closely as some type of edit-war with other editors) I propose to place an initial warning on his page.--VS talk 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cities

What actually constitutes a city in Australia. Do the Federal government decide, is it by population, or some other criteria? Joe Deagan (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In short, there is no single definition. It's up to individual states to proclaim cities and what constitutes a city can vary considerably, even within states. You might like to look at Talk:List of cities in Australia for more information. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems as clear as mud does'nt it. I know in France for example they don't actually have a word for city. I believe in Britain it is also quite confusing. There is a place in England with only a few thousand residents which is officially termed a city because it has a cathedral, strange or what? Joe Deagan (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Here in NSW the state government has declared that only Local Government Areas can be proclaimed cities which at least is some sort of definition but that causes its own set of issues. To make matters worse, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has its own definitions which take into account possible future expansion and don't really relate to what most people regard as a city. It's all very confusing. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the list of official cities in Australia actually official, if you know what I mean! If the Australian Bureau of statistics have their own definition it must be hard to give any official figure. Or am I being too pernicity? Joe Deagan (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is a cause of confusion. Most cities on the various lists probably deserve to be there but the populations and positions on the list need to be viewed with some suspicion because the ABS figures for different areas are used. For example, Sydney is generally seen as covering an area slightly larger than shown in this map, which has a population of 3,641,422.[26] BUT, the figure used for the population of Sydney is 4,119,190[27], which is actually the population for the Sydney Statistical Division, an absolutely massive area which reaches Lake Macquarie in the north, passes Wollongong to the south and includes all of the Central Coast. It just isn't a realistic view. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an Aussie myself, but I did live there a long time ago and remember passing through places that had signs saying you are now entering the city of such and such and within five minutes I was leaving it. Joe Deagan (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The City of Cessnock would fall into that category. The "city" has about 50,000 people spread out over about 1,966 km² (759 sq mi) but the major population centre is really only a large country town of around 17,000. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)