Talk:Australia and Pride 19: Difference between pages

Revision as of 02:23, 10 December 2006

Revision as of 17:03, 6 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox Wrestling event

{{featured|small=yes}}

| name = PRIDE 19

{{WP:Countries|FA|small=yes}}

| image = PRIDE FC 19.jpg

{{WP Australia | class=FA | importance=Top|small=yes}}

| promotion = [[PRIDE Fighting Championships]]

{{Mainpage date|August 16|2005|small=yes}}

| date = [[February 24]], [[2002]]

{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Geography|small=yes}}

| venue = [[Saitama Super Arena]]

{{oldpeerreview|small=yes}}

| city = [[Saitama, Saitama|Saitama]]

{{WPCD|small=yes}}

| attendance =

| buyrate =

| lastevent = [[PRIDE The Best Vol.1]]

| nextevent = [[PRIDE 20]]

}}

'''PRIDE 19: Bad Blood''' was a [[mixed martial arts]] event held by the [[PRIDE|PRIDE Fighting Championships]]. It took place at the [[Saitama Super Arena]] in [[Saitama, Saitama|Saitama]], [[Japan]] on [[February 24]], [[2002]].

{| class="infobox" width="238px"

|-

!align="center" colspan="3"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

----

|-

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 3|Archive 3]]

|-

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 4|Archive 4]]

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 5|Archive 5]]

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 6|Archive 6]]

|-

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 7|Archive 7]]

|[[Talk:Australia/Archive 8|Archive 8]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

{| class="infobox" width="238px"

|-

!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Flag of Australia.svg|50px|Australia]]<br>[[:Category:Australian Wikipedians|Australian Wikipedians]]

----

|-

|Forums:

*[[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board|Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board]]

|-

|Meet-Ups:

*[[Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide|Adelaide]]

*[[Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne|Melbourne]]

*[[Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney|Sydney]]

|}

{{Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Invite}}

{{Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Invite}}

==Results==

== "Chruch Attendence" ==

===={{flagicon| USA}} [[Tim Catalfo]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Tom Erikson]]====

Currently the article puts 7.5% of the Australian public as weekly church goers - however another page from the same cited website puts 9 (http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2276). I'm new to wikipedia and wouldn't know how to add this webpage as a citation - so if you think it is worth changing someone can think about it. [[User:U R A GR8 M8|U R A GR8 M8]] 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Erikson defeated Catalfo by Submission (Rear Naked Choke) (2:35 First Round)

===={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Wallid Ismail]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Alex Stiebling]]====

== "Overturne" ==

Steibling defeated Ismail by Unanimous Decision (5:00 Third Round)

===={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Rodrigo Gracie]] vs. {{flagicon| JPN}} [[Daijiro Matsui]]====

christal is Argentinian and I'm learning English as a second language. Could you tell me what "overturne" means?

Gracie defeated Matsui by Submission (Guillotine Choke) (0:28 Third Round)

--[[User:200.117.226.180|200.117.226.180]] 23:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think in this article "overturn"(correct spelling) is used in a [[legal]] context. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Overturn WIktionary]'s legal definition says "Overturn" is

::to reverse a decision; to overrule or rescind

:Hope that helps - even if this is perhaps not the correct forum for this. Remember for future reference that [[Wiktionary]] is a dictionary and thesaurus. The [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|Reference desk]] is the place to ask generall questions of inquiry here on [[Wikipedia]]. Cheers, [[User:Jpeob|Jpe]]|[[User talk:Jpeob|ob]] 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

===={{flagicon| BRA}} [["Pele" Jose Landi-Jons]] vs. {{flagicon| CAN}} [[Carlos Newton]]====

== Voting turnout ==

Newton defeated Landi-Jons by Submission (Armbar) (7:16 First Round)

===={{flagicon| USA}} [[Heath Herring]] vs. {{flagicon| UKR}} [[Igor Vovchanchyn]]====

The sentence about voter turnout has been removed by blatant reverts to previous versions from days ago (19th October) for no other reason than it is "irrelevant" and can be stated in other places. What do other editors thing? [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Herring defeated Vovchanchyn by Unanimous Decision (5:00 Third Round)

: Completely agree. I removed it. If it has a place, it is in a more detailed artcle. The statement that it is compulsory is enough. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 01:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::Have you seen what the voter turnouts are like in most countries? The information is actually unusual. I think this requires more discussion. As two editors against and three for the information (so far) shows it is disputed. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:I can't help but feel you're being unusually agressive. You have pursued this minor issue across a number of pages and misrepresented the facts – I have never used the word "irrelevant", and to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAustralian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board&diff=82919549&oldid=82917798 state] I have "consistently removed statements" (paraphrase) is disingenuous. Moreover, you have equally performed "blatant reverts" (your term), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=82917756&oldid=82910106 returning] an inappropriate addition to the introduction twice now. My actual argument was that the statement was inconsistent with the article's [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style]]. Per that standard, it is sufficient to note that voting is compulsory in Australia; discussion about fines and turnout is something that is more appropriate to the section's subarticles.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry if this seems like I am pursuing things too vigourously, I am a little annoyed (in general) at the idea that FA's should not be expanded on, but mostly, it is my thinking that there genuinely is a place for a fact of that magnitude, on this page, and that the "compulsory voting" statement does not fit on its own. How many other countries have voter turnouts that high?

::Also, sorry for misquoting you. I just do not see why it is the end of the world to delete something I, and another editor, actually went to the trouble of researching, and that is a unique fact. The article is full of facts like that already. [[User:Ansell/Esperanza|<span style="color:#0000FF;">Ans<span style="color:#009000;">e</span>ll</span>]] 02:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't think FA's shouldn't be expanded upon; however, I do think that whatever additions take place should be in accordance with the style that attainment of FA status was contingent on. I disagree with the idea that, because a fact is unique (or referenced, as you initially proposed), it merits inclusion. To mention that voting is compulsory is a reflection on the system; to mention turnout and fines is more in-depth and opens up the issue of elections and procedure. It should be noted that the edit you wish included makes the unsuported (and potentially contentious) assertion that high turnout is because of expiations. I do not support that text.

:::The only thing that I could see mising from the statement about voting in Australia is age of franchise. I have thusly changed it to "''Voting is compulsory for all enroled citizens 18 years and over in each state and territory, and at the federal level.''" (the "enroled" part is there because enrolment is voluntary in SA). --[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Perhaps there is a case for including the high turnout figures, but it must be brief. It is indeed high compared to other countries. But listing fines, etc, is just not important for this article. How about "''Voting is compulsory for all enroled citizens 18 years and over in each state and territory and at the federal level, and turn out rates exceed 90 per cent.''"????????? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 03:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::That's better, it's really all we need to say on this main page. We can link to pages with more detailed explanation. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

===={{flagicon| USA}} [[Don Frye]] vs. {{flagicon| USA}} [[Ken Shamrock]]====

''(Moved from [[WP:AWNB]])''. The page already specifies that voting is compulsory - of course the turnout would be high. I think adding such a comment would just be redundant. From looking at the actual edits they are far too detailed for the general [[Australia]] article. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 01:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Frye defeated Shamrock by Split Decision (5:00 Third Round)

===={{flagicon| JPN}} [[Enson Inoue]] vs. {{flagicon| BRA}} [[Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira]]====

Inserting material like this into [[Australia]] when it is not yet in [[Politics of Australia]] or even [[Elections in Australia]] is bound to meet resistance. We just don't work that way. Here's how you can get information on compulsory voting into article [[Australia]]:

Heavyweight champion Nogueira defeated Inoue in a non-title match by TKO (Triangle Choke) (6:17 First Round)

#Insert it into article [[Elections in Australia]]. It really is terrible that [[Elections in Australia]] doesn't mention this important fact. There is room in that article for a thorough discussion of the implications of compulsory voting in Australia, if you're so inclined.

#Create a section entitled "Elections" in [[Politics of Australia]], to be a summary of [[Elections in Australia]]. As a summary, it should briefly mention the fact that voting is compulsory in Australia, without going into all the details. It probably only needs a sentence or two, as [[Politics of Australia]] has an awful lot of material to cover.

#Go to [[Talk:Australia]]. Advise that [[Politics of Australia]] has recently seen the addition of material on compulsory voting, remind us that [[Australia#Politics]] is supposed to be a summary of [[Politics of Australia]], and propose the inclusion of a sentence on the material.

[[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

===={{flagicon| BRA}} [[Wanderlei Silva]] vs. {{flagicon| JPN}} [[Kiyoshi Tamura]]====

I think it is actually quite interesting that the number of valid votes cast is exceptionally high, as voting is not actually compulsory, only attendance at a voting booth. It is therefore interesting that 96% of people that turn up to tick their name off go on to cast a valid vote - which is high even under compulsory attendance. It is also one of the most interesting facets of Australian politics and society, so I think it should be included. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Middleweight champion Silva defeated Tamura in a non-title match by TKO (Punch) (2:28 Second Round)

==See Jones also==

* [[List of PRIDE events]]

== External links==

Lively debate about to occur at [[Alan Jones (broadcaster)]]. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

* [http://www.pridefc.com/ Official PRIDE Website]

* [http://www.sherdog.com/fightfinder/fightfinder.asp?search=yes&eventid=719 Sherdog.com]

[[Category:2002 in mixed martial arts]]

== self-governing ACT? ==

Bit rich to call it that in the lead, when the feds come along and overrule ACT legislation whenever they like. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== head of state ==

Tony1 apparently has problems distinguishing between the head of state of two nations being the same person, as is currently the situation between Ausralia and the UK, and constitutional ties between the two countries which were severed in 1986. Please explain --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 13:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

: How do you mean? The House of Representatives can in fact overrule any laws sanctioned by the states or territories. They did so recently when the NT legalised Euthanasia. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 13:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: Actually the federal government can do nothing about the laws of state government, They can reverse the laws of territories, as these are established by act of the federal parliament. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::: Michael, can you explain your position a bit clearer? I think there are two issues here. Firstly, the head of state '''is''' QE2, the GG is just her representative. As for constitutional ties with Britain being "finally" severed in 1986, how does the head of state currently fit into the constitution? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:As I understand it the queen of course relates to HM the Queen of Australia, who is a different entity to HM the Queen of the UK, even if the same person. Imagine two public companies, one of which once owned the other, but now share no connection except for the same chairman of the board. The Act of Settlement, as with all British acts prior to responsible government in Australia remains in force until amended or repealed by an Australian parliament. So it is competent for Australia to amend, maybe making Princess Anne the next queen for instance, but of course this would make the whole situation even more absurb than it is now. As I said this is the constitutional position as I understand it. More to the point, this is obviously how the original author understood it, and so I think it encombant on Tony to provide a source to the contrary if he wishes to change it --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::I really don't care what the original author intended.

*First, Michael, the federal government ''can'' indeed override laws passed by state governments in a number of areas, under s. 51. Second, the UK government has the power to ask the Queen to disallow Australian legislation. Third, and most decisively, the Australian Constitution is still an act of the UK Parliament, which has the power to change it. By analogy, Pierre Trudeau managed, finally, to repatriate the Canadian Constitution back in the ?1980s. This third point was reason enough for me to strike "final" from the text. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:: I think Tony is right. As far as I understand... there is a lot of convention involved. The theory is different to the practice. The Governor Gerneral, for example does in fact have the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, he did so in 1975. But 1975 aside for the main part he never has. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Australian constitution is indeed part of a UK act, but acoording to Wikipedia [[Constitution of Australia]] ''is now regarded as fully separated from the text in the original Act,'' and has always been subject to amendment by referendum and without the UK amending the act. Theoreticly the UK parliament might revoke the act, butin fact gave up the right to do this by the Statute of Westminster and subsequent acts. I am sure you will find the UK government and parliament has no residual powers regarding the constitution or government of Australia, which is the question at hand.

**Yes, it's subject to amendment by referendum, but is still an act of the Westminster parliament. Please provide evidence that the Statute of Westminster and subsequent acts remove the power of London to do anything it likes with the act. I think you'll find no such evidence.

:::* From the [[Statute of Westminster]] article:

''The key passage of the Statute provides that:

"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."''

I thought that was pretty straightforward. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::: See also [[Australia Act 1986]] - you're entirely correct. [[User:Orderinchaos78|Orderinchaos78]] ^{([[User_talk:Orderinchaos78|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Orderinchaos78|c]])} 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:::That's right: '''after''' the commencement of that act. The Constitution Act was passed decades earlier. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Well that's an interesing interpretation. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

**It's nothing to do with "residual powers", as you state—this is a notion concerning the powers of our head of state and her representatives in Australia, not of the UK parliament.

**When you say "theoretically", are you stepping back from the notion that all power is theoretical? Just because a power has never been used does not mean that it doesn't exist.

:::* It has already been pointed out that the Australian Constitution is now regarded as having been separated from the Act. The British parliament may amend or repeal the Act, but by doing so they achieve nothing. It is s dictum of British constitutional law that the British pariliament has the power to legislate to prohibit Russians spitting in Red Square. Whether they have the power to enforce that legislation is another thing. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref 1975 Whitlam in fact had the power to remove Kerr by advising the Queen to sack him. He never did because he believed Kerr would never sack him.

**Well, no. Whitlam had the power just to ''recommend'' to the Queen that he be sacked. If the Queen had not accepted this, the sacking would not have occurred. This is the invidious situation that Australians find themselves in, comforted only by the small likelihood that this situation will arise. While on the subject of Whitlam, I don't have a reference for this, but I'm pretty certain that the Whitlam government asked Westminster whether it would alter the Australian Constitution, and the reply was that this would be done only with the consent of the federal and all six state parliaments.

:::* This really has nothing to do with the subject, but you seem intent on debating it. The most basic cornerstone of constitutional law is that the Monarch '''always''' accepts the advice of her Ministers, and has been this way since the reign of Queen Victoria. The Queen would had had no choice but to remove Kerr on Whitlams advice. I'm surprised you don't know this. As for Whitlam asking the British government to change the constitution, I've never heard that, and it sounds most unlikely. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref sect 51, this refers to areas reserved for the Federal governement, and of course the states cannot legislate in these areas. But the comment was about euthenasia, and no the Feds could not legislate to reverse state law in this area (or many others). This is in contrast to territory governments. All of which has nothing to do with the topic. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

**You stated above: "Actually the federal government can do nothing about the laws of state government". This is untrue. If a state parliament legistlates in certain areas, this legislation can be overriden by federal legislation. Read the secion.

:::* Which is exactly what I said. Those "certain areas" are listed in Section 51. But why harp on this red herring? --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The legislation cannot be "overridden". The State act actually continues, as does the Federal, but in any conflict the Federal act takes precedence. Only a High Court case can strike legislation down, as happened with the Native Title situation in WA in 1995. [[User:Orderinchaos78|Orderinchaos78]] ^{([[User_talk:Orderinchaos78|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Orderinchaos78|c]])} 12:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Further from Wikipedia [[Constitutional history of Australia]]

''In an important constitutional case (Sue v Hill (1999) 163 ALR 648), three justices of the High Court of Australia (the ultimate court of appeal) expressed the view that if the British Parliament were to alter the law of succession to the throne, such a change could not have any effect on the monarchy in Australia, because of the Australia Act: succession to the throne would continue in Australia according to the existing rule, unless and until that was altered in Australia. None of the other four justices in that case disagreed with this reasoning.''

and

''The same case decided (and on this point the decision is binding) that the United Kingdom is a "foreign power" within the meaning of the Constitution,''

**These cases are irrelevant to whether there are still constitutional links between Australia and the UK.

Now I'm off to bed. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

*With respect to Tony's argument that the UK Parliament can amend the Constitution - there's a distinction between autochthony and autonomy. The Constitution certainly derives its original legal status from an Act of the UK Parliament. But that doesn't mean that the UK Parliament still has power to repeal or amend the Constitution. The [[Australia Act 1986|''Australia Acts'']] closed that door off. See ''[[Sue v Hill]]'' for example. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 14:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::Also, the UK government definitely does not have the power to ask the Queen to disallow Australian legislation. I don't know where that idea came from. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

**Um, no, Sue v Hill has nothing to do with the UK paliament's power to amend the Australian Constitution; rather, it deals with the fact that the succession of its and our head of state is governed by ''acts of parliaments'' in both countries. Now, I want solid evidence cited here that Westminster has no power to alter the AC unilaterally. Otherwise, "final" is destined to be "further" in this article. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::The succession was an example used by the judges to illustrate their point. ''Sue v Hill'' concerned whether the UK is a "foreign power" for the purposes of s.44(i), and in answering that question, the majority considered whether the UK had any legislative, executive or judicial power over Australia. They held that it didn't: there was no judicial power since appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, and no executive power since with respect to Australia Betty acts as Queen of Australia, and doesn't take advice from UK ministers. There was no legislative power because of s.1 of the ''Australia Act''.

:::What this means: if the UK parliament were to try to change the Constitution, it would have to be via an amendment or repeal of the Constitution Act, and any such amendment or repeal would have no effect in Australia because of s.1 of the ''Australia Act''.

:::Naturally the question hasn't been ''finally and completely'' answered since the Brits have never tried this. But it's almost certain that any attempts to do so would have no effect in Australia. For the purposes of this broad summary article, "final constitutional ties" is accurate enough. You can add a footnote pointing to the more detailed articles on constitutional law if you want. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the [[Australia Act]], which according to the Wikipedia article ''eliminated the remaining ties between the legislature and judiciary of Australia and their counterparts in the United Kingdom.'' Or the opinion of three High Court judges (metioned above) who stated that the UK parliament is unable to legislate on even the most basic element of Australian government, the Head of State, and by implication on any other element of Australian government. Or the opinion of the authors of Wikipedia articles [[Constitution of Australia]] and [[Constitutional history of Australia]], neither of which you have appeared to have read. Or the opinions of editors JPD and bainer given above. Or the opinions of the original authors of this article.

You are the one who wishes to change the status quo. I think it is up to you to produce just one example of a situation where the British parliament can legislate to affect Australian government or law. Up to now all you have provided is personal opinion and off-topic arguments to support your edit. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP article the AC says "The only United Kingdom law which today has application for Australia is the law governing succession to the throne". Its assertion that the text of the constitution is "now regarded" as separate from the UK act is unreferenced—just a bald statement. I'm not satisfied in the least. When I have time, I'll return to this issue. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:Using sources other than Wikipedia articles or editors would definitely be a good idea, as would starting the sentence with "The final", rather than "Final". I am slightly bothered by Tony's change to the mention of the Statute of Westminster. I am not sure that all of it required official adoption by Australia. At any rate, by WWII, the government weren't clear on whether it needed to be formally adopted and in 1942 adopted it retrospectively from 1939. I don't know what the best way to put this is. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 13:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Unlike [[Canada]], [[South Africa]] and the [[Irish Free State]], Australia, [[New Zealand]] and [[Newfoundland]] didn't automatically adopt the operative provisions of the Statute, rather their Parliaments had to specifically adopt them. See s.10 of the Statute of Westminster. See also [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942]]. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree that technically the parliament had to adopt the statute, but the retrospective adoption makes it hard to describe in this article. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:I certainly agree that the constitutional articles need better referencing. Unfortunately I am not the one to do it as I do not have access to an appropiate library, and internet references in this area are sparse. I have added two references in the article for the disputed sentence; a link to the text of the act itself, and a commentary by an interest group. I would have thought that a reading of section 1 of the Act would have been sufficient for anyone, but the second reference should more than satisfy [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 00:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The text of [[Constitution of Australia]] has been edited in a way that supports my contention that "Final" (better "The final") should be "Further": "These Acts had the effect of severing all constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom, except for the fact that the same person, Queen Elizabeth II, is the head of state of both countries." [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:I thought we had put that one to bed. I suggest you read what [http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/5310/myths.htm Monarchists] have to say on the subject. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::You're right that the wording supports your view, because the wording is inaccurate. The fact that the same person is monarch is not actually a constitutional tie. That sentence should say "even though" and not "except for the fact that". It doesn't matter that Betty is both Queen of the UK and Queen of Australia, when she is acting in her capacity as Queen of Australia she acts in a distinct capacity, and takes advice '''only''' from her Australian ministers, and there is complete separation of executive power. Again, see the useful case of ''[[Sue v Hill]]'' in this respect.

::Since the [[Imperial Conferences|1926 Imperial Conference]] and the [[Balfour Declaration 1926|Balfour Declaration]], the monarch no longer takes the advice of British ministers in relation to reserving and disallowing bills. Since 1931 and the appointment of [[Isaac Isaacs|Isaacs]] as G-G, it is established that the monarch acts on Australian advice in making appointments. I'll quote from ''Sue v Hill'':

::<blockquote>"The point of immediate significance is that the circumstance that the same monarch exercises regal functions under the constitutional arrangements in the United Kingdom and Australia does not deny the proposition that the United Kingdom is a foreign power... The United Kingdom has a distinct legal personality and its exercises of sovereignty... themselves have no legal consequences for this country." {{Cite Case AU|HCA|30|1999}}</blockquote>

::This point is settled. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::So this ongoing discussion is also wrong-headed? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Australia#Australia_not_completely_severed_from_the_UK] [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::: Given that you are the one pushing it along? --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Your sarcasm is not welcome. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 04:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I thought it a fair question, given the previous entry in that thread was on the 15th June, hardly an "ongoing discussion". Anyway the use of the word "final" has been verified in the article with a reference, so surely the discussion is closed. Any other discussion is really just our (as editors) interpretation of primary documents, in other words original research. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::This discussion has changed my stance, but I won't be entirely convinced until I receive advice from a constitutional lawyer. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 05:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==Labour Market==

Partial Deregulation? I'm not sure "partial deregulation" is a terribly accurate term for WorkChoices. Nonetheless, removing "partial” would seem to make the article more neutral. Fair?[[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

: What are you suggesting instead of "partial deregulation"? There are still regulations, so what is "full deregulation"? [[Laissez-faire#Economic_theory]]? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 13:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:: Neither. I'm suggesting "including partial deregulation of the labour market" be changed to "including the deregulation of the labour market." Although, someone will need to recreate the hyperlink to WorkChoices. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't see how removing the word "partial" makes the article more npov. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: By not suggesting that the deregulations have being either minor (through the word partial) or major (through the word full) there is no degree in our writing. By balancing the degree of our writing we are able to be more neutral. For example probably is a greater degree of writing then what would be if we used the word possibly. The degree of our writing helps us be more neutral in a topic. I think this is good because of the controversial nature of WorkChocies. Hope this helps. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 13:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::Not really. We write what is precise and verifiable. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 14:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::The same rule works for words like hate and dislike or insolent and contemptible. Notice the different and precise degrees? But you do seem terribly disagreeable. I will not argue my idea for the sake of it. You are either choosing not to understand this or simply disagree (In which case so be it I'm over it) - Night peoples -[[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 14:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::We write what is [[WP:V|verifiable]]. Your personal comments are inappropriate. [[User:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]] ([[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Talk]]) 15:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::: I don't mean to sound offensive... But I think you'll find it is very verifiable to sate that WorkChoices is a form of Labour Market deregulation. On the other hand I think you’ll have difficulty verifying that it is only a "partial" form of deregulation. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::: I think the issue here is the notion of ''deregulation''. Does deregulation mean a '''state''' where no regulation exists at all, or is it a '''process''' of decreasing the amount of regulation. Perhaps if agreement can be found between these two different usages, then agreement can be found on what to use in the article. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 03:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::::::: What if the word "partial" was replaced with "comprehensive"? In this sense the series of amendments are not implied as either minor or major. Rather they are simply stated as comprehensive. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

== Little problems ==

"The mainland of the continent of Australia"—No, the first three words are redundant. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I last reviewed this article, a lot of repeated links have crept back in. Why are the states linked again and again and again? The speckled blue appearance is untidy, and it dilutes the high-value links that we ''want'' readers to hit.

I have to say that the whole article needs a copy-edit. I wonder whether it should go to [[WP:FAR]]. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 14:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

: lol at "that we ''want'' readers to hit". If only we can control people's thoughts too! (seriously, though - you do have a point). --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

See the landmass section above concerning the mainland. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:Yes ... I've looked at that section, and it doesn't enlighten me. "The mainland of the continent" is clearly a ridiculous expression. I've fixed one of the two occurrences. In the same league is "made a contribution to"—why not "contributed to"? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:[[Australia (continent)|The continent of Australia]] comprises all the land masses on the Australian continental shelf, i.e. the Australian mainland, New Guinea, Tasmania and some other islands. The first three words of "The mainland of the continent of Australia" are not redundant, because this phrase does not mean the same thing as "The continent of Australia". However, I think it does have the same meaning as "the Australian mainland", so perhaps just replace it by that. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 00:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::OK. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to delink words that are repeatedly linked throughout the article: see above. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Seats in the House of Representatives are allocated to states on the basis of population"—This is untrue for Tasmania, so the text will have to be changed. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:It's not so much untrue as lackign detail, and possibly misleading. The seats are allocated on the basis of population, it's just that the method of allocation includes a minimum of five seats for each state. Do we need to go to that level of detail in this article? [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::It should be fixed: Tasmania has a far greater representation than it would deserve purely on account of its population.

In "Politics" it says that the Queen is "nominally represented by" the GG. Later it says just "represented by". The wording should be the same. My new passport says "represented by" on page 1. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==New map with links==

{{Australia Labelled Map|float=right}}

A new map has been added with links to states, cities, etc. I think the concept is a great one and clearly some good work has gone into it. Two points though - which i think can be fixed: it still seems a bit, um, "messy". Can it it be tidied up some how? A border? Secondly, is it in the best position? In fact, does it mean that the existing map in the states and territories section can now be replaced with the new one? I don't think there is a need for both, and with a few more improvements, the new one could be clearly superior to the old (which i don't think actually says that much). Nice work Zondor --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 05:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

: The most important thing is that I made a [http://mujibab.googlepages.com/labelledimageeditor Java tool] to help with this tedious task. Resized to show border. -- [[User:Zondor|Zondor]] 13:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::A little more background at the top and bottom would allow the links to be laid out more neatly. Also, the link to [[Perth]] should be to [[Perth, Western Australia]]. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 13:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, the simple fix would be to drop the refs along the top - ie, to Indonesia, East TImor, etc. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::True - especially since East Timor is not on the present map. The Arafura Sea link belongs though, and would still look squeezed in without a bit more space. More space at the bottom could lower the Tasmania link, to make space for [[Bass Strait]]. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 13:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I've altered the template that generates the map as discussed. Tweaking turns out not to be all that hard. How does it look now? --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 14:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the only thing left that is missing the scale to measure distance that the previous map has. The image can be simply updated for that. -- [[User:Zondor|Zondor]] 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I think it doesn't look too bad. But it might be too big for the article as it is now. How does it look shrunk 30%? By the way, Zondor did another for [[Sydney]]. Again, great concept (particularly as it uses an aerial shot) but again it needs a tidy up. It cut off the northern beaches peninsula. have these link maps been used in other articles? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::Re the latest version with state flags, can the title Arafura Sea be brought down a bit - there is still space. And maybe the left could be trimmed a bit. The map is BIG and we don't really need all that Indian Ocean there. --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 23:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Can the dots representing cities be enlarged? They're pretty hard to locate with the mouse. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

::::I think the flags make the image too cluttered. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 09:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::I agree about the flags – keep it clear, please.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::::::Another vote for removal of flags - they look pretty unreadable at that sort of size. Everything else is great though! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, chop the flags. In which case we could also shrink the map a bit more and it is still clear. Also, doesn't it affect download speeds as the whole flag is donwloaded not just the tiny thumb - or am I wrong on this point? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 23:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

==New language info==

I removed the passage below. There's no doubt so good stuff here that can be incorporated into the article. But at the moment, it needs work:

* No references

* Wrong place within article

* No clear identification of what these 267 languages are (apart from "many are aboriginal").

* Younger and different to American English is not that helpful

''There are 267 languages in Australia (many being Aboriginal languages.) Of those, 234 are living languages, 2 are second languages without mother tongue speakers, and 31 are extinct. The Australian English language is the most common and has a formal style as well as a colloquial style. Australia still has a formal style in writing while it sustains an informal style in speaking. In the history of the Australian English language, the language has its own background when compared to American English. Australian English is younger than American and its history is different and less complex. There has been no Australian Declaration of Independence like in America. However, Australian English has not moved as far from British English as American had in the period. In the greater part of Australia, the vocabulary is still Standard English (Hansford 67).'' --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, English definitely has official status in Australia.

http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia-2people

== Settlement Vs Invasion (or a suitable compromise) ==

Yanksox says "invasion" is too extreme a word, yet settlement is far too "soft" a word, anybody got any good alternatives? I'm Australian and I don't call it "the settlement", I call it "the invasion", no other word I can think of accurately describes what occured. Settlement has "peacful" connotations and I believe it is misleading. If a whole bunch of unwanted people turned up with guns and started shooting you and members of your community, you would not call it a "settlement" (I hope)....

:To be honest, I'm not Australian. I do agree settlement is too soft, invasion is a bit extreme. The situation is similar to where all indigeous people were forced out. I normally call it "rape of the land," but I suppose we can't call it that. I defer to anyone with more expertise. [[User talk:Yanksox|<font color="black">Yank</font><font color="red">sox</font>]] 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:cool, yeah I agree, maybe "occupation" is a bit more neutral, I'm not going to change it now (and will consult here before doing so again), but I might do a bit more research, I'm fairly sure the academic term would be invasion, but I'll ask some lecturers on what the consensus would be, anyone else feel free to leave suggestions.

::[[Occupation]] is a military term for an ongoing state of affairs and implies it is not permanent. Correct, or not, settlement is the accepted terminology. Invasion just smells of POV and statement making--[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 00:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Never you mind my POV, I, as an Autralian resident am saying that IMOO settlement is too soft a term for what amounted to the genocidal takeover of the peoples of an already occupied country. If what happened then happened now, it would not be called a "settlement". "Settlement" sounds like what happens when you freight potato chips around. If I came to the shores of your country, made a token offering of peace then began a capaign designed at culling the majority of your population, you would still call that a "settlement"? Don't ever assume that someone is "making a statement", I thought wikipedia offered the locals POV before the world communities views anyway?

::::The indigenous inhabitants certainly would have seen it as an "invasion", but to the UK government and its colonists it was a peaceful "annexation" of unclaimed lands. Neither of these descriptions is appropriate except in the context of a balanced discussion. "Occupation" has wartime connotations; according to its [[occupation|disambiguation page]], it means both "the period of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops" and "the act of settling onto an uninhabited tract of land". I propose "'''colonisation'''". It is accurate, it is neutral with regard to the legal and ethical aspects, yet it correctly connotes the atmosphere of Western imperialism and colonialism that prevailed at the time. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]]

:::::That's spot on, all in favour say ay! I agree it is neutral yet still conveys the notion that the land wasn't empty when they arrived. Cheers {{unsigned|TheOriginalSesquipedalian}}

::::::I tentatively support "colonisation" - i coudl change my mind depending on the reasoning of other editors. (By the way, my suggestion that that "invasion" was POV and "statement making" was refering to how I am predicting it would be read, and did not represent my views of the editor above as assumed). --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

::Reading the above "colonisation" came to mind, ant then [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] came up with it first. Definately "colonisation" describes what happened. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thus, do we have a consensus on "colonisation"? --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

:I think colonisation is right for the use ''The Indigenous Australian population, estimated at about 350,000 at the time of European colonisation,'' and perhaps a few other places, but it definitely should not be substituted for settlement throughout the entire article. --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 00:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::"Colony" was widely used, both as the title for the entities that became states (Colony of Victoria) and by the colonials themeselves ("Wild Colonial Boy", "Old Colonists Association", "Colonial Mutual" etc etc.) Colonisation describes what happened, and was what those who did it thought they were doing. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Replacing the verb usage is fine I think. Some of the noun uses of settlement (a place where people live) would be wrong to replace with colony (a political construct). --[[User:ScottDavis|Scott Davis]] ^{[[User talk:ScottDavis|Talk]]} 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== vandalism ==

Anyone guess why the sudden incidence of vandalism? Is it bad enough to ask for a partial restriction? [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 11:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:This is a fairly high profile article, it's not unusual that it attracts plenty of vandalism. But there are plenty of people with it on their watchlists, so vandalism never stays around for long. I doubt protection's necessary. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

::Bainer makes a fair point - but as an article matures to reach the standard this one has - I can't see what's wrong with partial protection. [[User:Pippu d'angelo|πίππύ δ'Ω∑]] - [[:scn:User talk:Pippu d'Angelo|<small>(waarom? jus'b'coz!)</small>]] 06:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

its because of the ashes, england vs australia

== recent edit ==

"The Australian economy has not suffered a [[recession]] since the early 1990s. As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed."

This raises the problem of why the fact that x number of people are employed supports the assertion in the first clause. Unemployment of 4.8% may be a useful statement, but is only one of a number of determinants of "lack of recession". It's fuzzy. [[User:Tony1|Tony]] 13:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) There are arguments on both sides.--[[User:Darrendeng|Darrendeng]] 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

== Australia Part of Asia? ==

Today on the news there was somthing about Australia now officially being classified as part of Asia, anyone got any info on this?--[[User:Mcgrath50|Rob]] 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

:Media nonsense.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, because we are geographically Asian (something none of us can deny), but culturally, we are largely "Anglo", hence the [[Union Jack]] on our flag and the Queen's head on our coins. I suggest that this point be mentioned in the article.

[[User:Aussieaussie|Aussieaussie]] 21:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

::Geographically we are in "Australia and Oceania". Economically we may seek a membership in [[ASEAN]] or something but it does not change the geography. [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] 23:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

::Geographically, no matter how you look at it, we are not part of Asia but are our own continent. Heck, other continents such as Europe and Africa actually touch the continent of Asia, something that Australia does not do. Now, no one would ever claim that "Europe and Africa are geographically Asian". Even the North American continent (tip of Alaska) has a point almost touching Asian continent. [[User:Asa01|Asa01]] 04:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Touché [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::::And culturally, we are North American :P -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Actually no, I disagree with that. We are a multicultural country and cannot be classified as following any main culture. It is important that we are recognised as Australian and therefore accepting all cultures, religions, peoples etc. Can we stick with the Australia and Oceania tag for geographic ___location and make a note of our multiculturalism? [[User:Yuanchosaan|Yuanchosaan]] 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I was half joking - but you can't deny we are probably influenced more by US culture than any other! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Yeah, you're right,<laugh>. Sorry if I offended. Keep the Australia and Oceania tag? [[User:Yuanchosaan|Yuanchosaan]] 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Unemployment Figures ==

Hi, I noticed while reading the section about the economy, this interesting sentence:

'As of July 2006, unemployment was 4.8% with 10,223,300 persons employed'

That's more like 48% of the population. Which digit needs to be removed?

:10M people are working, 500K are unemployed, the rest are not participating (not interested) - children. retirees, housewives, etc. [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] 13:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

::Sorry, you're right. I read it as 10M person UNemployed. [[User:150.101.96.241|150.101.96.241]] 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Original Poster

== Water as % of area ==

According to the infobox 1% of Australia is water. Acc to the infoboxes for the individual states, most of the states are all between 4 and 6.6% water, Tas is 25% and NSW is just over 1%. It seems impossible for the states to average maybe 5% and the whole country to be 1%. [[User:Nurg|Nurg]] 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:No its not - its maths! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::Nurg is right - the current figures are not consistent. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I haven't checked the specific figures, so there may well be errors, but it is not impossible for the figures above to be correct. Because the states have different areas, its not just as matter of averaging the eight state/territory percentage figures. Because Tasmania has a such a small total area, its 25% water doesn't influence the national water % at all. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes, of course Chuq was also right in saying that Nurg's last sentence was incorrect, but he had already implied that the smallest value was just over 1% in NSW, with all the others over 4%, which cannot be consistent with a 1% total. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I checked the figures and Nurg is probably on to something. First off, I guess that it depends on the various sources used. The total area in the infobox is different from the total area given in the geography section. The geography section uses the CIA as a source and the infobox area comes from [[List of countries and outlying territories by total area]] which does not list a source. In any case, if you add up the water areas in the state's infoboxes you'll get a total of 158,677&nbsp;sq&nbsp;mi of water. Divide that by the total sq. miles of 2,988,888 (and multiply by 100) and you'll get 5.3%. According to the figures from the CIA you'll get 0.8% water. So maybe some sources need to be double-checked. &mdash;[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::That's quite a large discrepancy. Possibly refering to "internal water bodies" (ie. [[Lake Eyre]]) vs "portion of territory which is water" (ie. including [[Bass Strait]] and a certain distance out from the coastline around the whole country?) -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 21:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Racial inequality ==

''Indigenous Australians have higher rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education and life expectancies for males and females that are 17 years lower than those of other Australians.[19] Perceived racial inequality is an ongoing political and human rights issue for Australians.'' Australia has the worst racial inequality of any developed nation. I could quote many academic articles that cite examples, but many points are already listed here. The most striking is the 17 year life expectancy gap, as a comparison the life expectancy gap between white Americans and African-Americans has now shrunk to 5 years. I changed "perceived racial inequality" to "racial inequality", which was reverted back to "perceived racial inequality" on the basis of "speculation and OR". This reversion is just trying to inaccurately water-down reality and is actually quite offensive, dismissing gross inequality as merely "perceived". [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hi SM. "Perceived" does not in any sense means it's not real. After all, it could be real and unperceived. This article simply can't take a [[WP:NPOV|Point of view]] on the matter - it should be something that John Howard or Keith Windschuttle can read and not have factual issues with. Even they can't deny that there is the ''perception'' of racial inequality in Australia. My advice to strengthen this point is to add citations and evidence demonstrating the poor position of indigenous Australians. After all, external sources are much more pertinent and valuable than Wikipedia's say-so. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Mmm... I see your point. But the data in the article already (higher unemployment, higher imprisonment, lower education, a 17 year lower life expectancy) are signs on real racial inequality not signs of the perception. Also, they are already referenced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I could add extra citations, but they are already present in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today - how much longer should this section be expanded? In fact (and this is speculation) I would say that Australia has a real and unperceived racial inequality, since most Australians rarely think about indigenous peoples (who are a very small minority outside the NT), but the problems they face are statistically demonstrated. Where is the citation for anyone to say that there is a perception of inequality? There currently isn't one. Trying reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today and coming to the conclusion that the issue is simply perception. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On a separate, and more minor, point, the politics section mentions three major parties and then the minor parties. I edited out that the minor parties "influence has been marginal" for two reasons :

1. in the hung Senate when Howard attempted major legislative changes, the support or lack of it of these minor parties was essential. I wonder about the burden of "marginal" if they are dismissed as such - perhaps in that case the Nationals should be listed as a marginal party because their influence in the Coalition legislative agenda at times has been less than that of Senate Democrats.

2. It is really just unnecessary, the parties are already called minor, this isn't an article on the politics, why go out of the way to make a contentious statement as fact? [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 21:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This point, as you say, is minor, and I don't think there's any problem with removing "influence has been marginal" since this will always be a judgement call. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Cheers, it has already been reverted twice.[[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

----

I made two minor changes which turned POV statements into NPOV and I posted a discussion topic for them (above). Xtra reverted the changes three times without commenting on the discussion page and putting notes on my personal talk page threatening me with being blocked from wikipedia. Is that allowable? [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 03:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree with the removal of "perceived". I'm not aware of any qualified person who denies that there is racial inequality, or suggests that there is only a perception of inequality. Racial inequality is the reason why we have affirmative action policies - policies that seek to redress that inequality. [http://www.hreoc.gov.au/speeches/race/native_title_and_rda.html Here's a link] to a speech on the website of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which says:

::''Special measures permit action to be taken that assists disadvantaged racial groups. Special measures recognise that historical patterns of racism entrench disadvantage and that the prohibition of racial discrimination alone is not enough to overcome racial inequality.''

:Evidently the HREOC thinks its reason for existence is to overcome racial inequality in Australia. [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://routledg/rrse/2000/00000058/00000003/art00006&unc= Here's a link] to the abstract of an academic paper in which "The empirical context of the problem of racial inequality in Australia is presented".

:In light of this, the "perceived" in "perceived racial inequality" is itself a POV word; it suggests that there may only be a ''perception'' of inequality, which may not be grounded in reality. Is there any evidence of that? Are there any scholars out there who take this position? --[[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::I included "perceived" when I wrote that part of the article, mainly because I didn't do any reading and was unwilling to make the firmer statement. If there is a supporting body of literature to support the idea that racial inequality goes beyond perception, add a reference. It probably needs a qualifier though to say that inequality mostly effects indigenous Australians. Old speeches and articles on the theorhetical basis inequality in Australia vs America, probably aren't good sources.

::The question of racism in general would need another ref. Be aware that someone will probably insert another one denying that inequality exists, much like the Windschutle quote that has made their way into the history section of this article. --[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Having a quick look around, it is hard to get a definition of racial inequality beyond "society contains different races with different levels of performance on social indicators". If someone has a hard and fast rule for how different they have to perform we can address that, otherwise the ABS reference demonstrates the point. The other issue you raised - that of racism, really is seperate, and if it can be supported it would need new references and should be in culture and not demographics probably. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:I wrote the following on Sad mouse's page and stand by it even though Sad mouse deleted it:

::''I have reverted your edits for two reasons. 1) Australia is a featured article, which means that it has been judged as one of Wikipedia's best and has been thouroughly checked by editors. Such pages should only be edited to update or improve, but not to change facts, especially without a reference. 2) Your edits seem to be both original research on your part and your point of view, both of which are not allowed on wikipedia. Please consider this when editting in future. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)''

:[[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::I agree that the marginal influence comment is unnecessary. I was probably too quick to put it back in, partly because the edit summary did not justify removing it. As for perceived racial inequality, let's take a step back and look at what the sentence is actually saying. It's not talking about the reality of the inequality - as has been said, the data is in the article already. The sentence is commenting on the fact that it is a political and human rights issue. It is definitely the perceived inequality which is the issue, real or unreal, and not any real unperceived inequality. In fact, politically, the perceptions of inequality themselves are often treated as the issue. These doesn't mean that including "perceived" is necessary (Peta's original version didn't have it, and resulted in [[Talk:Australia/Archive 5#Racial discrimination???|this]]), but it's worth keeping in mind. If anything, this sentence needs citations/clarifications for/of the idea that inequality is "a political and human rights issue", not a discussion about whether it is perceived or not. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Two points to make on that : the original was racial discrimination which is different than racial inequality. It is fair to say that the ABS data does not show there is racial discrimination (there is, but that would require additional references) but it absolutely does demonstrate, unequivocally, racial inequity. As you have said, it is clear there is racial inequality, so that should be said in the article. Also, I would say that the '''actual''' racial inequality is the important human rights issue (and, I think, as a political issue, since no politician can 'win' on inequality until the stats improve). The point you raise about perceived inequalities I understand, but it is a little vague and unreferenced - is the racial inequality perceived by the Australian public greater or lesser than the actual level of inequality? I would guess the perceived inequality is actually lower than the actual inequality, but I have no references to demonstrate that point so it has to be left out. My solution is to call it what it is, racial inequality, ignore the part about politics and just say it is a human rights issue, adding references from AI, HRW and the UN:

:::''This racial inequality is an ongoing human rights issue for Australia.'' http://hrw.org/english/docs/2000/08/31/austra721.htm http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA120072000?open&of=ENG-AUS http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/98726FA71877A16EC125693C002968F6?opendocument [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 15:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The text Alex Bakharev quoted as "racial discrimination" was actually "racial inequality". I am not necessarily supporting [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia&diff=18655792&oldid=18644018 his change]. Having said that, your references cite racial discrimination as the human rights issue, not inequality. However, I am not really sure what being "a human rights issue for country Z" or "for Z-ians" mean. Maybe it would be better to be more specific and say that it has been raised as an issue by A, B and C. As far as I do understand it, I would have though the inequality itself would be more of a political issue, and isn't one that gets as much attention as it could, but if it is given a mention in this context, this mention should probably be more specific too. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how is this version? The inequality is in with the statistics, and it just says that discrimination has been raised as an issue by several groups. That could be fleshed out with better references, including internal Australian groups as well as the UN groups I mentioned, but it seems a decent start. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Please see that these sources are cited in the correct format. See [[WP:CITE]].--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

===Just the facts please...===

Instead of arguing how to describe things, and what adjectives are POV and what are NPOV, why not just let facts speak for themselves? Read this - it's not long. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves] --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 13:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

==More on Racial inequality==

"''...with higher rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education and life expectancies for males and females that are 17 years lower than those of other Australians..."'' Although I will not deny there are issues this statement seems grossly POV.

For one the sources from which the stats were taken are not dated. Additionally, the possible reasoning behind these stats is not mentioned. For example Indigenous Australian communities are largely rural based. This is important because rural areas traditionally experience higher rates of unemployment. These rates are felt regardless of class or race. Consequently, higher crime rates become an issue. The isolated nature of Aboriginal communities also makes it difficult to supply them with public goods and services in a logistic sense.

Finally, the fact that many indigenous Australians have attained high levels of education and hold respectable positions in society should not be overlooked.

For an overview, I think Sad Mouses contributions demand a great deal of excess information to remain balanced. Until this issue can be resolved (scans history) I felt it was neccesary to tag the demographics section. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:I think the POV tag really needs to be removed, most of the data you ask for is already referenced. ''"...with higher rates of imprisonment and unemployment, lower levels of education and life expectancies for males and females that are 17 years lower than those of other Australians..." Although I will not deny there are issues this statement seems grossly POV.'' How is that POV? They are simply data. If you go to the link most of your further questions are answered, for example the data is the most recent available (2005 and 2002). Also if you look at the breakdown the high unemployment rate is not only rural, it is also higher in the urban population. In terms of education, you can look at the percentage that finished school at grade 9 - it is double the non-Aboriginal population.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/00000000000000000000000000000000/294322bc5648ead8ca256f7200833040!OpenDocument

:This is a better comparison than tertiary education (where they perform five times lower) because you are right that rural areas have restricted access to universities but secondary education is legislated to be available to everyone. Crime rates are not only higher (and despite what you say, this is not associated with rural areas), but of Aborigines that go to jail, they have a much greater rate of suicide. In health, the remote and non-remote population have exactly the same increase in health problems (same reference as above). In other words, there is racial inequality even in the urban population, and even in those areas where the government has legislative duty to perform (ie comparing basic health and basic education, not luxury health and luxury eduction) the rural Aborigine population is worse off than the non-Aborigine population. Finally, you note that many Aborigines have high education and respectable positions - yes that is true, but the point is ''not as many proportionally as non-Aborigines'' which is the very definition of racial inequality. We could make this section an entire page, but that would make a long article longer and the reference contains the required data. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we hide all mention of racial inequality despite it clearly meeting the definition (differential performance of a racial group on social indicators) and we delete all references to concerns by international human rights groups on racial discrimination. How is removal those facts now a POV action? [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, such is wikipedia, those with the most time on their hands to revert get their way over those who discuss the point. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I never personally reverted anything. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 03:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Sad mouse's contributions changed a fairly vague sentence to a referenced one which was completely NPOV. The data was not put there by Sam mouse, but has been there for over a year. It is quite reasonable for a demographics section to speak about averages, without having to spell out that many individuals are far from average. Having said that, the current version hardly hides all mention of racial inequality - the data is given, and the reader would have to be fairly stupid not to understand that it implies inequality. As Merbabu says above, often it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to describe inequality as an issue if there were references for it. However, only one of the references Sad mouse added actually addresses inequality, and I don't think allegations that specific policies are discriminatory are really necessary for a demographics section. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 12:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: I like the new architecture of this section and I appreciate that the reference has being singled to the ABS given the ABS’s regular updates. Also that the stats from the various human rights organisations have being removed in particular, substantially improves the neutrality of the section. [[User:SolitaryWolf|SolitaryWolf]] 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

== Separate articles? ==

I think it's time to separate articles about the '''Commonwealth of Australia''' and the continent. Note that we already do have separated articles for [[America]] and [[United States of America]], for [[Europe]] and the [[European Union]] and do not mix the terms. I was very surprized to hear from this article that Australia is a country. It sounds something like "America is a country", i.e. non-encyclopedic.--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:We already have [[Australia (continent)]]. Your comparisons are incorrect however: the United States and European Union do not comprise their respective continents.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Australia does not as well. Read the [[Australia (continent)]] article. Since this article exists I suggest to move Australia to [[Commonwealth of Australia]] since this is the official name of the country.--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia's [[WP:NC|naming conventions]] are determined by common usage, not official usage. As the word "Australia" most commonly refers to the country, this article is located here.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 22:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::::"America" is also commonly refers to a country. But the article is named [[The United States of America]]. Wikipedia uses official names for countries.--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::This is contrary to common sense. Compare [[United Kingdom]] (not ''United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''; [[Iran]], (not ''Islamic Republic of Iran'') and [[Russia]] (not ''Russian Federation''). [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::"Russia" is the official term. Russian constitution states it is equal to "Russian Federation". Anyway I think UK should be move to the official name with a redirect from "United Kingdom".--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Well, get that one moved first :). In any case, it's '''[[United States]]''', not ''United States of America''. [[User:Lacrimosus|Slac]] <small>[[User talk:Lacrimosus|speak up!]]</small> 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Also, at least since the Whitlam era, the federal government has almost ignored the title "Commonwealth of Australia" for the simple "Australia". Look for instance at the coat of arms. --[[User:Michael Johnson|Michael Johnson]] 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Anyway, I think the continent should have priority over country.--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Why? The question isn't which one is bigger, the question is, given that "Australia" can mean two things, which one does it most often mean? "Australia" as a continent defined geologically is not often talked about. Australia the country is. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::When I type "Australia" I search information on the continent, not about country.--[[User:Planemo|Planemo]] 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: With all due respect Planemo, you are the only one thinking this way. Yeah it's a fair point but it isnt what is done at wikipedia.--[[User:Mcgrath50|Rob]] 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Sixth-largest country ==

I think we should say in the introduction (or at least in the geography section) that Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world. After all, it's huge size is one of its defining characteristics. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Wideywideboy3|Wideywideboy3]] ([[User talk:Wideywideboy3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wideywideboy3|contribs]]) 16:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== Racial inequality once again (*sigh*) ==

We have a few people abusing revert. After all the edits and consensus revisions were reverted multiple times, I thought it appropriate to simply provide a link to direct people to the Indigenous Australians article if they want to read up further on the issues facing Indigenous Australians.

All I added to the section was ''(see [[Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today|Issues facing Indigenous Australians]])'' (which I thoroughly updated to remove some POV material, update the statistics and provide links) yet even this was reverted. Can we get someone to stop the reverters? [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:That is incorrect - I see no sign of consensus with your views - at least not on the talk page. Human rights and other activist groups are completely unreliable as sources. Why not just let facts speak for themselves? Read this - it's not long. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves] --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::I was trying to let the facts speak for themselves, hence I provided a link to a wiki article about the facts, written from the ABS data and not from activist groups (which are not "completely unreliable" anyway, you are showing your bias). Yet the link to the data has been removed - that consists of trying to hide the issue, not "letting the facts speak for themselves". [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Please don't accuse people of bias just cos they don't agree with the way you want to edit articles. You know nothing of my views and you'd be a fool if you presume you do. please assume good faith. What is your bias? ABS is a good objective source. If not try some peer reviewed academic articles. They may too have a bias, but at least they are of quality and are forced to show some sort of discipline, rather than just advocate a position which is the sole purpose of lobby group or advocacy group (no matter how admirable). --[[User:Merbabu|Merbabu]] 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::::One wonders if you have actually read the link I provided. The way you keep bringing up human rights groups makes me think you didn't even click on the link, since the article it connects was <i>written solely from ABS data</i>. Consistently removing a link containing objective data (and coupled with personal comments against me) is biased. Calling human rights groups "completely unreliable" is biased (note, if you had called their conclusions into question based on objective data that disputed it, that would be fine, but to automatically group all human rights organisations together and prejudge them as completely unreliable is biased). "Good faith" can only stretch so far. [[User:Sad mouse|Sad mouse]] 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)