Misplaced Pages

Talk:Australia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:23, 2 July 2005 editCassowary (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,061 editsm →Why "Commonwealth" instead of "Dominion?": signing← Previous edit Revision as of 10:28, 2 July 2005 edit undoCassowary (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,061 edits →Why "Commonwealth" instead of "Dominion?": (adding mention of america's definition of 'commonwealth'Next edit →
Line 218: Line 218:
:no. australia is not a dominion of the united kingdom. the queen of australia is a different person than the queen of the united kingdom in law. However, it realy doesnt make much difference what you call a place. But you should have complained 106 years ago when they made Australia. ] 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC) :no. australia is not a dominion of the united kingdom. the queen of australia is a different person than the queen of the united kingdom in law. However, it realy doesnt make much difference what you call a place. But you should have complained 106 years ago when they made Australia. ] 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)


: A different way of answering the question... The King of Great Britain and Ireland was the King of Australia at the time of its creation (the constitution refers to a Queen, Queen Victoria, but she died in between the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) receiving the royal assent and coming into force). In the leadup to federation, there had been some debates about being a republic, but those who had a say were generally in favor of remaining a British colony. I don't really know why 'Commonwealth' was chosen over any other term. Although it was originally a calque of Republic, it hasn't always been used with the same meaning as Republic has nowadays. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy. Australia is a federation; the Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation of states (I spose Australia's definition as a federation opened the doors for it to be used for an organisation of what were originally all monarchies). I don't know the justification for Australia's title, though. (Australia was of course still a dominion during its early history; now the correct term is a commonwealth Realm.) : A different way of answering the question... The King of Great Britain and Ireland was the King of Australia at the time of its creation (the constitution refers to a Queen, Queen Victoria, but she died in between the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) receiving the royal assent and coming into force). In the leadup to federation, there had been some debates about being a republic, but those who had a say were generally in favor of remaining a British colony. I don't really know why 'Commonwealth' was chosen over any other term. Although it was originally a calque of Republic, it hasn't always been used with the same meaning as Republic has nowadays. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy. Australia is a federation; the Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation of states (I spose Australia's definition as a federation opened the doors for it to be used for an organisation of what were originally all monarchies). ''Edit: in America 'Commonwealth' is used to mean, for whatever reason, something along the lines of colony/territory, but I understand that's a twentieth-century development and not part of the justification for Australia's name.'' I don't know the justification for Australia's title, though. (Australia was of course still a dominion during its early history; now the correct term is a commonwealth Realm.)


:*The States of Australia are so named because our federation was modelled on the United States; other similarities include the names of our federal parliament (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and that residual powers are granted to the States (whereas in Canada they go to the Federal government). :*The States of Australia are so named because our federation was modelled on the United States; other similarities include the names of our federal parliament (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and that residual powers are granted to the States (whereas in Canada they go to the Federal government).

Revision as of 10:28, 2 July 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

Australia received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Archived discussions:


Templates

For crying out loud, instead of continual reverts, could we discuss these blasted templates? There does seem to be a real issue with "template creep", and given that editors of other articles such as Canada have given them a speedy farewell, we might want to talk about them. Slac speak up! 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support keeping the templates referring to Commonwealth realms and nations. If not here, then perhaps at Queen of Australia (realms) and Foreign relations of Australia (Commonwealth nations), but I'd like to leave them here, as sort of cross references. They're more relevant to the main Australia article than half the external links. The Continents template doesn't really belong here as this is a country article, not a continent article. --ScottDavis 05:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I don't think we can create a separate Australia (Continent) article. We just need to expand the continental content, as it were. Slac speak up! 06:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Currently the Commonwealth template is on Foreign relations of Australia, which seems like a fair compromise. - SimonP 22:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

IPA notice

Does not the IPA notice in the Origin and history of the name section fragment the pronounciation paragraph? It does so in my browser. User:203.164.184.88 moved it here, but when I moved it lower again, to prevent the fragmentation, I was accussed of making a bad edit. I do think that the notice should precede the IPA langauge, but I have been unable to position it there without the fragmentation occuring. Could somebody perhaps fix it?--Cyberjunkie 05:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the hell?

What happened to the page?!? *angry*

This should be a featured Article

I'm going to try an get this article up to featured status, please leave any suggestins here, and if you wrote sections of the article could you tell me where you got the information so I can compile a reference list. Thanks --nixie 01:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The government section is a bit lacking.--Cyberjunkie 16:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I think its pretty good, it shouldn't really cover anything beyond the basic structure of the government, the recently featured South Africa article had the same breakdown. I have added more info on politics and governance to the politics and states sections. Two things that do need to go into the article are Foreign relations of Australia and the Australian Defence Force and I don't know where to add them, they don't really relate to the structure of the government and they aren't really political. Any ideas?--nixie 05:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Transportation and communication also need a mention, look at the roasting Portugal got recently--nixie 06:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
The Government section is good; I just don't like the dot point method. And I'm a bit confused with the Politics section. In most country articles, Politics is used to talk about government in general, whereas we have a separate government section. So if our Politics section is used to talk exclusively about Parliament, why then must Government only be an outline? Shouldn't it be more detailed?
In the Australian topics table, at the bottom of the page, foreign relations is included under history, but I don't think that's the right place to put it. Do you mean to write about it, or simply include a link to it as a Main article? Either way, there isn't really a corresponding section - the closest are Government and Politics.
If discussion of military is required for featured articles, a military section could be created, like in the South Africa article.
I don't know how deep we will be able to delve into transport for Australia, given it's more state-based (and in fact, state concern). I suppose we could have minor discussion on major infrastructure, like inter-state/trans-continental railways, national highways and capital city airports. Perhaps even some unique features like road-trains? Still, I doubt its necessity.
As for communication, I've never seen it written about before in a country article - not even in South Africa. That's something that could go into Economy possibly, but I don't think it needs a separate section. Actually, transport could also be included in economy.
It seems that people expect country articles to have to same layout as the CIA World Factbook, and I decidedly disagree - the factbook is hardly something to aspire to.
Anyways, thank you for the great work you've been doing. I'm sure the article will become a feature with your efforts. --Cyberjunkie 07:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
What do you think about the military section in France's article? I think something as simple as that could possibly be included. Actually, what do you think of the layout of the France article as a whole? Also, I have added information on Australia's maritime territory to Exclusive Economic Zone that could be included under geography, as in the France article.--Cyberjunkie 11:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I merged and pruned the government and politics sections, any opinions?--nixie 05:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

just make sure that any of the material you deleted from these sections is either already included in one of the "main articles" either Politics of Australia or Government of Australia as appropriate so that good material doesn't get lost. clarkk 02:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Could whoever said that the Queen is generally considered to be the head of state please find a source for this statement? This may have been true once, but as many Australians feel that the Governor-General is the head of state, a belief that the Queen is the head of state can hardly be considered general. Pete 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Not this, again :/--nixie 00:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't mind if we have everything shipshape and sourced and accurate, surely? Pete 00:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Are the statistics provided in the infobox in US dollars or Australian? Either way, they are incorrect. I'll fix it, but I just need to know what currency is used.--Cyberjunkie 16:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sure. This is an Australian article, so should be in AUD (can put in USD for comparison if neccessary). --Daveb 07:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Australia or its commonwealth

Wouldn't it be usefull to keep the continent/island and the political structure separate? The first is far more "eternal" than the last. Only plate tectonics can "destroy" the first and it has existed for how many millions of years? On the other hand the commonwealth exists apparently since 1 January 1901. Perhaps the best solution is to change the def in the intro and redistibute its contents under the correct heading, namely politics. -MarSch 14:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Australia the country and Australia the continent are one in the same. The natural features of the continent are discussed within the diverging articles of ecology and geography. Most of the continent articles focus upon the polities situated within their bounds, and for Australia, the polity encompasses it in its entirety. The article as it presently exists, is most correct.--Cyberjunkie 15:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Bold main articles

I think bolding the links to main articles is really ugly, and unnecessary since the Main article:Blah is on a separate line to the blocks of text, and its not done on featured artciles, anyone mind if I reformat them?--nixie 04:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I don't think it makes them appear "ugly" (actually, I think the opposite), I don't mind if it's reverted. I changed it because that seemed the standard for a growing number of articles, including features.--Cyberjunkie 04:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
what about using {{main|Geography of Australia}}, that would keep them standardised? clarkk 06:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good --nixie 07:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wording

Is it a duplication to say displacement and also ethnic cleansing? My understanding is that the policies of ethnic cleansing (a horrid euphemism) in Australia, with regards the the Indigenous peoples, were to do with displacement (with, some argue, the occassional incidence of genocide). How should that sentence be handled?--Cyberjunkie 05:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

A number of articles describe the Tasmanian situation as ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing covers forcable removal and genocide, and I think is appropriate. --nixie 05:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to this
mainly to infectious disease, forced migration, and government policies that by todays understanding constitute genocide--nixie 06:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying it, I just wanted it described objectively without duplication of terms. My point was whether "displacement" and "ethnic cleansing" were too similar. I think the rewording works nicely.--Cyberjunkie 07:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"Most of the estimated 20.3 million Australians descend from 18th and 19th century immigrants....

... most from Britain] and Ireland to begin with, but from other sources in later years" in the Demographics section seems both inaccurate and blantantly contradictory. The 19th century was over in 1899 (and 1788 was only 12 years before the end of the 18th!) At the end of the 19th century, the "later years" of non-Anglo-Irish immigration had not yet begun, and the population was still well over 90% Anglo-Irish. Moreover, is it really true to say that "most" Australians are descended from immigrants who came to Australia before 1899?? My understanding is that even many of the Anglo-surnamed Australians can trace their heritage to British immigrants who came in waves after 1900 (not to mention the non-Anglos). I'm not Australian so I'm reluctant to change in case I'm missing something, but please respond or correct. It just seems wrong. Moncrief 05:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, not many Australias are related to the convicts. I changed the offending sentence to Most of the estimated 20.3 million Australians descend from 19th and 20th century immigrants, and I'll see what else I can do to improve the section--nixie 05:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Referencing

I'm using the Innote hidden reference template, refs are inline, but commented out, and then listed in the refernce list. If you've got references to add, plase do so in that format. Thanks. ALso I put the page on peer review today --nixie 09:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Is the "Origin and history of the name" section close enough to an etymology for it to be titled so? It does show from where Australia derived, but also gives a brief history. If no body is opposed, I like to retitle the section Etymology - with any necessary changes. Thoughts?--Cyberjunkie 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Etymology section was recently, and significantly expanded by Al-Andalus. In the revised section, it is claimed that Pedro Fernández de Quirós first discovered and named Australia. However, this claim is contradicted in the explorers own article. That article states that Quirós discovered the New Hebrides (Vanuatu), not Australia, but named an island he thought might be Terra Australis "La Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" (not La Australia as was written). The article also states that the claim that Quirós named and discovered Australia is essentially Catholic propaganda, pushed by some Australian Catholics in the 19 Century.
I have asked Al-Andalus to provide his sources so that his changes may be substantiated. Even so, I do not expect that they are factual. It may well be that Flinders was influenced by Quirós's "La Austrialia", but so far, all sources state he named Australia - and let's not forget the influence of "Terra Australis" itself.
The following is the etymology before Al-Andalus changes:
The name Australia derives from Latin australis meaning southern, and dates back to 2nd century legends of an "unknown southern land" (that is terra australis incognita). The explorer Matthew Flinders named the land Terra Australis, which was later abbreviated to the current form. Previously, when the Dutch explored the area they named it Nova Hollandicus or New Holland.
Flinders later renamed the land Australia in a chart compiled in 1804 whilst he was held prisoner by the French in Mauritius. When he returned to England and published his works in 1814 he was forced to change the name to Terra Australis by the British Admiralty. Governor Macquarie of New South Wales became aware of Flinders' preference for the name Australia and used it in his dispatches to England. In 1824 the British Admiralty finally accepted that the continent should be known officially as Australia.
Perhaps some of Al-Andalus's changes might be incorporated within the orginal etymology. I will not seek to change the section before Al-Andulus himself or others respond.--Cyberjunkie 07:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The Pedro Fernández de Quirós article asserts that some writers (unnamed) say that he coined the word Australia, for the islands he thought would exist (Australia del Espiritu Santo). Flinders gave the name to Australia, whether or not he was influenced by Quirós is hard to say and probably doesn't need to be debated in this artilce, I think the text should be switched back.--nixie 08:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay, will do. I would still like a response from Al-Andulus all the same.--Cyberjunkie 08:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

There are three images with unclear copyright information,

  • The Govenor General, it's an offical photo released by his office, and released officailly for reproduction, I see no reason why this can't be tagged as PD
  • The climate map, is listed as fair use, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone made a PD or GFDL version of this map
  • Dame Joan, is a cropped version from her record company, since the company logo has been cut off the fair use claim is weak and I'm going to list it was a copyvio.

Does anyone have a suggestion for an image that can replace Dame Joan? --nixie 04:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Port Arthur image is more visually appealing, but conveys much less information of a useful sort than the population graph it seems to have replaced. I'd rather see the graph go back in instead.
Secondly, if the PA image stays, is the caption correct? Most settlers were convicts? I don't know the actual numbers, but I suspect that even in the early years convicts were less than half of the total. Consider guards, administrators, early free settlers, traders, whalemen and sealers ... add them all up and the "most" might not be true. It shouldn't be too hard to look this one up and check.
Thirdly, shouldn't we have some representative landscape here on the main Australia page? That's what Australia is all about, after all. The Ularu image doesn't really count, as it just shows the Rock, and doesn't convey any real sense of the Australian landscape. I sugggest a scene from outback NSW, or something of that sort. (If desired, and if we don't have one already, I'm sure I would have something suitable I could release under the GFDL.) Tannin 01:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree about the landscape, there's not much on the commons and I don't know what I'd choose as a representative scene. Mabye we shoudl also include a cityscape. I'll switch the graph back into the article now.--nixie 02:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Good. I'd think that it ought to be representative of the broad geographical bulk of the continent - i.e., inland, semi-arid, fairly flat. Obviously, we can't hope to include all the landscape types in one shot, but I'll have a look to see if I have something that can convey the general picture: the mulga country out Cobar way, or something similar. Tannin 02:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox position

Would it be better for the infobox to start at the top of the article rather than down a page? MyNameIsNotBob 06:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've done a bit of cutting and removing flowery text to shorten the article, I won't take offence if you think something should go back. I also moved the topics list to a template Template:Australian Topics (it was 2kb long). History, Politics and and Population and migration could still be shortened with a view to get to 40kb. --nixie 08:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

hi nixie, I think all of your trims/edits are fine, I would only ask that any text you trim be relocated to the relevant Main article (or other sub-article) so that good content isn't lost (or buried in the diff history). I have reclaimed a paragraph and moved into the History of Australia before 1901, for example. clarkk 11:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I had kind of assumed that the stuff from this article would already be in the longer articles. I'll be more careful--nixie 12:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
in a perfect world, editors would ensure that if they add to the summaries here that they would realise that those changes should be mirrored in the relevant Main article, unfortunately it is most often not so. clarkk 13:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Main articles

in light of the above, I suspect all the main (or "sub")-articles, geography of..., economy of... could do with an overhaul and porting of any new text (especially any added or improved text) and any new references added that have been added in the Australia article. I started on economy of Australia. clarkk 15:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing things

Some things that need a mention:

  • World Heritage sites, Ramsar, National Parks
  • Cuisine
  • Short explanation of the ESI to difficult to explain with brevity

--nixie 01:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitutional Conventions

The Parliamentary Library has produced an excellent Research Note on the Governor-General's reserve powers. It is not convention that the Governor-General only acts on Ministerial advice, for example. It is the nature of the reserve powers that they are exercised without advice. The case of Prime Minister George Reid in the second Parliament is before us - nobody, least of all Reid, disputed the power of the Governor-General to refuse Reid's advice to call an election or to appoint a new Prime Minister (Deakin), both actions taken against or without advice.

Bryan Palmer's Australian Politics site provides another view of the reserve powers and lists examples of their use - eight times in all since Federation. Constitutional conventions cover more than just the limited circumstance of the Governor-General acting on advice. For example, it is a convention that Australia has a Prime Minister, even though that office is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Australia has been without a Prime Minister for a short time on a number of occasions following the death of an incumbent, and this could be construed as a breach of the conventions. Pete 21:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Please keep in mind that this article is just a summary, please don't add too much here that should be discussed in the government article. --nixie 23:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
No problem. My edit is more concise and more accurate than what was there previously. Did you want a cite for reserve powers/conventions placed in the article? Pete 00:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea, if you look at the article in edit mode you should be able to work out how the footnote system works. --nixie 00:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Heh! I'll do my best with my limited faculties. Pete 00:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Independence/Statute of Westminster

Should the date of the Statute of Westminster in the Independence section in the infobox be the date it was adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament, rather than the date the British Parliament made it available to us, seeing as it didn't apply to Australia till it was accepted? (according to the Misplaced Pages article on it). If so, should it be the date it was adopted, or the date it was backdated too? Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"nominally" in religion paragraph

I keep on changing this but I am not attached to any alternative wording. Basically, I truly believe that saying 75% or so Australians are "nominally" Christian seems like an unreasonably loaded way of describing demographics and seems to imply something about these Australians which is not supported by any facts elsewhere in this article.

There is a serious point to be made here; lots of Australians may describe themselve as Christian but a much smaller portion of those are active, or even occasional, attenders of church. To give some indication about 1.5 million Australians per week attend a Christian church, according a survey. I'll add a sentence to this effect. --Robert Merkel 08:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additions to history section by Anon

This article has been edited as a summary for clarity, please make additions about the discovery of Australia to the History of Australia before 1901, as they are not necessary in this article. --nixie 04:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no history involved in possible Portugese voyages, lost caravels and so on. It may well have happened, but as no records remain, it cannot be history. Archaeology, perhaps, if anybody ever finds the ship. Worth a mention somewhere, because it's eminently plausible (and there's that tantalising mystery of the "Mahogany Ship"), but not in this article. Pete 05:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Pete. Tannin 08:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

I recently made some changes to the article, re-adding a reference and information on the republic referendum. In re-adding the reference, I think I may have messed up the existing ones when amending the numbering. Could somebody check if this is so and let me know whether I need to revert my changes.--File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 12:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep, they're all messed up, one problem with this ref system is that numbering needs to be manually changed and some of the refs are used more than once. I'll revert and add the referendum ref to the history section and adjust the notes (I'm getting good at it)--nixie 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks nixie. I really should have reviewed Footnote 4 before fiddling around and buggering it up. --File:Australia flag large.png Cyberjunkie 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal population

The article shows an increase of about 300% in 24 years. Obviously this can't have come from immigration, and I haven't done the maths, but I think that the birthrate needed to sustain this sort of increase is pretty much beyond any human population. The large and anomalous increase is mostly because Aboriginal Australians now feel far more comfortable about declaring their Aboriginality on census forms - a very positive sign IMHO, which says a lot about changing community perceptions. Reductions in infant mortality and increases in longevity also account for a portion of the increase. I think that the article should mention this because otherwise someone's going to say "hey, they must breed like rabbits!" and that's not the case. I've added a hypenated word to help explain this, but it's really a subject that deserves more detail, which may be inappropriate in this "overview" article. Pete 07:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal hunter/gatherers...

WRT Skyring's last edit, there's archaeological evidence to suggest that in some places near rivers Aboriginal people farmed fish. --Robert Merkel 07:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From my understanding they also had pretty extensive trade routes--nixie 07:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but trade routes and fish traps don't make for agriculture. The only indigenous Australians to be farmers were the TSI folk, who had plots of land marked out by stones and passed down through family lines, which was the incontrovertible evidence of ownership needed for Mabo. Perhas we can say "Most indigenous Australians were hunter-gatherers..." Actually, I'd really like some specific mention of the way that TSI folk cultivated their land and grew crops, because it's important to understanding Mabo, and why it was such an injustice to say that these people didn't own the land they'd farmed for centuries. Pete 07:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we are talking about more than a simple fish trap here. We are talking extensive construction - i.e., fish farming. Certainly that was the case in South-west Victoria, and I believe that there was similar activity up along the Murray. Tannin 08:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting article, and thanks for the link. However it's still fish traps rather than fish farming. Eels are oceanic creatures for most of their existence. You can't farm eels, you can only catch them as they migrate up or down the rivers. Digging out channels between ponds would make it easier to catch them as they moved along the channels.
The existence of circular foundations for huts is actually more interesting. You don't build substantial housing unless you plan to stay there for more than a few nights. I think that saying there was enough of an industry in catching and smoking eels to sustain a village of hundreds of houses, making for a permanent community of up to a thousand individuals, is a bit of a stretch, however. Presumably they also caught other wildlife from the wetlands and perhaps traded with more distant tribes. A thousand people eat a lot of tucker.
But even if you have an aquaculture industry, exporting smoked eels across Australia, which sounds reasonably plausible, just what percentage of the Aboriginal population would have been engaged in such pursuits? And if it was a viable lifestyle, why didn't it persist until historic times?
Anyway, I think the wording of "Most indigenous Australians were hunter-gatherers..." works better than the "primarily hunter-gatherers" phrase because the former includes TSI people as well as the eel-smokers and doesn't give the impression that all Aboriginal Australians were sometimes farmers, which is definitely not the case.
Comments? Or am I making a meal out of a word or two, as I tend to do? Pete 08:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a sentence distinguishing the TSI from the mainland native people, since they are completely distinct. --nixie 09:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I've had a bit of a tweak, but maybe it can be improved still more. It's perhaps a bit of a quibble to note that the TSI folk also lived on the mainland - they were gradually expanding southwards at the time of European settlement. However, that's probably best left to a specific article - this one is getting a bit longish and I'm thinking it doesn't need more material so much as arranging what we have better, eliminating redundancies if any can be identified. Pete 09:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Eels are not usually oceanic, Pete. The eel species in question is the Short-finned Eel. Like most others, it spends by far the greater part of its lifecycle in a home range area, typically a lake or a stretch of river. It makes just two migrations: in the first it travels from its oceanic hatching ground far off in the tropical South Pacific and winds up in a river close to the one where its parents lived. (How? Nobody knows.) At this time it's about the size of a bootlace only shorter, and not practical as a food fish (although some people in Europe eat elvers - it's a shocking waste of natural resources, but there you go).
The second migration occurs only after 15-odd years of growth in a lake or river: the mature eel travels downstream to spawn. Eels of a size worth eating, in other words, migrate once and once only: a one-way trip to the sea, then north to the Solomon Islands where they spawn and die. Catching salmon on the way upsteam to spawn would make sense, but salmon work the opposite way around to eels; salmon are oceanic fish that just happen to breed in rivers, where eels are freshwater fish that just happen to breed at sea.
Back to the topic now: my view is subject to persuasion, but it seems obvious to me that we are never going to come up with a formulation simple enough to use in this context, and yet accurate enough to stand criticsm. It might be better to resolve this point on a page where there is room to deal with it properly. Australian Aborigine or History of Australia before 1901 both seem suitable. Tannin 09:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism

  • While were at it, someone has objected to the article being featured on the basis that it doesn't discuss racism in Australia. I was thinking of adding something after this sentence In the 2001 census the five largest groups of Australians born overseas were from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy, Vietnam and China from the demographic section. But I can't think of what to add, since the whole Hanson episode there has definately been a push for mulitcultural Australia but I'm lost for a way to describe it.--nixie 09:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that there is very little racism remaining in normal life, compared to a decade ago. It's just not that much of a problem that I can see. Lebanese gangs in Sydney, but I suspect a lot of that is talkback beat up. Pete 10:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why "Commonwealth" instead of "Dominion?"

Based upon comparing the governments of the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, I don't really understand the differences. The idea of a Commonwealth seems to compare directly with that of a Republic, so if the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Queen of Australia, how can one style Australia a Commonwealth? Would it not be a Dominion as is the case for Canada? And would not the States of Australia likewise be provinces? I honestly don't understand the differences between each of these and if someone could explain them to me, it would be greatly appreciated. Mdkarazim 2 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

no. australia is not a dominion of the united kingdom. the queen of australia is a different person than the queen of the united kingdom in law. However, it realy doesnt make much difference what you call a place. But you should have complained 106 years ago when they made Australia. Xtra 2 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
A different way of answering the question... The King of Great Britain and Ireland was the King of Australia at the time of its creation (the constitution refers to a Queen, Queen Victoria, but she died in between the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) receiving the royal assent and coming into force). In the leadup to federation, there had been some debates about being a republic, but those who had a say were generally in favor of remaining a British colony. I don't really know why 'Commonwealth' was chosen over any other term. Although it was originally a calque of Republic, it hasn't always been used with the same meaning as Republic has nowadays. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an elective monarchy. Australia is a federation; the Commonwealth of Nations is an organisation of states (I spose Australia's definition as a federation opened the doors for it to be used for an organisation of what were originally all monarchies). Edit: in America 'Commonwealth' is used to mean, for whatever reason, something along the lines of colony/territory, but I understand that's a twentieth-century development and not part of the justification for Australia's name. I don't know the justification for Australia's title, though. (Australia was of course still a dominion during its early history; now the correct term is a commonwealth Realm.)
  • The States of Australia are so named because our federation was modelled on the United States; other similarities include the names of our federal parliament (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and that residual powers are granted to the States (whereas in Canada they go to the Federal government).
  • Canada, on the other hand, was formed in opposition to the US. There are also various (theoretical/legal) differences between the Australian States and the Canadian Provinces, such as their head of state (the Canadian Provinces' practical heads of state are the Lieutenant Governors, representatives of the Governor General, representative of the Queen, appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister; the Australian States' pracitcal heads of state are the Governors, representatives of the Queen, appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Premiers).
  • Finally, while the US States which were earlier British colonies as well as the Canadian Provinces were both styled 'province' before their federations (e.g. the Province of New York), the Australian States were called 'colony' (the Colony of Victoria). Evidently they needed to be renamed, and why choose the Canadian 'Province' when the American 'State' was the model?
  • It should also be noted that 'province' has had some currency in the Australasian colonies/Australian states + New Zealand. New Zealand had subdivisions called provinces, and Victoria's legislative council (upper house) electorates have been called provinces until the next redistribution.
I hope that gives you some insight into why they're called 'states' and not 'provinces'.
Felix the Cassowary 2 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
 Category: