Talk:Australia

We have a real problem with updating and modernizing this article all the time. Can we get better excuses than find consensus for your changes pls review WP:REVEXP. Moxy 🍁 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's best we have tangible information rather than a laundry list of random links to articles with minimal information about the country as outlined at WP:COUNTRYDETAIL. Moxy 🍁 23:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Australia is recognised as a middle power, with the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure. Foreign relations of Australia are influenced by its position as a leading trading nation and as a significant donor of humanitarian aid. Its foreign policy is guided by multilateralism and regionalism, as well as strong bilateral relations with its allies. The country is part of multiple international organisations and forums.

VS

Australia is a middle power, and has the world's thirteenth-highest military expenditure. It is a member of international groups including the United Nations; the G20; the OECD; the World Trade Organization; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation; the Pacific Islands Forum; the Pacific Community; the Commonwealth of Nations; and the defence and security organisations ANZUS, AUKUS, and the Five Eyes. It is also a major non-NATO ally of the United States

Moxy 🍁 23:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You made a bold edit and I formally object to it because the previous wording accurately summarises the contents of the article and was achieved through discussion and consensus. You have unilaterally replaced it with vague and general wording which could apply to any country in the world. You previously tried to replace the stable wording and gained no consensus for it. (See Talk archives 21). I also object to your edit summary in which you accuse me of "stealing the article" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I will revert your change again. I have no problem with changes in stable wording as long as it is an obvious improvement and there is a clear consensus for such a change here on Talk. See WP:BRD and WP:consensus. See also policy on civility which also applies to edit summaries. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah generally pointless here.... vague wording is the reasoning. Despite it being used in the sources in the article and in the foreign relations article. Really a link to NATO and United Nations is more informative than foreign relations of Australia for educating our readers about Australia. A net negative revert for our readers and the article again. Not sure how summarizing the article stating the facts that multilateralism, regionalism foreign aid our major part of Australia's foreign policy is not better than a random laundry list of organizations. I consider this a blind revert just to keep the status quo with a flimsy excuse. Country articles have slowly been upgrading as per WP:COUNTRYDETAIL to eliminate a random list of organizations from the lead that is regurgitated in the body.Moxy 🍁 00:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

People read the article and the lead in order to quickly find out something about Australia as opposed to all the other countries in the world. Your wording: "Foreign relations of X are influenced by its position as a leading trading nation and as a significant donor of humanitarian aid. Its foreign policy is guided by multilateralism and regionalism, as well as strong bilateral relations with its allies. The country is part of multiple international organisations and forums" could be said about almost every country in the world. People should not be forced to click on links to find out basic information about what makes Australia different from oither countries. That's what this article is for. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You seem to be arguing to inform our readers.... but insist on a generic list of organizations that links to nothing about the country over what the actual foreign policy is and the links to more information about it. How does listing organization explain to the readers Australia's foreign policy? You're claiming this could be said about any country..... This may be correct for other countries that have the same type of foreign policy but you're not going to see this in Russia or Iraq or Afghanistan article. This is literally the type of example we use at WP:COUNTRYDETAIL of what not to do. Hoping to get input by others if not we'll ask for third party request. Moxy 🍁 00:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Aemilius Adolphin, @Moxy. I tracked down the relevant diff about this disagreement. It is about the last paragraph in the lede. I prefer the "laundry list" of organisations (the second option above, the current state of the article). At a glance I can see G20 membership, Pacific influence, Commonwealth membership and ties with New Zealand and the USA.

I appreciate that readers may want to follow wikilinks to other articles that cover Australian relationships, but I think they should find them in the body of the article. A balance may be able to be found.

I was surprised to see in WP:COUNTRYDETAIL (which was linked to above by Moxy) that the "laundry list" style is highly discouraged, particularly in the Canada red tick green tick example. It seems Moxy added that example on June 2024. Commander Keane (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes it was added by me not that long ago..... simply what most have been doing for some time now in FA and GA articles reviews and upgrades. That is giving tangible information and linking articles about the country itself. If editors here think that linking a whole bunch of articles that don't mention Australia like World Trade Organization over linking sub articles about the country like Foreign relations of Australia that Australian editor's work on is more useful.... so be it ...as explained at the wikiproject big bold letters. if editors here feel that having the laundry list twice in an article is relevant I guess that's okay. Moxy 🍁 04:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

I have removed these statements from the lead because they were poorly sourced. The claim that Australia is the oldest inhabited continent was not in the cited source. Australia was created from a larger continent about 10,000 years ago. Africa and Asia are much older inhabited continents. See WP:Chronology of continents. My understanding is that Australia has some of the oldest rocks, but that's another matter.

I have also removed the statement that Australia has "some of the least fertile soils". This was sourced to a 1995 interview with Tim Flannery and an article in the Adelaide Advertiser. For a start, this should not be in the lead because it is nowhere discussed in the article. Secondly the claim is so vague as to be meaningless: what does "some of the least fertile soils" mean? Less fertile than the Sahara desert? Less fertile on average than Africa? Thirdly, this is a featured article and should be based on the highest quality sources available. Surely there are standard scientific texts which rank soil fertiflity? If so these need to be cited and discussed in the article and then a summary can be put in the lead if it is significant.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure if we should keep the sentence altogether since this article is about the country, not the continent, for which we have an own article as well. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You could be right. I let it go because I wasn't sure if it makes any difference in this case. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good removals. Oldest continent is meaningless, soil fertility needs much better explanation. CMD (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, it's just a trivial fact that's beyond the scope of the article, and mentioning it directly in the first paragraph of the lead clearly gives it undue weight. Me and you are in favor of removing the sentence, while Aemilius Adolphin is at least neutral, perhaps leaning towards removing it as well. Since this article is about the country and not the continent, others should give arguments as to why the sentence merits inclusion, and not the other way around. Maxeto0910 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure the statement that Australia is the flatest and driest inhabited continent is trivial, and I don't think CMD advocated its removal from the lead. CMD was talking about the assertion that Australia is the oldest continent with some of the least fertile soils. This has been removed. It also looks like the souce which has been retained is talking about the continent of Australia in its conventional, rather than geological, definition. The wikipedia articles on continents and Continent of Australia are talking about different things. The former article states that in the conventional sense the continent of Australia is the Australian mainland whereas in the geological sense it includes New Guinea, Tasmania and some other offshore islands. The latter article sometimes confines itself to the geological definition but sometimes doesn't. My inclination is to retain the statement for the time being, but I intend to check all the sources in the Geography section and see if I can figure out which definition of continent they are referring to. This might take a few days. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If I were to advocate for something, it would be to replace superlatives with something concrete and useful to readers. Instead of saying Australia is the world's flattest continent (something not in the body), which requires the reader to know what the flatness of other continents is and extrapolate some meaning from this, say how flat Australia is and why that matters. CMD (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That sounds sensible. I have found a good source from Geoscience Australia and will work through it and make appropriate adjustments to the wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I assumed that CMD was advocating for removal of the sentence as well because the user answered to the reply chain that included my comment and didn't start a new one. Anyway, if the sentence refers to the Australian mainland, it can stay there in my opinion, but I think it should be reworded to reflect that. It comes off weird and unprofessional when we have separate articles for the Australian continent and the country but one of the first sentences in the article about the country mentions a fact that is seemingly related to the continent. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

I have simplified this, removing arcane explanatory footnotes and detail which is covered in the main article Name of Australia. I have replaced some citations of a private website and newspapers articles with a more reliable source from The National Library of Australia.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have removed the following content: "Other epithets include "the Great Southern Land", "the Lucky Country" (from the 1964 book of the same name), "the Sunburnt Country", and "the Wide Brown Land". The latter two both derive from Dorothea Mackellar's 1908 poem "My Country".^[1]

The source didn't support any of this and links to other wikipedia articles don't count as reliable sourses, especially for a featured article. No doubt some of these are indeed more or less common epithets for Australia but we need reliable sources, preferably academic ones testifying to their widespread use. In the meantime, unsourced content doesn't belong in a featured article.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@HiLo48 Could you please explain why you reverted my recent edits without explanation? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no idea. Mouse out of control? I've fixed it. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk)

No problem. I have done that myself sometimes.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

I have added some content and rearraged and updated other content to try to make it a more logical summary of geographic information. I have updated some sources where necessary, relying on more recent scholarship. I have removed some detailed descriptions of particular landscapes that are more appropriate to the main article on geography of Australia. I hope to progressively revise the other sub-sections over the coming week.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

Geology sub-section. Once again, I have added some content and rearraged and updated other content in accordance with more recent sources. I have removed some detail that is more appropriate to the main article on geology of Australia.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

Climate. I have added some content and rearranged and updated other content in accordance with more recent sources. I have moved content on aridity to this section where it belongs. I have removed some detail that is more appropriate to the main article on climate of Australia.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello all

Biodiversity. I have updated the content and sources, focusing on the most reliable sources and specific content on biodiversity. I have removed some detail that is more appropriate to the linked articles.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is no mention of the fascism that is ruling Australia. Australia is a fascist dictatorship. simply look at the place. internet is restricted and censored to only what they want you to see. law to control what you can and cant do down to the smallest things. international law states that a person may leave a country without a passport to seek asylum elsewhere, yet Australia will not allow you to leave for such reasons. Australia appeared in Geneva and via video conferencing for an interactive dialogue on 20 January 2021. During the session, 122 Member States delivered statements and made recommendations regarding Australia's human rights record. Australia received 344 recommendations. none of which has been considered. the country doesn't give its population human rights. Somalia has more human rights for it population. 14.203.229.236 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]