Talk:Australia

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Liberal Party

Again the somewhat unusual US usage of the word "liberal" rears its head. The Australian Labor Party is not "more liberal" than the Liberal Party. --Horace 00:38, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Faunæ

"The amazing thing about Australian native animals like the koala and the kangaroo is that they have the amazing ability to adapt to living in densely populated urban areas. Kangaroos are frequently sighted roaming the streets of Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne."

This is the most ridiculous statement I've read on this encyclopædia, and that's saying something. I've removed this from this article, because it is a blatant untruth. If an American is going to write an article about Australia, the do a little research and don't just write about a stereotype.

We don't drink Foster's, you can't even find it at most bars. Dingoes don't eat our babies. We don't all wear slouch hats, and we don't kick people with giant boots as a punishment. If you're interested in learning more visit this article. Dallas 07:02, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

They're just vandals niandra 07:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Aren't kangaroos becoming somewhat of a nuisance in public places? I would imagine that much like deer here in the US, as their population grows, they start wandering into developed areas looking for food. Now when I was visiting Australia last year I did only see them in the outback and Adelaide area and nowhere near Sydney. Also, I did find it funny that Budweiser was the import of choice. VB ... awesome, I wish they sold it here. Jrssr5 14:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I live half an hour's drive from the city of Melbourne in a fairly bushy (wooded, I think the Americans would say) suburb. We have a large number of roos around our area but we are probably the closest to the city to have roos. They are almost in plague proportions in some country areas although the drought seems to be culling them in some ways. I have no idea who would think that Bud is the import of choice! I can't think of a bottle shop (Australian for Liquor Store) that sells it. If there is an import of choice at the moment I suspect it would be Guinness, Heinekin (sp?), Asahi, Stella Artois. If you go to this beer page you will see that Bud comes in at number 61. VB (Victoria Bitter) is the highest selling beer in Australia at the moment but tends to be fairly predicatable, if not dull after a while. Coopers, Boags, Cascade and James Squires all are smaller breweries that are doing very very well at the moment in Australia - my favourite at the moment is James Squires. So Kangaroos and beer - all we need now is a shrimp on the barbie (whatever that means!)
More randomness: I guess I meant American Import of choice. James Squires was good, as were Cooper and Boags. I also liked XXXX and Toohey's Dark (I think thats what it was). I also lucked out to get a "Boony Doll", but it started to randomly talk in the middle of the night so I had to remove the batteries. Jrssr5 10:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Getting way OT! Boony Dolls - fantastic! Toohey's Old is a wonderful dark ale - not as appreciated as it should be. I suspect Bud being the American import of choice is purely due to the fact that there aren't a lot of American beers around here - Millers has done reasonably well. I like a Sam Addams but they are not easy to find. XXXX (the way Queenslanders spell BEER) was huge in the 1980s but has faded away to being a fairly local brew these days. I might put an article together on Australian beer in my more idle hours.

This article is ridiculous

Irrelevent information, bad spelling. Is it a joke?

Medals dangling from hats???

Are you serious? That sounds like nonsense to me. --Horace 07:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I suspect this is a strange mix of the swagman (an Australian hobo who, if stereotyped, wears a hat with corks dangling from it to keep the flies away) and the returned soldier, who wears his medals on his chest as is custom in most countries. --Bilby 18:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Invasion of New Zealand

Invasion of New Zealand by Australians linked to British Forces.

I cannot find any reference to this "invasion" on either http://workmall.com/wfb2001/new_zealand/new_zealand_history_index.html or http://history-nz.org/ and considering that the third fleet of convicts had only just arrived in Australia at this time it is difficult to see that there would be many "Australians" who would be available for such exploits. --Bilby 18:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Bilby"

Apology and thanks Bilby

I realised several hours after I last logged off that I had made a silly mistake in describing the Labor Party as the "second largest". I was going to fix that as soon as I could, but Bilby beat me to it. I have no idea what I was thinking; it wouldn't surprise me if they are the largest party, as the Liberals often need the help of the National Party to form government. Philip J. Rayment 21:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I realise that "size" can mean so many different things - they have been in Federal power for 10 years - that's big! They control no state - that's small! John Howard is a short man - that's irrelevant but good for a laugh. So I thought I'd get rid of big and small and "just the facts, Mam." And we all know that size doesn't matter anyway! --Bilby 21:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The article has the heading "Prime Ministers of Australia" twice.

The article has the heading "Prime Ministers of Australia" twice. Conservative 01:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

So why didn't you fix it? ColinRtalk 01:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I didn't know how of course. The coding is somewhat technical. Conservative 01:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
All you had to do was remove the sub-heading above the normal heading - ===whatever=== indicates a subheading. ColinRtalk 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The footnote for Prime Ministers of Australia is in a odd place

The footnote for Prime Ministers of Australia is in a odd place. See footnote #3.Conservative 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Continental boundaries

I deleted a reference to Irian Jaya being a part of the continent of Australia and Phillip has footnoted that it could be considered to be a part of that continent (hence New Guinea would also.) I have found that answers.com has a nice article which gives some idea about how one might determine what is meant by "continent": "A protuberance of the Earth's crustal shell with an area of several million square miles and with sufficient elevation above neighboring depressions (the ocean basins) so that much of it is above sea level.

The great majority of maps now in use imply that the boundaries of continents are their shorelines. From the geological point of view, however, the line of demarcation between a continent and an adjacent ocean basin lies offshore, at distances ranging from a few to several hundred miles, where the gentle slope of the continental shelf changes somewhat abruptly to a steeper declivity. This change occurs at depths ranging from a few to several hundred fathoms (1 fathom = 6 feet) at different places around the periphery of various continents. See also Continental margin.

On such a basis, numerous offshore islands, including the British Isles, Greenland, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea, Tasmania, Taiwan, Japan, and Sri Lanka, are parts of the nearby continent. Thus, there are six continents: Eurasia (Europe, China, and India are parts of this largest continent), Africa, North America, South America, Australasia (including Australia, Tasmania, and New Guinea), and Antarctica."

So, I guess in the end, it's a matter of definition and accepted models. Most Australians have grown up with the idea of the Island/Nation/Continent idea (thus discounting New Guinea) but if one takes a geological perspective then New Guinea definitely is included. From the perspective of plate techtonics and the various continental plates, India should also be included in that plate but Oceania is a separate plate and geological area. --Bilby 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure I agree with all of that, but what I really want to comment on is that (a) the article and not the talk page is part of the encyclopedia, so the article should not refer to the encyclopedia, even in a footnote, and therefore (b) this information should be either incorporated into the article proper or in a separate article linked from this one. I'm therefore going to remove the reference to this talk page from the article's footnote. Philip J. Rayment 23:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Ah, you rules people! I'm happy to plod along and have you pick up after me cause I'm sure that I don't have time to read, let alone, remember all these rules. Sure, there's only 10 but I have enough trouble coping with the big ten! I'm sure once continental drift theory gets in the explanations of definitions there would be a few raised eyebrows! ;-) Keep up the good work. --Bilby 23:53, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It's not a rule here; just the way that Wiki software is designed to be used. Philip J. Rayment 06:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
This could lead to an interesting discussion of the difference between Biblical commandments and Natural Law - but perhaps my mind is overactive this morning...--Bilby 18:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
This is not the place for that, but it's a different circumstance, because Biblical commandments and natural law both have the same author. Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Flag

Is anyone able to fix up the flag in this article - it was OK for a while but now seems to not be viewable. I know some of you are Wikiexperts - I hand it over to you. --Bilby 08:45, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean by not viewable, is it too small or just not showing up at all (it seems to be coming up on mine)? EQ 09:18, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Not showing up at all (red X instead). I've asked about this before, but with no response, and I can't figure out what the problem is. However, I've just done an experiment, and found that it works in Firefox, but not IE6. Philip J. Rayment 10:08, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
It appears that the flag cannot be reduced below 101px. This could just be a bug in the mediawiki software or it may be deliberate to avoid over loss of quality by reducing the image (although it only seems to be a problem in IE). Perhaps the template could be changed to reflect this EQ 20:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
That said the Template:User_Australian has got it at 45px with no problems...EQ 20:43, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually it works for all values except for 99px and 100px EQ 20:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
What a weird bug! I've made it 101px and it works. Philip J. Rayment 10:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
I'm glad it's up - thanks to the brainstrust for that work! --Bilby 18:23, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
! Part of this article was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 13:59, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

Terms

I'm sorry, I am new on here. Could correct my citations for the edit I just made? Also, where could I learn how to cite properly? Cheers. DHill1986 00:44, 13 October 2010 (EDT)

The citations seem to work fine, as is, DHill. I have left a welcome message with links to our manual of style, etc. Thanks for updating this! --ṬK/Admin/Talk 06:36, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
Personal tools