Talk:Australia/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Government type in Infobox

(Tagging Safes007 as they were involved in reverting)

I altered the Infobox country government parameter to be "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" (I should have linked to Federalism/federation as opposed to just federal but that is mostly besides the point) from the former/current "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy". That version is unlike almost every other country page which broadly follows the general format of "Unitary/federal presidential/semi-presidential/parliamentary republic/constitutional monarchy". Examples of this format are fellow Commonwealth realms Canada (Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy) and New Zealand (Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy). The "under a" part is usually only featured in extraordinary cases like Russia (Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship) or Venezuela (Federal presidential republic under a centralized authoritarian state) to highlight circumstances. Tombricks (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, "Federation of parliamentary governments under a constitutional monarchy" isn't what the infobox parameter is meant for. That definition describes the parliamentary nature of government in the federated units of the country rather than the government of the whole country. Tombricks (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree the phrasing could be improved, however I think the goal of separating out the elements of the government (namely federal, parliamentary and constitutional monarchy) so the blue links aren't all together is needed. Australia is a weird hybrid of systems and there is no page for federal parliamemtary constitutional monarchy so I think the links need to be separate.

Perhaps you could have three as a plainlist with the elements. E.g.:

• Federation
• Parliamentary democracy
• Constitutional monarchy

Or maybe "Federal and parliamentary government as part of a constitutional monarchy" or "Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary and federal government". Other phrasings are welcome if someone can make it more concise.

I prefer the plainlist option looking at how other elements in the infobox use it. Do you think this or another rephrasing would be an option? Safes007 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. It is correct and more concise. The infobox isn't the place for nuances and complex detail. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that WP is relevant, as the changes aren't about increasing the information in the infobox, but just making what's already there clearer.

No version is perfect, but here are what I see as the options for this parameter and the pros and cons.

1. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Australian Government|Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy]

I think the link here is misleading, as the point of this parameter is to link to the type of government in the broader sense. Currently "Federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy" links to Australian Government, which is incorrect as that page is about the group of Parliamentarians that form the government, not the broader political structure of the country. Politics of Australia is already linked as the parameter "Government:" (like most other countries), so it would not make sense to have two links to that page.

2. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Federalism|Federal] [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]

This is what is used for Canada, however the links are a WP:SEAOFBLUE. It also suggests 'federal' and 'parliamentary' are modifiers of 'constitutional monarchy', when they are actually independent of each other

3. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- [Constitutional monarchy] with a [Parliamentary system|parliamentary] and [Federalism|Federal] government

This solves the sea of blue issue, whilst increasing the height of the infobox less than the list. Its downside is that it is longer than option 2.

4. [Politics of Australia|Government] --- (list below to go here)

• [Federation]
• [Parliamentary democracy]
• [Constitutional monarchy]

This slightly increases the height of the infobox, but I think solves the problem of sea of blue whilst showing each element is separate. I also think it makes comparing government types of different countries easier by seeing the common and different elements more clearly.

For these options, I would prefer them in order of 4, 3, 2, 1. I believe the benefit of solving the sea of blue issue and making comparisons easier is worth the very minor increase in words and/or height of the infobox. Safes007 (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed 1st, 3rd, and 4th solutions are just more complicated and needlessly different, trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no reason for the Australian infobox to be any different than every single other country infobox which all follow the same format. The Australian government isn't special and neither is its infobox. Tombricks (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think a problem does exist, it's WP:SEAOFBLUE. That's basically the whole problem I was trying to solve. It's valid to argue the other options aren't preferrable due to other problems, but I strongly disagree that no problems exist.

I think maybe adding an and would go a little bit to addressing SOB whilst keeping changes to a minimum. I.e. "[Federal] and [parliamentary] [constitutional monarchy]".

What do you think of this as a compromise? Safes007 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Australia is one independent country, not six independent countries. Best we keep that in mind, as Safes007's initial changes in the infobox gave the latter impression. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In my view inportant to say "Constitutional monarchy" so its clear to all that the monarch do not rule they are ceremonial. Moxy- 17:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We do need a link to Constitutional monarchy, at least. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Naming Willem Janszoon in lead? Naming anyone in lead?

Only two people are named in the lead, those being in order: Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon, and Cook. I bothered to link Janszoon, and mentioned his nationality and career, because so few people know who he is. Yet, going by the lead, many non-Australians will probably walk away thinking he is the most celebrated person in the nation's history. Again, one of only two mentioned. Someone whose fame must be on par with or exceeding that of Columbus in the US (note the United States lead does not mention Columbus). Maybe we should have been celebrating Janszoon Day all this time? But we don't. I don't think Janszoon is worth mentioning, nor anyone else. In a history cut down to a paragraph, there isn't anyone of such prominence they are worth elevating above many millions of others. Australia isn't a country that revolves around a personality, like Ho Chi Minh. Note that India's lead doesn't even mention Mahatma Gandhi. Apart from extreme cases of sustained national influence, leads should really be condensed to events. I propose an edit along the lines of: "Australia's written history commenced with European maritime exploration. The Dutch were the first known Europeans to reach Australia, in 1606. In 1778, the First Fleet of British ships arrived at Sydney to establish the penal colony of New South Wales." - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead here needs a big fix ......or should i say update like many other pages as per WP:COUNTRYLEAD."

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples.....see India for an example of a very bad lead.".... Should drop sources, drop repeating stats, random examples and naming people just for starters. Moxy- 21:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not even the Infobox, IMHO. European "exploration" of the Australian region is complicated. It cannot be easily and meaningfully summarised at all. No names in lead please. Note that we don't celebrate Cook with a special day, and Columbus never made it to what is now the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiculturalism and ethnic diversity in lead

Hello all

There has been a recent spate of edits to the wording of this issue in the lead. The stable verion read: "It [Australia] is multicultural and ethnically diverse, and is the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas." The current versions reads, "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas." I prefer the current version because multiculturalism isn't a product of high immigration, it is a government policy aimed at managing cultural diversity. If we want to be more accurate, we could change this to: "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse as a result of high immigration from most regions of the world since the 1980s." Or words to that effect.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level. List based on Fearon's analysis

I have always been concerned with the statement "ethnically diverse" as most measurements of this do not consider it very diverse placing it in the middle. The source for this does not say anything about ethnicity.... It discusses language and culture. I suggest we change it to linguistically diverse (this is due to all the indigenous languages).Moxy- 01:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase 'Australia is ethnically diverse'. Diverse just means involving different types and pretty much every country on Earth has people with different ethnicities. It could be useful if Australia had a higher than average ethnic diversity. However, this list seems to suggest otherwise and so I think the current text is misleading. As the high percentage of Australians with a parent born overseas is high comparitively, I think it's more useful to include. I would suggest: "Australia is the product of large-scale immigration, with almost half of the population having at least one parent born overseas. Governments have promoted multiculturalism as an official policy since the 1970s." Safes007 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No need for random stats in the lead (already to many WP:COUNTRYLEAD). KISS principal with useful links that explain more " Australia is a multicultural and linguistically diverse nation, the product of large-scale immigration. " Should deal with government policies and statistics in the article body and sub articles.Moxy- 01:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons above. Apart from the last phrase, that sentence is applicable to almost every country in the world. Safes007 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

You're simply wrong....as most western nations had/have subversive immigration policies limiting specific ethnic groups from immigrating. Less guess work....best follow sources. Moxy- 02:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This is confusing multiculturalism and ethnic diversit. Multiculturalism is the policy that replaced assimilation in the 70s, which encouraged migrants to leave behind their cultures. This is a possible source of confusion, as stated in the Human Rights Commission source I added. "What has been called multiculturalism in France and Germany does not accord with the policy of multiculturalism in Australia." As wikipedia isn't the place to decide which definition to use and whether a country is multicultural, its better to just state its gov policy in the lead. Safes007 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree...... we should follow academic sources not just government policy. If we were to do that Russia would be classified as a democracy. Moxy- 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems to support the change, not the current version. Describing it as a government policy means not following the government's assertion about what society is.

For sources, see the four different definitions of the concept on Multiculturalism. Britannica [1] describes the concept as acknowledging 'the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities ... deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture.' i.e. a policy, not a description. The Human Rights Commission defines it as 'public endorsement and recognition of cultural diversity'.[2] This also suggests it an a government policy.This book [3]also goes through the concept as a policy one. [4]This parliamentary library report describes it as 'a concept and policy devised to respond to the increasing ethno‐cultural diversity of Australian society resulting from mass immigration in the decades following World War II, and the abandonment of racially restricted immigration policies in the 1960'. This UNSW journal [5] talks about criticism of the policy and this [6]discusses some of the failures of Australia to integrate migrants as distinct from the multicultural policy.

Basically, the point of the point of the change is to highlight which definition we are using and to avoid making a value judgement about the success of Australia's policy and integration. Safes007 (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Culturally diverse is the term used in almost all sources and there are many stating that Australia is culturally diverse. One is cited in the article. The Fearon analysis was done in 2003 and Australia's cultural diversity has increased significantly since then. "Linguistically diverse" is just one factor in cultural diversity. The reason Australia ranks in the middle in most of these studies is because they all weigh linguistic diversity highly: eg if you have more than one officially recognised national language you will rank highly on cultural diversity. The percentage of parents born overseas tells us nothing about cultural diversity. In 1900 Australia had about 60 per cent of the population with at least one parent born overseas but almost all came from Britain. The phrase, "Australia is the product of large-scale immigration" is almost meaningless. Australia is the product of its history of which high immigration is only a part. Cultural diversity is a result of high immigration from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Americas and the Pacific Islands since the 1980s. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The cultural diversity is directly related to immigration. I agree there are many other aspects related to cultural diversity but the lead is not the place for analysis of multiculturalism..... We should simply state the facts and lead our readers to other articles and sources on the topic... As is our purpose as a terrestrial source. Moxy- 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly the point of the edit. By saying it is government policy, we don't have to conclude whether or not Australia *is* multicultural. Safes007 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Which is one reason why I prefer two sentences. "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is ethnically diverse as a result of high immigration from most regions of the world since the 1980s." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean your suggestion. My criticism of "is ethnically diverse" is above. Safes007 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone reading the sources provided....the country was multicultural long before multicultural policies of the late 70s and early 80s.... Pls review White Australia policy. Moxy- 02:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fair to say Australia has increased its cultural diversity since the 80s as that is statistically verifiable but wikipedia isn't the place to debate which criteria we should use to define if a country *is* culturally diverse. Many people say it is, others say it isn't.

Also the sentence about foreign born parents may not tell you everything about cultural diversity, but that's not its only purpose. It's a distinguishing feature of Australia regardless. Also, British culture is not the same as Australian culture.

The last sentence is clumsy, but I read it as just saying that Australia's population has been heavily sourced from immigration since 1788. How about changing to "Australia's current population is the product of..."? Safes007 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Again no guess work pls. Immigration has dropped by half since the late 60s.... The only thing that's changed is where they come from but the amount of diversity is much less. The reason there's a policy of multiculturalism is because of what happened after world war II and acceptance of the fact that by the seventies it was a multicultural Nation. The multicultural policy is about accepting the diversity that already existed and a change of government view about assimilation. I suggest you search the term ‘populate or perish’. Moxy- 04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Australia's current population is the product of..." is unnecessarily wordy. Whether or not you like the phrase "culturally divierse" is irrelevant. Australia is undoubtedly culturally diverse. No one is stating that it is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world and no one is debating the criteria. It is culturally diverse full stop and I can produce hundreds of high quality sources stating this. In the 2021 census Australians nominated more that 220 different ancestries. If you want to put in something about migration, I suggest: "Governments have promoted multiculturalism since the 1970s. Australia is culturally diverse and has one of the highest foreign-born populations in the world." The source is this. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone here is saying it's not culture diverse. Moxy- 04:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Safes007 wants to remove the phrase from the lead. I contend that it is commonly cited as an important characteristic of Australian society. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree Moxy- 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I won't belabour the point. I support the wording of Aemilius above. Safes007 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late to this discussion and not to be up to speed on government policy, but a policy of being culturally diverse is not the same as encouraging immigration from diverse ethnic groups. Also, encouraging cultural diversity and encouraging assimilation are not mutually exclusive, one is not the opposite of the other. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Need to get a handle on this lead..... too many sources, sea of blue, example after example, convoluted organization. Do we not have many Australians watching over this. Article keeps heading in the wrong direction. Moxy- 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

References

New Zealand Wars

An editor recently added this sentence: "During this period [ie the 1860s], thousands of Australians joined the New Zealand military to fight in the New Zealand Wars." I suggest we delete this for the following reasons:

1) This event is a minor detail of Australia's military history and is covered in the main article on this topic.

2) This is a general article on Australia. The history section of this article should be very concise and written in a summary style, highlighting only the most important aspects of Australia's history.

3) The vounteering for the NZ Wars did not change the course of Australian history or shape modern Australia. There are many, many more significant events which could be mentioned in the history section of this article, but alas space is limited and that's what detailed child articles are for.

4) Sure, it's only one sentence, but is it really more important than Australia's official military expeditions to Sudan, China etc? More important than people volunteering for charities, sports clubs etc? More important than a list of colonial premiers? More important than the invention of the stump-jump plough? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also due to the difficulties of writing a sentence that doesn't imply this was an action organised by Australian colonial authorities while also not stressing a distinct Australian identity that doesn't make sense at a time of a more unified British empire. Safes007 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The NZ Wars prompted the notion of an "Australian corps". This was unprecedented. It was the first time Australian colonists organised en masse to fight in an overseas conflict, and in contingents with Australian identifications (eg "Melbourne Contingent"), and with the backing of Australian colonial governments. It inspired a nascent Australian foreign policy independent to that of Britain's. Sudan (1885) and China (1900) are weak comparisons. These Australian forces did not see action and had no influence on outcome of either conflict. In NZ, contingents formed in and sent from Australia helped conquer Māori land in a colony that until recently was an extension of NSW. This link was sufficiently strong for Australia to invite the colony to join the Federation (Australian Constitution still permits NZ to merge with Australia). Australia's important role in NZ Wars serves as colonial prelude to the ANZACs "that forged [Australia's] identity" (to quote history section), and relates directly to the theme of the section: colonial expansion. The stump-jump plough is cute but I think thousands of colonists crossing an ocean to conquer land is more noteworthy, and the number of "firsts" in the Australian context validates its inclusion. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

According to your source we are talking about 2,500 British colonial troops recruited in the Australian colonies under a New Zealand settlement scheme. Most didn't even come back to Australia. It is more important to NZ history than Australia's. They didn't fight together as an Australian corps and all this stuff about inspiring a nascent Australian foreign policy is nonsense: I have read hundreds of general and specialist histories of Australia and none of them state this. The general consensus is that it was the Boer Wars that had an impact on Australian nationalism. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"Most didn't even come back to Australia." From the source you referred to: "While some remained to take up their allotments of land, most found the prospect unappealing and either moved on, or returned home to Australia." The settlement scheme then wasn't the motivating factor for most involved, many of whom were Australian-born colonists, not "British colonial troops" stationed in Australia, as you seem to suggest. I said NZ Wars prompted notions of an Australian corps. Such terminology was used during Australian colonial government-approved recruitment drives, and again, Australian-named contingents took part in the wars. NZ Wars more important to NZ, but "Both in material and manpower terms, [Australia's] input was of considerable importance to the outcomes of the wars that plagued New Zealand during the 1840s and 1860s. These conflicts were also Australia's only substantial war of Empire."(1) From source cited in article: "The willingness of Australian colonial governments to interact with both the imperial authorities and the government of New Zealand during the 1860s, although sometimes grudging, and with an eye to self-interest, suggests that a nascent form of Australian foreign policy was emerging." Many Australian general histories have massive blind spots. Even in NZ the NZ Wars were hardly studied or commemorated until recent decades. - HappyWaldo (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That source you shared convinced me, I had never heard about the participation before. I think Boer War sentence needs to be edited to flow on from this event though, so how about: "During this period, thousands of Australians joined Imperial forces to fight in the New Zealand Wars. Later, units formed by the colonies themselves participated in the 2nd Boer War." This gets across the Imperial connection and what distinguishes the two conflicts. Safes007 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's interesting how it has been overlooked. There's a knee-jerk trivilisation of it. It's some frontier conflict in a far flung colony, so it must be unimportant, kind of thing. Yet looking at the evidence, Australian colonies, and military units raised in said colonies, played a significant role in outcome of NZ Wars, and therefore the destiny of a future nation. The most noteworthy thing is that distinctly Australian units were raised expressly for an overseas conflict. So it's a first. A first such as this is intrinsically interesting and noteworthy, and speaks to Australia's growing regional impact. The contemporaneous blackbirding practice reflects this also. The distinction you mention re colonial forces is there, but I think less notable. The most noteworthy thing about Australia's involvement in Boer War is that it's the overseas conflict the colonies threw the most soldiers at. These essential facts I tried to get across with current wording. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I do think its incorrect to say they were "Australian units" though without qualification. Pages 5–6 of that source talks about how its wrong to call the units wholly NZ or British, but saying the opposite and calling them "Australian units" is equally misleading. They were Australian soldiers fighting in NZ/imperial units at a time when the British identity was the most important. While some units may have been referred to as the "Melbourne Contingent", etc this was just a nickname given by the newspapers (at least from my reading of pg6 of that source). I think the Boer war is significant because it pushed Australia further along the road to thinking and organising military units independently, as opposed to just being a manpower source. The seeds of this started in NZ, but it was much more fully formed in the Boer War. I personally think that is more important than the raw numbers of 3000 vs 15000. Safes007 (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Politicians and military officers also referred to the units using titles such as "Victorian Contingent". Interestingly, the "Melbourne Contingent" fought as a distinct unit, retaining both its title and Australian enlistees. Everything you mentioned is significant, but I don't know how to cover it in a small handful of words. We have to be extremely concise and selective. I'm not sure it's incorrect or misleading to call them "Australian military units", in the sense that they are military units from Australia. It should be clear to readers that we're still in the colonial period, and so there's no confusing them as Australian (national) military units. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. They were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units. The current consensus is that confusion would be best avoided by cutting the entire sentence. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked The NZ Wars by James Belich earlier today. Mention of Australian troops was brief and was in the context of FitzRoy having very few soldiers in NZ and appealing to Sydney and to London, ie separately, for reinforcements, and, in the 1840s, receiving such from Sydney/Australia. This implied independent Australian policy making. I have also looked at some Paul Moon writings on the NZ wars and mention of Australian troops is similarly brief. These are top rate historians on the topic. I note the source offered above is a PhD thesis. Can that be used as an independent RSS? I find this discussion interesting but at the moment I don't have an opinion either way. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What consensus? And what confusion? "They were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units." It is reasonable to refer to them as Australian in the broader historical context. That is precisely how scholars approach the subject, eg "The New Zealand War was distinctly the one in which Australia was first involved to any significant extent". The use of "Australian" can encompass both the specific colonial origins and the collective identity that predates formal federation, and the overarching geographical region. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You will have to do better than some dodgy unofficial website. The sentence is a recent inclusion. You are the only one arguing for it. We have two editors who object to it and one who doen't have an opinion either way. The comment by Roger 8 Roger above indicates that this involvement is only briefly mentions in specialised studes of the war. It isn't mentioned at all in most general histories of Australia. I reiterate that this is a general article on Australia, not an article about colonial military history. If this sentence belongs anywhere perhaps it is as a footnote to the main article on the history of Australia and a mention in the main article on Australia's military history. You are giving this minor detail euqal or more prominence than the gold rushes, the building of the railways, the laying of the telegraph, and many other things that have to be left out because this is supposed to be a concise summary of the most important events in Australian history. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The "dodgy unofficial website" is a condensed copy of a study commissioned by the Australian War Memorial and published in the journal of the New Zealand Military Historical Society. The author Frank Glen was the journal's editor. User Safes007 initially objected to inclusion but said they were "convinced" by the thesis (free pdf download), which addresses the lack of coverage in earlier histories (apologies Safes007 if I have misrepresented you here). You may be right that this isn't worth including. Reliable sources characterise it as colonial Australia's first and most significant involvement in overseas conflict. Yes, this is a general history, not a military one. Of the 326 words that currently make up the "colonial expansion" section, 32 relate to war (this includes the disputed NZ Wars line). So roughly 9%. A tinier portion than most nations' comparable history sections, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm curious to know what other editors think, and will drop this if there is a consensus against it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I just meant I think the phrasing should be different, not that the section be expanded to include all that. Perhaps: "During this period the nation participated in overseas Imperial conflicts, with thousands of Australians volunteering to fight in the New Zealand Wars and each colony sending their own units to fight in the Boer War." This is more concise then the current version too. Safes007 (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"During this period the nation participated in overseas Imperial conflicts, with thousands of Australians volunteering to fight in the New Zealand Wars and each colony sending their own units to fight in the Boer War."

This gives equal prominence to Australia's participation in the Boer War which most historians agree was an important factor in developing national consciousness and 2,500 people volunteering to go to NZ in exchange for free land where they could settle which most historians don't even mention in general histories of Australia. Just to make it clear: I am not arguing for an expansion of this section I am arguing that the sentence about participation in the NZ wars is a minor detail of military history which should be removed and placed in one of the main articles on Australian history. Even mentioning it in a general article about Australia this article gives it undue prominence. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As has been established, the volunteers went for various reasons, and most returned to Australia. That the NZ Wars occurred before emergence of national consciousness does not diminish its notability. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically I feel that the thesis linked is a solid argument that the NZ wars participation are significant enough to be included due to its early importance in shaping an indepdendent Australian identity. I also don't think the comparative lack of other writings tells us much, because there could be lots of reasons for that, including racism and the desire to write about things that fit with existing national narratives. In the absence of sources saying specifically the wars weren't that important, I therefore lean towards including it. Safes007 (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As an Australian military history nerd, I'd note that military histories of Australia tend to give very little or no coverage to the contingents that fought in the New Zealand Wars. Coverage of the topic tends to be limited to relatively specialist works. As such, I don't think that this needs to be covered in this very top level article. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for input. What do you think of this compromise? "Australian colonial forces were deployed overseas in support of imperial military operations, starting with the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and continuing through the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." More concise, one sentence, NZ Wars highlighted only to give sense of a timeline. - HappyWaldo (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I still think "Australian colonial forces" is misleading, even more so if you add the link. The linked page discusses British garrisons and colonial armies, which aren't applicable to New Zealand.

How about this: "Australians soliders supported overseas imperial military operations, with a number of volunteers participating in the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and larger colonial units serving in the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." Safes007 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Too wordy. Just drop all reference to the NZ wars. Not important enough for an article at this level. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The focus of Australian military historians of this era is the Australian frontier wars. The NZ Wars involved far fewer Australians, and modern historians tend to see them as a side show to the much larger conflict in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Points taken. I still think it's underrated. Have now gone over specialised histories of it by three different authors, and all characterise it as colonial Australia's first significant, and most sustained foray into an overseas conflict. The one Australian colonists profoundly influenced, and the one that they (colonists) perceived to hold greater significance for Australia. "[We should not] lose sight of the means of general defence accumulating round this battlefield. They are not for New Zealand alone, but for the whole Australian world. Had no such war arisen, probably no sense of danger would have led to effective measures of precaution and defence." (Sydney Morning Herald) It's interesting that the NZ Wars meet such criteria, yet are deemed a footnote of a footnote. - HappyWaldo (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

"The colonies actively supported imperial military campaigns overseas, starting with the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and continuing through the deployment of colonial forces in the Second Boer War (1899–1902)." This compromise is more concise, encompasses all overseas involvement, establishes timeline and avoids the whole "forces raised in as opposed to by the colonies" conundrum. Broadens NZ involvement to one of support, which extended far beyond the 1863–64 volunteer contingents, eg Victoria sending all of its naval forces, with HMVS Victoria being in 1860 "the first time an Australian warship had been deployed to assist in a foreign war." - HappyWaldo (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Weren't the first troops sent over in the 1840s? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Those were British regiments stationed in colonies, operating under authority of British Army. NZ Wars occurred during shift as colonies developed greater local autonomy, including raising their own defense forces. Hence the colonies began "actively" supporting imperial military campaigns, as opposed to passively hosting British regiments that were answerable solely to British military authorities. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't support this for the reasons I and Nick-D stated above. Given that two editors oppose this inclusion and other editors can't agree on the wording for the proposed inclusion, I will remove the sentence. If you can get a clear consensus for its inclusion, including exact wording, it can be reinstated. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you concede that some of your reasons aren't tenable? Firstly, saying it's "nonsense" to suggest that the NZ Wars shaped early foreign policy thinking in Australia. The Australian colonies closely followed the NZ Wars, and it inspired much discussion in the press about the need to bolster local defenses and raise regular armies. The relocation of British garrisons to NZ exacerbated this type of rhetoric. You also claimed that the volunteers from Australia "were Victorian units and Melbourne units. Not Australian units." They were both. There is an ongoing trend in recent scholarship to acknowledge the link between Australia's modern military and its colonial antecedents. For example, the 1863–64 contingents are now commemorated at the Australian War Memorial, which recognises the NZ Wars as "a relevant chapter in Australian military history". And following a 2010 review, the Royal Australian Navy now recognises "New Zealand 1860–61" as the RAN's earliest battle honour. This involved the Victorian Navy participating in coastal bombardments and land combat for several months. Half a century would pass until the RAN was again directly engaged in combat, in WW1. This makes the NZ Wars the only such battle honour to be completely omitted from the history section (all others captured within their broader conflicts, from WW1 to Iraq). You also sought to diminish Australia's involvement in the NZ Wars by saying that the Australian volunteers were recruited "under a New Zealand settlement scheme. Most didn't even come back to Australia." As I pointed out earlier, most did. But isn't this also indicative of the level of support from Australian colonial governments? That they willingly dispensed with 2,500 able bodied men and their families for the sake of a foreign land war. As far as local industry was concerned, 2,500 men just evaporated from the labor force. - HappyWaldo (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@HappyWaldoYou added the content about the NZ wars and two ediors objected to it in toto. 1 editor objected to the wording. Therefore it is up to you to seek consensus for your added content. see WP:BRD Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I support this wording for the record. Safes007 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, to follow up on my previous response, regarding the number of volunteers the Australian colonial governments agreed to re-settle, during a crucial time of colony building. To put Melbourne's contribution in perspective, volunteers' families included, the per capita equivalent in today's terms would be the population of the Melbourne central business district emptying out. Compared to, for example, the Iraq War, with Australia contributing only 2,000 personnel, out of a population of approx 20,000,000. Yet Iraq gets a mention in the history section. This makes the NZ Wars a victim of protracted WP:RECENCY, and it would only be fair and balanced to include it. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is all unsourced original research and highly dubious. The population of Melbourne increased from 75,000 to over 600,000 from 1850 to 1870. 1,000 Melbournians settling in NZ over 10 years had no impact on the history of Australia or the history of Melbourne. You obviously have a keen interest in this topic so I would suggest that you submit an article on Australians in the NZ wars. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You are side stepping the crux of it: the NZ Wars were more impactful on Australia in their day than more recent wars have been, both in terms of manpower and resources. Again, WP:RECENCY. Saying it had "no impact" is perfectly absurd in the face of increasing commemoration, scholarly attention, and how it has been officially absorbed into Australia's military history. - HappyWaldo (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)