Wikipedia

Talk:Republicanism in Australia

Latest comment: 7 days ago by ITBF in topic "Misleading content" tag
Learn more about this page

Succession law is irrelevant

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

It was suggested by Mr IP that it would be better to base my objection to G2bambino's edits on the basis of relevance. The Statute of Westminster is not connected to republicanism in Australia. It was not a product of republican sentiment nor did it stir up republicanism in our nation. Perhaps this belongs in a article on colonialism. --Lawe (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If succession laws are connected to republicanism in Australia, then the Statute of Westminster becomes relevant, or, are you denying the SoW's provisions that explicitly relate to succession? --G2bambino (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I do deny it, but who cares. Succession is about the monarchy. This article is about Australian Republicanism. --Lawe (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
So, then, you propose to remove all the information regarding succession? Including the statement by Brennan? --G2bambino (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Brennan's statement was not about succession. It was about representation. That is why the heading says Representing Australia. Both of us are fully aware that your edits are not reflective of either republicanism (or monarchist counter arguments.) What strange idea will be proposed next? But do not worry, we will be here to keep this article consistent with the main elements of the debate in Australia. --Lawe (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is? Please show how. As I read it, the word "determined" would mean "chosen," which relates to succession. Where does he say anything about representation? Indeed, where have I added any arguments? I'm not sure why I bother asking, as, no matter how many of you are included in the collective "we," you won't answer any questions put to you. I'm still utterly counfounded as to what it is you're actually reading; one wonders if you're confusing this article with some other. --G2bambino (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I can show it because when asked for sources, they could not found and could not be provided. --Lawe (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
The following site may be useful to G2bambino: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp --Lawe (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Could you please address what I actually said? --G2bambino (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I am addressing your statement that you don't understand this issue --Lawe (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

[De-indent] What you are doing is purposefully impeding discussion by not clearly answering questions or addressing issues. You said that succession law is irrelevant to the republican issue in Australia. I said that then included Brennan's statement, as it relates to succession (i.e. the UK parliament's control over it). You said Brennan's comment did not relate to succession, but related to representation of Australia, instead. I asked you to clarify exactly how it speaks about representation and not succession, as I certainly don't see it. You have not responded to that last question, and continue to edit as though it was never asked. --G2bambino (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Brennan's comment related to the constitutional difficulties that the Head of State must be the same as the British Monarch under the Constitution Act. --Lawe (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
He makes no mention of difficulties, he merely makes a somewhat skewed presentation of the legal reality around succession. You now say that has nothing to do with republicanism. --G2bambino (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, he makes mention of difficulties. No, he is not talking about secession. Please do not make any disparaging comments about Justice Brennan's legal competence. --Lawe (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are correct about his mentioning difficulties, but it's obviously about succession. In fact, he distinctly points to the Act of Settlement 1701 and discusses Prince William inheriting the throne from his grandmother. --G2bambino (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
And he does not have a problem with that, and neither does any republican. Your aunty could inherit the throne for all it matters to an Australian Republic. --Lawe (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
That isn't relevant. What is to the point is that he talks about succession, not representation, and you said succession is not relevant to republicanism in Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Royal Successions is one of the major (if not the major) reasons, republicans object to monarchy (IMO). That's partially why in the USA, John McCain or Barack Obama couldn't choose any of their children as a running-mate. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is about sucession law. Such infomation belongs in other articles. --Lawe (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moratorium

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Lets compile a list of republicans who support Malcolm Turnbill's moratorium on republicanism during this Queen's reign. 121.216.35.172 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

We could compile many lists, but that may considered original research. --Lawe (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does reference 43 really prove those gentlemen support Mr Turnbull's moratorium?121.216.35.172 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article is consistent with the reference. It does not discuss a moratorium. --Lawe (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Protected for one week

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've just protected this article from editing for one week to encourage the resolution of the slow-paced edit war which has been going on here in the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I hope this will garner at least an acknowledgement from User:Davrosz of the message regarding this matter that I left at his talk page nearly two weeks ago. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Opinion polls and surveys

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Given the backwards-and-forwards edits of the polls on this page, it would make sense to put them all in a single table, such as this:

Poll Date undertaken (published) Monarchy Republic Don't know Margin of Error Number surveyed
Sydney Morning Herald and Sun Herald[1] (21 November 2010)[* 1] 25% 68% 1,000
  1. ^ This poll was undertaken following the announcement of Prince William of Wales engagement.

Thoughts? --LJ Holden 07:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dident a separate poll by the SMH (August 2010) over the summer show that only 29% wanted a republic, 44% wanted to retain the monarchy, and the remainder being undecided? 24.46.236.67 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Did it? Perhaps you could find a reference? --LJ Holden 03:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Here we go: http://www.smh.com.au/national/not-ready-for-a-republic-well-we-are-amused-20100828-13wv7.html24.46.236.67 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've added the poll, but it doesn't say only 29% wanted a republic - it was 29% wanted a republic now. --LJ Holden 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tim Barlass (21 November 2010). "Big hopes for Crowns new jewel". Retrieved 2011-01-29.

Lead

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The current "stable" lead says "Such sentiments have been expressed in Australia from before federation onward to the present, generally achieving little success or approval." An anon editor changed the end of the sentence to "but have thus far been unsuccessful." IMHO the Anon edit is actually more accurate, the approval or otherwise of Republicanism in Australia is discussed elsewhere in the article, and contradicts the lead statement. --LJ Holden 09:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind either phrase too much, but I think that the one I reverted to is more accurate, and also that the opinion of more editors should be sought before making a change to the lead, as it has been in the form I reverted to for a long time (months? years?). The lead is very short, and even a minor change is important therefore. The question of whether or not republicanism has been successful is of course answered by a no, and the change made by the anon IP conforms with that. But the question here is whether or not there has been/is approval for it. Approval from the Australian people for becoming a republic has changed a lot over the years. Just looking at that approval within 3 to 2 decades, it has gone from having mild support to a large amount of support towards the 1999 republic referendum and following that begun to slowly fall. So, looking at the recent past, it's hard to tell. But looking at Australia's history from the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia, republicanism, in general, across Australian history, has only received little approval. I feel that is what the lead has been saying for all these months, and that it is perfectly accurate. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Note that I sought other editors opinions on the change, it wasn't until I made the change that it drew your attention to it once again. I accept the success criteria in the sentence is accurate. I disagree with your view that the other part of the sentence, on approval for republicanism in the sentence, is "perfectly accurate". The sentence makes it sound as if there is little support for republicanism presently, which as I've pointed out previously is inaccurate. You yourself say its "hard to tell" exactly what support has been like in the recent past. It's fairly obvious that support has increased significantly today looking back at Australia's history. --LJ Holden 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps I should remove the clause of the sentence in dispute? --LJ Holden 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to your comment on 22nd February: I agree that republicanism in Australia has more than just little support when it comes to the issue. What I am saying is that across Australian history federation onwards, it has had little support in general. I am not speaking about the recent past. And I think that the sentence and the clause reflects that: "Such sentiments have been expressed in Australia from before federation onward to the present, generally achieving little success or approval". I have underlined the key words and clauses. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 11:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why you feel it was necessary to bold and underline the specific clauses. I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with it, as it is contradicted by the rest of the article; moreover it makes it appear as though that there is little support presently. In any case, I'm not convinced that support or otherwise should actually be in the lead, hence my comment on the 25 February. --LJ Holden 21:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Institutions in Australia could also no longer apply to have a royal in their title"

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there some kind of legal prohibition on this or is it just actively discouraged? I'd be interested in a cite for that one. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looking into this a little more, this does not seem true at all: see this guide from the Queensland government for example, which also annexes the memorandum recording the outcome of negotiations amongst the states, the Commonwealth and the Palace regarding this and other questions of protocol and prerogative. I'll amend the text. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Monarchists creeping bias

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All readers should know that this article is biased to give the false impression that republicanism is "on life support" and has had little success. Canadian monarchists monitor this page closely to defend bad edits, selectively quote the media and introduce confusing material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.245.210.251 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

As you can see from my comments / threads above, there is an unanswered question as to the lead of this article (which is still uncited). --LJ Holden 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
"On life support" is just emotive. The poll material are the statistics presented to some monarchist group. This article is a good example of how a lobby group uses wikipedia for a political purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.245.215.39 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps, but I'd rather talk about improving the article than pointing the finger. IIRC "on life support" was a reference at the ARM itself in the mid-2000s, not republicanism per se. --LJ Holden 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Republicanism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's special about the Whitlam government?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article previously said "The election of a Labor majority in 1972 marked the end of a period where Australians saw themselves principally as part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Empire)". It's not clear to me what this actually refers to, I have tried to rationalise this by adding "with the Whitlam government implementing a number of reforms that strengthened Australia's independent nationhood". Does anyone know what the original author might have meant? What specifically is special about the Whitlam government that led to such a (seemingly) sudden change in national identity? --62.189.73.197 (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Content dispute

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I rarely edit articles about republicanism (including Republicanism in Canada), so I won't be giving input on what should/shouldn't be in this article. I would recommend though, that the 'current' content dispute be resolved here. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I requested input from WP:AWNB. My trick-knee tells me that a local-consensus here, won't likely be achieved. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone explain the relevance of Britain's foreign and economic policies, Australian currency, and British and Australian citizenship to the matter of republicanism in Australia? The article doesn't indicate the connection (and all the material is unsourced). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

We could usefully prune it. There is certainly relevancy, but we'd need a source. The pre-Federation republicans drew upon the extensive Irish ancestry of many Australians, for example. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Pre-federation is one thing. The 1960s to 80s is quite another. Sources are most certainly needed to show there's a connection between the information I point to above and the subject of this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
At the moment it looks like someone's personal take on things. It's not as if there aren't enough books published about the republican movement, quite apart from the endless chatter in opinion pieces and the PR efforts every Australia Day. Perhaps it could be savagely pruned to what is easily sourced. I'll have a look for some overview from a reliable source. Anyone wants to expand on things they personally think are part of the story, they can do some research. --Pete (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are matters here which are related to a conflict of interest issue. Travelmite (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any concrete evidence being provided, that anybody has a COI in this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Republicanism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Republicanism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

RfC on terms: "monarch" or "head of state"?

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is an open Request for Comment at Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#Request_for_comment_on_terms on whether Queen Elizabeth II should be described as the monarch or the head of state. One term is undisputed, the other not so much. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The option of having both terms in the intro is being discussed, as well. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's the problem right there. Nobody disputes that the monarch is the monarch. On the other hand, anybody who took part in the republic referendum some time ago would be aware that there was and has been considerable debate over the term "head of state", and there are consequent NPOV factors. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Scott Morrison monarchist or republican

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The article should state whether the current Prime Minister Scott Morrison is a monarchist or a republican. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Morrison is a monarchist and I just put a source on it in the article. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uniquely Australian Monarchy Proposal

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Surely the article should make mention of the idea of a uniquely Australian monarchy, which would involve not having a monarch who is in a personal union with the monarch of the United Kingdom, but a uniquely Australian monarch, who resides in Australia. Such a proposal has already been made for the Canadian monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 19:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The fact a proposal has been made for the Canadian monarchy doesn't mean anyone is proposing a uniquely Australian monarch. The only reference relevant to Australia, an Australian Monarchist League FAQ page, is not evidence that the proposal has been made in Australia. The section as it stands barely has any relevance to the article. --LJ Holden 01:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The cited reference has a deceptive heading, because in the article, the Canadian monarchists also suggest that all the Commonwealth realms, including Australia, should have their own unique and resident monarchs, not just Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If the reference is deceptive then it's not a good reference --LJ Holden 20:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Iliketoeatbeansalot a better place for this content would be Monarchy of Australia. This article is specifically about proposals for a republic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the article should be renamed "Debate on the Monarchy in Australia" instead. There are several other monarchist arguments present in the article, and there is no article about monarchism in Australia. Alternatively perhaps an article about monarchism in Australia should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The sources are reliable for these particular statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

John Fleay edits, out of place?

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, on 8 March, the page was edited to mention a John Fleay is "researching the only PhD on an Australian Republic model in Australia's history." As on the current page, a citation associated with a Fleay mention, source 54 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4706-7475 only links to Fleay's profile, with their works at the bottom. That mention of Fleay with that source also draws a grand comparison between their research, and John Adams' Thoughts on Government 1776.

My current issue is not only is the language oddly grand and... almost puffery? in regards to Fleay, I wonder if Fleay, or a friend of Fleay is trying to promote their work via WIkipedia edits. The IP address associated with the edit, 139.230.253.13 also made multiple edits to the Uluru Statement, one example being https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=904715667&oldid=904714974&title=Uluru_Statement_from_the_Heart&diffmode=source - and an edit to deem this person as notable on the Edith Cowan University page.

I could be seeing a Jesus out of burnt toast here, but is this IP address promoting themselves or a friend of theirs? Regardless, I think the mentions of Fleay seem out of place and trying to promote their status. Do tell your take on this (eg Fleay's work really is this significant, coincidence, etc)iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 15:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Value of any Oath of Office Australia

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Were Australia to move towards becoming a republic initiated by those serving in "Positions of Trust" that have taken oaths of office that read

Oath of Office Australia The current Oath of Office is: I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of (position) and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia.

Three of many significant questions arise

1- Would honoring oaths become a redundant factor in the new republic- and would this effect the basic principles of contract law as in a promise is only required to secure the desired position/property before it can be dismissed (Australian lip service only?)

2- Is it only the legal Fraternity within the Australian government that turns a blind eye to the Australian rendition of honoring oaths or can the ANZACs insist that those who choose to dishonor Australians with blatant corruption are told to step down immediately

3- Is government the appropriate body to challenge the government or conventional standards of conduct/constitution? Mutiny is a call to arms?


Barry Cowlishaw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Barry Cowlishaw, please see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete LFAR (Labor for a Republic)?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thee is a very long paragraph about the views of LFAR Are they significant? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Probably not, you can remove it.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have tried to automatically fix bare URLs with several tools, including Reflinks. Unfortunately, it cannot fix a single URL as shown here, so I must fill them in automatically. Editors, please fix this urgent issue, as there are way too many URLs for me to fix alone. Also, can you also explain why URL filler tools don't work most of the time?

Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have replaced all of the citations, but sadly, two of them denied access to me, so I replaced them with "Access Denied" citations, which are very unhelpful.
Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add further details regarding the States, and potential office of Vice-President?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A lot has been discussed in the article on the effect of transitioning to a republic on a federal level, but should we discuss what implications would arise for a state level? Do any sources mention what would happen if the subnational states remained monarchical, say the Governor of Queensland still being the viceregal representative of the King, but then having an independent federal President? Does the republic movement cover whether the state governors would assume the structure of state governors in the US, with a Lieutenant Governor as the understudy? What about the potential federal office of Vice-President and establishing a Presidential line of succession which would be required. It seems like a lot of important details either haven't been considered by republicans, or we have not come across adequate sources to support further details. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing ref

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Thiscouldbeauser: you added ref tag with the name "ninems1", but there's no ref with that name. Please fill in the source you intended. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Clarification

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

@Iliketoeatbeansalot appears to be [1] insistent on including the last sentence at the #Uniquely Australian monarch section. In order to avoid a possible edit war, I am mentioning it here for discussion. The statements are sourced only to the websites of the organisations, and not reliable sources, and I suggest the sentence to be deleted. KangarooGymnast (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Republicanism on Australia is mostly about nationalism and having a uniquely Australian monarch would reduce the ideological arguments about monarchy in Australia as well. Sources from monarchist and republican organisations appear elsewhere in the article. They should be removed if these are removed. The statement made clear that the Australian Alternative Monarchist Association is not officially recognized and so would not be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that those sources should indeed be removed if they are present elsewhere in the article. You're more than welcome to remove those references yourself. KangarooGymnast (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I propose that the article be renamed as Debate on the Monarchy in Australia as the article contains both republican and monarchist arguments and there is a Debate on the monarchy in Canada article and a Republicanism in Canada article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can open a move request if you want. KangarooGymnast (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

<nowiki><nowiki><nowiki><nowiki><nowiki><nowiki>{{subst:requested move|New name|reason= The article is very biased against the opinion that Australia should have its own resident monarch, as it incorrectly assumes that the only way that Australia could no longer share monarch with the United Kingdom is by becoming a republic. There are several status quo monarchist arguments in the article and these should either be removed or else the article should be renamed. There is a Debate on the Monarchy in Canada article as well as a Republicanism in Canada article and a Monarchism in Canada article. Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 30 December 2023

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Republicanism in Australia → Debate on the Monarchy in Australia – The article is very biased against the opinion that Australia should have its own resident monarch, as it incorrectly assumes that the only way that Australia could no longer share monarch with the United Kingdom is by becoming a republic. There are several status quo monarchist arguments in the article and these should either be removed or else the article should be renamed. There is a Debate on the Monarchy in Canada article as well as a Republicanism in Canada article and a Monarchism in Canada article.} Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment This appears to be related to the #Clarification topic above the talk page, where the nominator engaged in a bizarre edit war to include the section, and a sentence which was sourced only to the websites of the organisations. The nominator later attempted [2] to revert an edit by @HiLo48 which deleted the section entirely. The nominator provided no reason for going against the consensus on the talk page. KangarooGymnast (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yep. This article is about republicanism. If Iliketoeatbeansalot wants to have discussion about a purely Australian monarch, a NEW article could work, but it doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article has nothing to do with republicanism. It is almost entirely about nationalism, and even the ideological objections to the monarchy could be solved by having a resident monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketoeatbeansalot (talk • contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. You don't get to declare that a political view you disagree with isn't allowed to have its own article. Of course an article on republicanism would presumably discuss the republican point of view. SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Misleading content" tag

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This tag is dated June 2017 - any idea what content is being referred to, and if not any objections to removing the tag? I T B F 📢 14:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republicanism_in_Australia&oldid=1263234921"