Talk:Australia

States

I've replaced the word 'state' in the first paragraph with 'nation', as the Commonwealth of Australia is actually a federation of states, and 'tis better not to overload the term.

Also made the distinction between Oceania and Asia slightly clearer, and added the Australian Antarctic Territories to the roster of places.

--Aguido Horatio Davis 06:48, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

does "Australian Antarctic Territories" qualify as fully owned by Australia-- Wikipedia says only 4 countries recognize the claim, and that it's in abeyance. Richard Jensen 08:11, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

It's actually the Australian Antarctic Territory (singular), despite being in two "chunks", one about five times larger than the other, with the French-claimed territory in between. But that's a side issue. The "ownership" of the territory is coming under increasing scrutiny, partly with the global warming issue heating up (pun intended), and partly because the Japanese whalers are trying to cast doubt on the Australian government's right to contest their harvest in the Southern Ocean. Those who support Australia's claim to the territory (mainly the UK and France) have tended to do so because it makes their own claims more legitimate. The leading opponent appears to be the United States – and it would be terribly cynical of me to suggest that they don't recognise claims just because they happened to miss out when the ice-grab took place in the early 1960s! So yes, while it's contested, I'd argue that the status quo stands for now – the various nations administering the territories as their own – although it all comes up again in 2011. David H. Barrett

'Australian Aborigines' versus 'Aborigines'

'Aborigines' is a generic term for native peoples, which deserves a separate article.

So, in the beginning sentence I left the term 'aborigines' in the text, but provided a link to an 'Australian Aborigines' article.

Andrew Fleisher 01:22, 29 April 2007 (CDT)