Jump to content

Talk:Order of Australia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
GreenC bot (talk | contribs)
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Numismatics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Australia |importance=Mid |orphan=yes }}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config| algo = old(180d)| archive = Talk:Order of Australia/Archive %(counter)d| counter = 1| maxarchivesize = 150K| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}| minthreadstoarchive = 1| minthreadsleft = 5}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals |class=c |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Numismatics |class=c |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Australia |class=C |importance=mid |orphan=yes |past-ACOTF=21 February 2006 to 5 March 2006}}
}}

==List of awardees==
Is there in Wikipedia a list of all awardees of the Order of Australia over the years ? -- [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 18:59, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Good question. Should we at least create the [[:Category:Members of the Order of Australia]] category, similar to the one I created for the [[Order of Canada]]? --[[User:YUL89YYZ|YUL89YYZ]] 16:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think such a category would be of use, there are many great recipients of the Order and it would be good to have some way to track them. [[User:Dpd|Dpd]] 00:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've added it and have started populating it. --[[User:YUL89YYZ|YUL89YYZ]] 00:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Is [[:Category:Members of the Order of Australia]] not the same as [[:Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal]]? Both lists seem to have different people in them. [[User:Dpd|Dpd]] 10:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Member of the Order of Australia is a different award to the Order of Australia Medal [[User:Da Rammo|dR]] 10:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

===Update===
There's now a [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 10:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--Does anyone know how many ''living'' Companions of the Order of Australia there are (in the General and Military divisions)? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/124.169.169.108|124.169.169.108]] ([[User talk:124.169.169.108|talk]]) 10:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::: Just go the list linked above, and count those who don't show a year of death. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 10:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

== accuracy of article ==

It states in the article that the Order of Austrailia has been distributed more liberally than the [[Order of Canada]] but on the official website it states that only Australians may be nominated for this order. [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/pdf/oa_nomination.pdf] [[User:Dowew|Dowew]] 23:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

:Okay, I got an e-mail responce. Turns out there are different nomination forms for foreigners [[User:Dowew|Dowew]] 00:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

== [[Bunyip aristocracy]] ==
User Xtra removed the [[Bunyip aristocracy]] link from the ''See also'' section. I believe it is directly relevant as it is a catch phrase deriving from an 1853 speech in response to a proposal by Wentworth to introduce a NSW peerage system - a form of honours, albeit with titles not merely letters. As a result of that firm, early and popularly received response, I believe it took longer than it might have otherwise for Australian orders of recognition to be established. I have thus retored the link. --[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:Honours has nothing to do with peerage. Do not have anything to do with it in Australia. Do not have anything to do with it anywhere. Also, there is no mention of its relevance to the honours system on that bunyip page (I would argue that it would require a significant mention as the two articles have nothing to do with each other). [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 23:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::They are related concepts and the link to Bunyip Aristocracy should remain. --[[User:Centauri|Centauri]] 00:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::How are they related? There is no evidence of this on either page. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
*[[Peerage]] is a form of honours - albeit hereditary - see the peerage article and [[British honours system]]. The term bunyip aristicracy was in relation to the introduction of peerage, an heridatry honours system. This article, or an umbrella article, could do with expansion to cover the history of honours in Australia, including formerly granting of British honours to Australians and past attempts to introduce Australian honours.--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:At the moment there is no relevance in the link, and unless some sourced relevance is in that article soon, I will remove it as irrelevant again. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 00:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::relevance asserted in see also section - refs in the Bunyip aristocracy article--[[User:AYArktos|A Y Arktos]] 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ok, but it appears to be a speculation based on original research to me. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::::There's nothing speculative about it. It's demonstrably relevant to this article - end of story. --[[User:Centauri|Centauri]] 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the "Bunyip Aristocracy" referred to honours that involved ennoblement, I.e. peerage, and the honours system up to and including knights and dames does not confer ennoblement or peerage, the relevance of the Bunyip Aristocracy article is yet to be demonstrated. Simply put, a peerage title means the recipient becomes part of the nobility; the award of a knight or a dame or lower does not transfer the recipient to the nobility. (See the article on [[Peerage]].) The recipient remains a commoner unless already part of the nobility. As such, user Xtra is correct. Attempts to link this article with Bunyip Aristocracy indicate POV and political bias, regardless of the merits or otherwise of the current PM's decision to restore knights/dames to the Order of Australia. [[User:Ptilinopus|Ptilinopus]] ([[User talk:Ptilinopus|talk]]) 14:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

== Posthumous award? ==

This article claims the Order of Australia cannot be awarded posthumously, but didn't Graham Kennedy get one this Australia Day? [[User:Colonel Mustard|Colonel Mustard]] 23:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:It was given retrospectively. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

::Not quite retrospectively. I checked with Government House and nominations can only be received for a living person. If the person dies after nomination, then the award can still be made. The date of the award is not affected. --[[User:Dlatimer|Dlatimer]] 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I think the award was actually dated back to his death when I read the Herald Sun. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 10:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

::::There is a website called [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au itsanhonour] where you can search for all recipients of all medals. For [[Graham Kennedy]] it says Name: KENNEDY, Graham Cyril; Award: Officer of the Order of Australia (AO); Date Received: 26 January 2006; State: NSW; Suburb: Late of Bowral; Postcode: 2576. --[[User:Dlatimer|Dlatimer]] 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

<blockquote>I received an email as follows about this matter: --[[User:Dlatimer|Dlatimer]] 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote><blockquote><pre>
Dear Mr Latimer

Your email querying the date of effect of the award for Mr Kennedy has
been sent to me for reply. The award was announced on 26 January 2006
and the appointment is with effect from 5 May 2005.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

Yours sincerely

Judith Shackley
Assistant Director
Australian Honours Secretariat
</pre></blockquote></blockquote>
</blockquote>
That was what I thought. [[User:Xtra|Xtra]] 02:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

:What about [[Charlie Bell]]? His article states he received the award posthumously in June 2005. [[User:Atchius|Atchius]] 18:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

::Not any more it doesn't. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 10:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

== Knights and Dames ==

I know that there is a brief outline of who and when the AD and AK were discontinued, but there isn't any mention of why. In fact that was the reason I looked up this article in the first place, and found it lacking. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:The Bryce|The Bryce]] ([[User talk:The Bryce|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/The Bryce|contribs]]) 07:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The reason was that Labor governments have traditionally had nothing to do with knighthoods and refuse to recommend such awards. [[Jack Egerton]], [[Dorothy Tangney]] and [[William McKell]] were well-known examples of Labor politicians (or ex, in the case of McKell) who accepted knighthoods/damehoods, much to their party's displeasure. When the Order of Australia was set up in 1975, Whitlam did not include a knighthood or damehood level. Fraser added it when he beame PM. The last AK awarded under Fraser was on 26 January 1983, to Sir Roy Wright. Hawke became PM in March 1983 on a platform that included a promise to abolish AKs and ADs, and on 3 March 1986 the Queen removed the AK/AD level permanently. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] 06:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

::Addendum: After Hawke became PM, a further AK was awarded, to Gordon Jackson, in June 1983. I can only assume this happened on a nomination made prior to March, and the government had no say once the committee considered it. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 02:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

==Honorary awards and Malcolm Williamson==
We say nothing about honorary awards, made to non-citizens. There have been quite a few of these. The only mention of honorary awards I can find is at [[Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia]], but that's just one brief sentence.

In particular, I'm interested in the case of the composer [[Malcolm Williamson]]. He was born in Oz, but lived the latter part of his life in the UK. He was given a substantive CBE in 1976, around the time he became [[Master of the Queen's Music]]. His Australian citizenship was a matter of note, being the first non-Briton to ever hold the post. Had he been a dual UK/Australian citizen, this would not have been the case. In 1987, he was given an honorary AO. I've confirmed with the Honours Secretariat that it was indeed honorary, and the [H] at his "It's an Honour" page is not a mistake. The Order of Australia's rules state that any Australian citizen who is appointed to the order is given a substantive award, and any non-citizen gets an honorary award. This leads me to believe that Williamson must have relinquished his Australian citizenship some time between 1976 and 1987. Yet to his dying day he was always referred to as an "Australian composer", and many of his works written after he became MQM in 1976 were performed and even premiered in Australia. I can find nothing about him ever relinquishing his Australian citizenship. Does anyone have any information about this? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 02:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

:Probably just a case of being a "non-Australian" on paper only, and kept doing his work in Australia. The article should probably just cite the relevant part of the order's statutes on the matter, like it is with the British honours articles or even the NZ Order of Merit. [[Special:Contributions/118.90.110.36|118.90.110.36]] ([[User talk:118.90.110.36|talk]]) 09:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

::He was certainly an Australian in his heart, no matter where he lived or what his formal citizenship status was. No argument there. But why was his non-Britishness noted far and wide when he became MQM (the first non-British MQM ever), if in fact he had adopted British citizenship? Or if that happened after 1976, what caused him to relinquish Australian citizenship, and why is there nothing about this anywhere in print or in the internet? The only people who seem to be aware of it are Williamson himself (who's dead), and Government House. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

==Sir Roden Cutler==
I asked this question on his own talk page but it's had no response so far. His knighthood in the Order of Australia was gazetted on 7 April 1981. Two months later, on the Queen's Birthday, Sir Garfield Barwick also got an AK. Any idea why Cutler's was given out of the usual sequence - Australia Day and Queen's Birthday. If Barwick was getting one on the QB anyway, why was Cutler's award made early? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 07:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In case my question wasn't clear, consider this. The AK/ADs can be grouped as follows:
*Date the category of AK/AD was established – Kerr (24 May 1976)
*Date of appointment as Governor-General – Cowen, Stephen
*Australia Day – Burnet, Lyons, Wright
*Queen’s Birthday – Menzies, Syme, Hasluck, Barwick, Court, Jackson
*Royal – Prince Charles.

That leaves Sir Roden Cutler, whose AK was gazetted on 7 April 1981. Does anyone know why his wasn’t awarded on Australia Day or the Queen’s Birthday? Barwick got his on the QB 1981, only 2 months later. I know that there was no law that says they could be awarded ''only'' on Australia Day or the Queen’s Birthday, but that was the usual, indeed universal, practice, apart from special cases. Kerr, Cowen and Stephen were all special cases, as their awards were in a sense ex&nbsp;officio, as the GG was the Principal Knight of the Order, and it would have been inappropriate for them to be in office without being AKs. Charles is in another special category. That still leaves Cutler in a category all of his own. Why was he special? Any ideas? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

::Well it appears that he held two knighthoods before the AK anyhow. I thought it may have been because he might have done a spell as Administrator ( acting Governor General ), but he retired as NSW Governor in January 1981 so he would not have been doing that in April 1981.[[User:Eregli bob|Eregli bob]] ([[User talk:Eregli bob|talk]]) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

== photo ==

this photo is free use [[:File:Peter Cosgrove.jpg]]
File:Angus Houston.jpg <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.249.168.3|99.249.168.3]] ([[User talk:99.249.168.3|talk]]) 18:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Except that it's a photo of General [[Peter Cosgrove]], not Air Chief Marshall [[Angus Houston]]. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

==Politicians and judges==
''Eligibility: All living Australians, except politicians and judges while holding office''

:Where did this come from? There's nothing in the Constitution of the Order about these exclusions. All the judges of the High Court were awarded ACs in 1988. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 09:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

--The Order of Australia is not given to politicians while they are in office (it might be different for judges). This is probably a convention, rather than being a rule in the Constitution of the Order. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.90.158.114|219.90.158.114]] ([[User talk:219.90.158.114|talk]]) 04:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Governor General ==

The GG is Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order. I have seen photos of the Current GG and her predecessor Major General Jeffrey wearing the Star of the Knight/Dame. Is this something to do with their role as Principal Companion and Chancellor and do they continue to wear the badge after retirement as GG. As the Knight/Dame Grade has been abolished for some time the matter seems confusing.

:''I have seen photos of the Current GG and her predecessor Major General Jeffrey wearing the Star of the Knight/Dame.'' - Have you? I expect not. I expect you've seen them wearing the insignia consistent with being "Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order". (But I could be wrong ... ) [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

: The Chancellor wears a badge similar to that of the Breast Badge of a Knight/Dame. It is usually only worn for Investiture ceremonies. 'The Insignia of the Chancellor of the Order is a Badge of the same material, fashion and size as the Breast Badge of a Knight or Dame of the Order but with such alterations and additions as The Sovereign approves.' www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/...nsf/0/.../Insignia+Ordinance_Comlaw.doc --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal to rename category ==

{{tmbox
| small =
| type = delete
| text = The related '''[[:Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal]]''' has been nominated for '''deletion, merging, or renaming[[Template:Cfdnotice|.]]''' You are encouraged to join the '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion{{#if:2010 June 19|/Log/2010 June 19}}#{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal}}|discussion]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|Categories for discussion]] page. <!-- Generated by Template:Cfdnotice -->
}}[[Category:Categories for discussion notices|2010 June 19*{{PAGENAME}}]]

I have proposed on [[WP:Cfd]] that [[:Category:Recipients of the Order of Australia Medal]] be renamed to [[:Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia]] to reflect the correct title of the medal. [[User:AusTerrapin|AusTerrapin]] ([[User talk:AusTerrapin|talk]]) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:The result of the discussion was to rename and the transfer of effected articles has been completed. [[User:AusTerrapin|AusTerrapin]] ([[User talk:AusTerrapin|talk]]) 04:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

== Numbers ==
;Numbers of awards of the Order of Australia - by various categories

Nford has added the numbers he got from the relevant web page. Note that there numbers do not include honorary awards, and despite what the web page says, they are NOT as at the quoted date. (See [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded]].)

The database can provide the total numbers of all divisions of the recipients who allow themselves to appear in the database, but it does not give a breakdown by division.<br>
Again, despite what the relevant web page says, these are NOT total numbers - only totals of the number of people appearing in the database.

===Award Statistics===
If you don't have the URL, the Award Statistics table is almost impossible to find. The tree path is:<br>
Home > Honours > Awards > A-Z of Australian Awards > Statistics<br>
URL is: http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/statistics.cfm

On 20 August 2011 the page said:<br>
'''Award Statistics''' Total number of awards presented as at 30th of June 2010:
{|
|Companion of the Order of Australia (General Division)
|align=right| 372
|-
|Companion of the Order of Australia (Military Division)
|align=right| 24
|-
|Dame of the Order of Australia
|align=right| 2
|-
|Knight of the Order of Australia
|align=right| 12
|-
|Medal of the Order of Australia (General Division)
|align=right| 16,521
|-
|Medal of the Order of Australia (Military Division)
|align=right| 1,089
|-
|Member of the Order of Australia (General Division)
|align=right| 6,725
|-
|Member of the Order of Australia (Military Division)
|align=right| 1,024
|-
|Officer of the Order of Australia (General Division)
|align=right| 1,930
|-
|Officer of the Order of Australia (Military Division)
|align=right| 238
|}

===Database counts===
The "It's an Honour" search page is at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=advanced<br>
In the Award/Medal list, it has (in the order it appears in that list)
*Companion of the Order of Australia
*Dame of the Order of Australia
*Knight of the Order of Australia
*Medal of the Order of Australia
*Member of the Order of Australia
*Officer of the Order of Australia

Selecting each individually, and clicking on "Search" finds (found, on 20 Aug 2011) the numbers appearing in the table below.

===Honorary awards===
Looking at [[Order of Australia#Honorary awards]], we see that AusTerrapin isolated the Honorary awards on 11 July 2010:
:''On 11 July 2010, the Australian Honours website listed appointments for 34 Honorary Companions, 67 Honorary Officers, 86 Honorary Members of the Order of Australia and the award of 88 Honorary Medals of the Order of Australia.''
Thus, in theory, we can get total awards at July 2010 by adding them to the Award Statistics. (Note, however, that the numbers in Award Statistics for AC are the numbers at Queen's Birthday <u>'''2011'''</u> ... see [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded]].)

===table===

Key:
:G = General Division
:M = Military Division
:H = Honorary award

{| class=wikitable
!
!colspan=3|Award Statistics<br>(see above)||Search<br>11/7/2010||July<br>2010||Search<br>20/8/2011||Not in<br>database||Aug<br>2011
|-
! || G & M || G || M || H || Total || G&M&H || ||Total|| Notes
|- align=right
| AC || 396 || 372 || 24 ||34 || 430 || 427 ||4|| 431 || 35 Honorary @ 20/8/2011
|- align=right
| AD || 2 || - || - || - || 2 || 2 ||-|| 2
|- align=right
| AK || 12 || - || - || - || 12 || 12 ||-|| 12
|- align=right
| OAM || 17,610 ||16,521 || 1,089 ||88 ||17,698 || 18,283
|- align=right
| AM || 7,749 || 6,725 || 1,024 ||86 || 7,835 || 8,012
|- align=right
| AO || 2,168 || 1,930 || 238 ||67 || 2,235 || 2,271
|}

(See also [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia#Numbers awarded]].)

So we can conclude that the Award Statistics probably includes ALL General & Military, but NO Honorary awards, whereas the database search includes ALL divisions, but only gives totals of people in the database.

[[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 01:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

==Ex-Australians==
What happens to people who were appointed to the Order and later lost their Australian citizenship on becoming a citizen of another country? I'm thinking of [[Rupert Murdoch]], who lost his Oz citizenship when he became an American in 1985. Does he get to keep his AC (because he got it when he was an Australian), or does he lose it (because he's no longer an Australian)? -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 10:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:Would he become an [[Order_of_Australia#Honorary_awards|Honorary Companion]] of the order? When one receives an honorary appointment and then becomes a citizen of Australia, the appointment becomes substantive. Is the reverse the same if one gives up Australian citizenship? [[User:EricSerge|EricSerge]] ([[User talk:EricSerge|talk]]) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Maybe, but the Rules don't seem to cover this situation explicitly.
:: * (5) ''Every Australian citizen appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is a member of the Order, and every other person appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is an honorary member of the Order''
:: That says to me that a person who is an Australian citizen at the time of appointment is appointed substantively, and what may later happen to their citizenship is not relevant. Murdoch's [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=883065&search_type=simple&showInd=true entry at It's an Honour] does not have an '''[H]''' after it, which would indicate it's been downgraded to honorary status.
:: I'm getting that honorary appointees who later become citizens do get translated upwards, but citizens who later lose their citizenship do not get translated downwards. Maybe I'll check with Government House about this, because we need to be sure. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 00:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
==File:Off of the order of aus mal.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
An image used in this article, [[:File:Off of the order of aus mal.jpg|File:Off of the order of aus mal.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

== Prince Philip's AC ==
Is Prince Philip an honorary AC (as he is not an Australian)? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.90.158.114|219.90.158.114]] ([[User talk:219.90.158.114|talk]]) 04:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?breif=true&page=1&search_type=advanced Prince Philip's AC award] was <u>not</u> marked '''[H]''' for honorary, and I'm not aware of any special arrangements that had to be made to ensure he got a substantive award. But that raises more questions than it answers.

: If Prince Philip is an Australian citizen by right of being married to his wife (which is the only possible way he could ever have got his foot in the door, so to speak), then Prince Charles must also be an Australian citizen. But we know he's not. From the article:

:* ''Prince Charles was appointed a Knight of the Order (AK) on 14 March 1981. As he is not an Australian citizen, this would have required the award to be honorary. To overcome this issue, his appointment was created by amendment to the Constitution of the Order of Australia by special Letters Patent signed by The Queen. Hence, the Prince of Wales is a full member in the General Division, not an honorary appointment.''

: Yet a note at [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia]] says
:* ''Honorary recipients are denoted by [ H ] next to their name (with the exception of "PHILIP, Prince Philip")'',
: ... which says to me that he is indeed a non-citizen, but just not explicitly marked as such. I suspect the note is OR by a well-meaning editor, and it needs a citation to back it up.

: It's very odd. If special arrangements had to be made for Prince Charles, how did Prince Philip manage to sneak in under the radar? Compare this with the [[Order of Canada]], which has a similar rule providing for honorary appointments for non-citizens. From [[Monarchy of Canada]]:
:* ''For example, the Queen Mother was appointed a Companion of the Order of Canada on only an honorary basis, though the Canadian Forces Decoration awarded to her was substantive.[199][200] Similarly, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, refused honorary appointment to the Order of Canada on the grounds that, as the royal consort of the Queen, he was Canadian, and thus entitled to a substantive appointment,[201] as he had been awarded the Canadian Forces Decoration and Commemorative Medal for the Centennial of Saskatchewan.''

: From [[Honorary appointments to the Order of Canada]]:
:* ''The Queen Mother, as a member of the Canadian Royal Family, was a Canadian subject but not a Canadian citizen.''

: It seems the Prince got his way with the Australian authorities but the plucky Canucks held firm and offered him only an honorary appointment, which he declined.

: There has to be more to the Australian story. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


: [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010Q00037 The latest version] of the Constitution of the Order of Australia makes it clear that the Order consists of
:* the Sovereign
:* the Governor-General
:* Prince Charles
:* other people by appointment: and we know that citizens get substantive appointments, non-citizens get honorary appointments.
: There's no mention of any special rules or consideration for Prince Philip, who is just one of many "other people". -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

::I thought permanent residents of Australia (as well citizens) could get the Order of Australia- you just have to be Australian. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.90.234.112|219.90.234.112]] ([[User talk:219.90.234.112|talk]]) 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::: No, it's not enough to be an Australian by adoption or residency or whatever. You must be an Australian citizen to get a substantive appointment; if you're not, you get an honorary appointment. It's spelled out in black and white at Clause 1(5) of the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010Q00064/Download Constitution of the Order]:
:::* ''Every Australian citizen appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is a member of the Order, and every other person appointed to the Order or awarded the Medal of the Order is an honorary member of the Order''. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

::::But Prince Philip was appointed to the Military Division, and notwithstanding clause 1(5), clause 20(1) states that "The following are eligible to be appointed to the order as members in the Military Division: (a) members of the Defence Force" (cf. clause 20(2) which states that "Members of the armed forces of a country other than Australia are eligible to be appointed to the Order as honorary members in the Military Division"). Prince Philip is a serving Admiral of the Fleet / Field Marshal / Marshal of the Royal Australian Air Force in the Defence Force, and therefore is eligible to be appointed a substantive member under clause 20(1). I know there is a conflict with clause 1(5), which would seem to applies to both divisions, but it would appear that the Duke got his way, otherwise he would have refused the honorary appointment, as he did with the Order of Canada in 1982: see [http://www.bloggingyoungfogey.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-duke-of-edinburgh-royal-companion.html] [[User:Andrew Yong|Andrew Yong]] ([[User talk:Andrew Yong|talk]]) 17:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}
:Slight digression: You (and others) mention he is a Companion in the Military Division, but I have yet to find a reference that confirms this. For that matter, I have yet to find a reference which confirms the date of his award. Can you help? [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
:(BTW: I'm not completely comfortable with ANY statements about his Companionship that aren't supported by reliable references, or failing that, a reliable reference. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

::I happen to agree with Pdfpdf. The royal website only mentions him as an 'AC' (not specifically military division) - http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Stylesandtitles.aspx [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

* See [[Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip's AK|Prince Philip's AK]] thread below for a related query. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== Awards in both divisions ==

What happens if someone has awards in both divisions- civil and military? Are both postnominals listed after their names, for example, Dame [[Kelly Holmes]], DBE, MBE(Mil.)? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.90.234.112|219.90.234.112]] ([[User talk:219.90.234.112|talk]]) 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->. In the Order of the British Empire, a higher ranking civil award (eg, KBE) does not supercede a lower military one (eg, MBE).

: This page is specifically about the Order of Australia. Your question seems to be about honours generally, nevertheless, I'll comment about its relevance to the Order of Australia.
: My understanding is that a higher award in any division subsumes a lower award in any division. Thus, an AM or AO in the military division who is appointed AC in the general division, or vice-versa, is entitled to use only the highest postnom, AC. Sir [[Phillip Bennett]] was an AO (Military) but then, as far as I understand, an AC (General). I need to confirm this. -- [[User:JackofOz|<font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz</font>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<font face="Papyrus"><sup>[your turn]</sup></font>]] 05:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

::I am saying that there might not be an actual rule for the Order of the British Empire, it might just be a convention. So, for the Order of Australia, it might be the same, where there is not an actual rule on the Constitution of the order. The Order of Australia replaced the Order of the British Empire in Australia, so you would have thought that conventions of the postnominals of civil and military would simply follow that of the previous Order. A military award (in the Order of Australia) is not the same thing as a civil award- it is approved by the minister of defence. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.90.234.112|219.90.234.112]] ([[User talk:219.90.234.112|talk]]) 06:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->. Some wikipedia articles for Australians with both civil & military orders (eg Michael Jeffery) indicate that two ribbons are worn (civil and military). Why would people wear two separate ribbons but only use one postnominal. If it is true that an AC subsumes a military AO, then why do they wear two ribbons? The Order of Australia seems to have been partly modelled on the Order of the British Empire, where there is a different ribbon for military division awards. Also, the OAM is modelled on the BEM (The Order of Australia is not just modelled on the Order of Canada).
::: The '''Constitution of the Order of Australia, Insignia Ordinance Para 18''' states - "''A person who has been appointed at the level of Member or Higher in both the General Division and the Military Division of the Order is entitled to retain and wear the insignia of both Divisions''." The '''Decorations and Insignia Ordinance paras 4 & 5''' go on to say that Members in both divisions "''may identify two awards by placing placing after his or her name ... for example'' AC, AO(Mil)" or " AM, OAM(Gen)". I will try and put this on the Order of Australia page, with proper referencing when I get time. I only have the hard copy of the Order Of Australia booklet which includes the Constitution and Ordinances. --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you've raised my level of curiosity above threshold level! [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 09:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
===People with awards in BOTH divisions===
Who <u>does</u> have awards in both divisions?<br>
The http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au entries rarely state the division, but it is usually clear from the citations.
{| class=wikitable
! Who || General Div || Military Div || Notes
|-
| [[Peter Arnison]] || AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=885195&search_type=advanced&showInd=true 2001] || AO [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879412&search_type=simple&showInd=true 1992]<br>AM ? || AM does not appear in "It's an Honour"
|-
| [[Michael Jeffery]] || AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=885309&search_type=simple&showInd=true 1996] || AO [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879290&search_type=simple&showInd=true 1988]<br>AM [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879824&search_type=simple&showInd=true 1981] ||
|-
| [[Kevin Scarce]] || AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1137398&search_type=quick&showInd=true 2008] || AO [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1055965&search_type=quick&showInd=true 2004]<br>AM [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879085&search_type=quick&showInd=true 2001] ||
|-
| [[Peter Sinclair (governor)|Peter Sinclair]] || AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=885271&search_type=quick&showInd=true 1992] || AO [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=878526&search_type=quick&showInd=true 1986] ||
|-
| <s>[[Phillip Bennett]]</s> || || AO [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879241&search_type=quick&showInd=true 1981]<br>AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879144&search_type=quick&showInd=true 1985] || Both have same citation!<br>(Gov of Tas 1987-95; CDF 1984-87.<br>Suspect quoted AO citation is wrong).
|-
| Others?
|}

[[Peter Sinclair (governor)|Peter Sinclair]],
[[Kevin Scarce]],
[[Peter Arnison]]
: That I know of... see the connection? --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 09:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A new one;
{| class=wikitable
! Who || General Div || Military Div || Notes
|-
| [[Peter Cosgrove|Sir Peter Cosgrove]] || AK 2014 || AC [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=879182&search_type=simple&showInd=true 2000]<br>AM [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=878976&search_type=simple&showInd=true 1985] || AK upon assuming office of GG
|}

==Ribbon and badge Knight or Dame?==
Is the badge of a Knight or Dame similar to that of the badge of a Companion of the Order? And how does a Knight or Dame wear the badge at the ribbon? Also around the neck? Or the same as the soevereign, like a riband worn over the shoulder? A pity, I couldn't find anything about that in the text. [[User:Mr. D. E. Mophon|Dr. D.E. Mophon]] ([[User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon|talk]]) 08:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
:The Badge of the Knight or Dame is different to the AC in that it has the Australian Coat of Arms on Blue Enamel in the centre, the outer badge is the same. The neck decoration is worn the same as the AC, around the neck or women have the option of wearing it on a bow. The Breast Badge (or star) is worn on centrally on the left side of the jacket below the medal brooch bar or bow if one is worn (as per the Chancellor's and Sovereigns badge). Check out the links at the bottom of the page for images. --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 09:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
:: I have added the info. [[User:Mr. D. E. Mophon|Dr. D.E. Mophon]] ([[User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon|talk]]) 10:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

== Corruption ==

[[User talk:Laughton.andrew]] has added a new section to the article:
:The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish. People awarded honours can have only their name shown on http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm , with a one line statement for the reason for the citation. No other details are available to the public, no way for the public to fact check the nominations and no chance of any corruption being exposed. Nominations and meeting are strictly private, with no information available to the public as to who attended these meetings or why a nomination failed to result in an award(https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/cancellation_or_termination_of_o), and even the original nominations are strictly private and are not covered by the Freedom of information act.(https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/terry_romaros_order_of_australia)
Despite several errors of fact, some points worthy of debate are raised. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 13:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:There are no errors of fact, and everything has been referenced. Why has this been deleted ?? [[User:Laughton.andrew|Laughton.andrew]] ([[User talk:Laughton.andrew|talk]]) 13:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

::a) Why would I say "Despite several errors of fact" if there weren't any? What are you trying to achieve by that statement? Are you trying to piss me off? Well, you didn't succeed; you just damaged your credibility.
::b) ''"everything has been referenced"'' - Another false statement.
::*"The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish." - Uncited.
::*"People awarded honours can have only their name shown on http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm , with a one line statement for the reason for the citation." - a) Uncited b) False. b1) I have no idea where your "with a one line statement for the reason for the citation" comes from. b2) "People" can choose not to appear at all. What's your point?
::etc.
::Those are SOME of the contributing factors for why it has been deleted. I could go on. Do I need to?
::As far as I'm concerned, that's all irrelevant.
::As I said: "some points worthy of debate are raised", and it is those that I am interested in. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 14:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
::: The references are dubious at best and are hardly encyclopaedic. There is no allegation of corruption just issues with the process. Leave the conspiracy theories for other sites! --[[User:Oliver Nouther|Oliver Nouther]] ([[User talk:Oliver Nouther|talk]]) 01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

::::I am sorry, but I should have given a better edit summary, I fond corruption sections on pages such as this dubious at best without referecnce detailing the corruption. Your refs only linked to the official site about the Order. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|Want to have a chat?]]) 06:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


: Regarding a)
: I was not trying to piss anybody off, I simply do not know what you feel has not been referenced and what you think these errors of fact are.

Regarding b)
:As far as corruption goes in general; if you take an imaginary scale, at one extreme the environment is totally transparent in such a way that everything is on display to anybody who cares to look. In this environment if somebody was to do the wrong thing it would be very easy for that person to be caught and measures taken to correct the problem.
At the opposite end of that same scale everything is hidden from view. If somebody was to do the wrong thing for whatever reason, they would never get caught out. It is this environment that leaves itself wide open to corruption.
Corruption may or may not be a problem in this case, but the environment is such that it could very easily happen.
In the specific case of the Order of Australia awards and how they are issued you may try this link; http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/index.cfm or
http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/nominating.cfm#Order or possibly
http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/order_of_australia.cfm#coa

The statement "The entire awards system is done anonymously behind closed doors in perfect conditions for corruption to flourish." could possibly do with a reference, however it would need to be explained in more detail with references to each detail. How would you feel if the above statement was replaced with;
A nomination for an Order of Australia award starts with somebody filling in a confidential form and submitting it to
the Honours Secretariat at Government House in Canberra.
http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/nominating/nominating.cfm#Order
This form will remain confidential at all times and cannot be verified by anybody else at any time.
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/andrew_laughton/requests
The form is given to the Council for the Order of Australia.
http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/order_of_australia.cfm#coa
All Council for the Order of Australia business is strictly private and cannot be checked by members of the press or public.
You need to read the explanation given as a reply to the requests at https://www.righttoknow.org.au/user/andrew_laughton/requests

While researching this I did find a list of names of people on the Council for the Order of Australia, which I did not find during my earlier research, so you are partly right, it is not as anonymous as I originally thought and wrote, however this list is five years old and may not be currant.
http://www.directory.gov.au/directory?ea0_lf99_120.&organizationalUnit&e8ff9830-ea9a-40fe-b00a-cb17b2263dc8



While looking at the reference to the reason for the citations that is only one line long, you need to be aware that they are not going to state the obvious, you need to look at at least one example and see for yourself.

A reference I gave was http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/index.cfm
This is access to the Australian Honours Database of most people given an award.
If you do a search for any name, even your own first name and the web page will return a list people with that first name. Click on any random name that takes your fancy, you will be shown a very brief list of things about that person, including one line for the reason for the citation.

Possibly I should of used http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=simple, for the simple search or http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?show=advanced for an advanced search.
Possibly you would prefer it if I picked a single person from over 240,000 entries in the database.
In my humble opinion the link giving the option of either type of search was the best, but given your confusion I may be wrong on this point.

If you still feel that there are any false statements I would appreciate a reference so that I may enlighten you.


Regarding b2) "People" can choose not to appear at all. What's your point?
: The point is that, if for example person A decided for whatever reason they would like an award, and they paid person B to make it happen, person B would not need to fabricate anything that could be checked out, or proven to be false.
Person B could simply make an extremely vague claim and leave it at that.
I thought that anybody reading something under a corruption heading would assume that it was relevant to the potential for corruption, however it appears that I was wrong, at least in your case.
Would it be easier to understand if I added a few words after it, for example;
:"Awardees can choose not to appear at all, making any corruption harder or impossible to detect."

Regarding; Those are SOME of the contributing factors for why it has been deleted. I could go on. Do I need to?
:Yes please, it would be nice to see why my credibility may have been damaged.

Regarding; As far as I'm concerned, that's all irrelevant.
: I guess there is some merit in working to the lowest common denominator so that nobody is excluded from using Wikipeadia because of comprehension difficulty's, and your input in this matter may benefit Wikipeadia, however I am not convinced that mass deletions is the best method to use.
[[User:Laughton.andrew|Laughton.andrew]] ([[User talk:Laughton.andrew|talk]]) 14:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== Honorary Dames and Knights? ==

Does anyone know what the regulations have to say about Honorary awards of AD/AK? (If the regs allow it, I can see an award to [[Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono|SBY]] in the very near future! It would be an insult not to appoint such people to the highest award!)

(And while I'm at it, how long before David Hurley is knighted? And which former PMs? Surely John Howard?) [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 12:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:And Prince Philip. Oh dear Tony Abbot, what further havoc have you unleashed upon us! [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 13:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

::SBY? I am not sure on the regs, however I cannot see it happening lightly, if Abbott started dishing them out he'll definitely upset the republicans. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|Want to have a chat?]]) 13:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Sorry. [[Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono]].
:::Yes, I agree, but I can see the Indonesians getting even more upset if SBY doesn't get one soon! [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:::(After all, the Poms made him a [[Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath|GCB]] - only [[Order of the Thistle|KT]] and [[Order of the Garter]] are higher ... ) [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

::::http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/ There is a word doc 'Fact Sheet' about the the AD/AK, it does say that it can be awarded honorarily. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|Want to have a chat?]]) 20:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

::::: See also [[User talk:Pdfpdf#Honorary AKs and ADs]]. I dug out the relevant Ordinance. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Ooops - I archived it! Here's a copy. Cheers, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 03:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC) (But first:
::::::*The fact sheet is at http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/docs/RKDOA_Factsheet.rtf
::::::*The Designations and Insignia Ordinance, starts at p. 38 of http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/feature/osgg_6519_order_of_australia.pdf )
{{od}}
I've seen some discussion about this, with people apart from yourself wondering if such a thing exists. My immediate thought was, why not? I've never seen anything that says honorary awards apply only to ACs, AMs and AOs. The fact that there have never been any honorary AKs or ADs doesn't mean there won't be.

Now I know we all like positive evidence of stuff, so I've managed to track down this (my bolding):

: '''Designations of Members of the Order Of Australia and of holders of the Medal Of the Order of Australia'''
:: 3 A member of the Order of Australia or a person awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia is entitled—
::: (a) in the case of a Knight or Dame—to use the title "Sir" or "Dame", as the case may be, before his or her name;
::: (b) in the case of a Knight or Dame, '''or honorary Knight or Dame'''—
:::: (i) to have the letters "AK" or "AD", as the case may be, placed after his or her name on all occasions when the use of such letters is customary; and
:::: (ii) to wear as a decoration the prescribed insignia for Knights of the Order or Dames of the Order, as the case may be;

This is from the Designations and Insignia Ordinance, which starts at p. 38 [http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/feature/osgg_6519_order_of_australia.pdf here].

So, the only question now is: Who will be the first honorary AK and honorary AD? Rupert Murdoch and Miley Cyrus, perhaps? Cheers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 10:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

==Reinstatement of AK/AD and the creation of a list of appointments made under the Order==
Hi there. In light of the reinstatement of the awarding of AK/AD, I have made some recent edits to [[Order of Australia|this page]] and created the [[List of Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia]]. This list is modelled on the [[List of Companions of the Order of Australia]]. It is my understanding that significant input on the latter list has been completed by [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]]; and he should be praised for his work on this list. However, in a very aggressive and argumentative tone, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] has reverted two of my edits in the past 24 hours, that direct readers to the newly created list. It is not my desire to get into an edit war and, given the nature of the tone of voice expressed by this user in correcting my edits, I feel that I will take my bat and ball and play elsewhere. However, given that the precedent has been created for the establishment of a List of Companions external to the page on the Order, it seems logical to me to establish a List of AK/AD external to Order page as well. As appointment numbers to AK/AD grow, it will not clutter the Order page as well. The newly created list also includes highly relevant information, namely references to the appointment of each AK/AD that are omitted in the section that deals with AK/AD. It is also worth noting that the only other comparable list is the [[Living Australian knights and dames]]. This list is good, although lists knights and dames appointed under the Order of Australia and a range of other Orders; and lists only those alive. It's direct link from the Order of Australia page may imply that those on the latterly-mentioned list are appointed as AK/AD, when in fact, that is incorrect. Finally, throughout the Order of Australia page there is inconsistent styling of the words Governor-General of Australia. I have chosen not to edit, in view of the aggressive nature of the "corrections" made by [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]]. Perhaps a user a little less emotially involved may wish to consider tackling. All the very best to you who give of your time and energy to compile WP. Regards. [[User:Rangasyd|Rangasyd]] ([[User talk:Rangasyd|talk]]) 19:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

: Yes, all praise to [[User:Pdfpdf]] for his sterling work.
: Now that AK/AD is back and the numbers will only increase, I fully agree with the creation of the separate page for AK/ADs, and I have already done some editing work on it.
: I see no need to continue to include such a list in the main Order of Australia page. We need these details in one and only one place, otherwise we're creating unnecessary work for ourselves and exposing WP to the risk of inconsistency. I have boldly removed the details from here and added a "Main" template redirecting readers to the new page.
: You may not be aware of the list of [[Australian knights and dames]], which is designed to cover all such people from 1788 onwards, living and dead, under any and all orders, including latterly AK and AD. Cheers. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 21:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

==Sanitation (revisited)==
I have issue with the sanitation of this issue by some editors. There has been significant and widespread criticism of this decision throughout Australia, most notably by current Liberal party members and former monarchist PM Howard, but any attempt to note it is almost instantly removed by people with I suspect monarchist agendas. 09:21, 29 March 2014‎ 1.178.66.147

:I can personally guarantee that there is no sanitation of current events here. There has been very little to no issue against the Order of Australia but the decision of the Prime Minister, as such that does not belong here but on the [[Tony Abbott]] page. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|Want to have a chat?]]) 23:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

:: ''There has been very little to no issue against the Order of Australia'' - well, not against the Order per se, but certainly there has been a great deal of (usually negative and derisory) commentary about the reintroduction of knights and dames to the Order. They were given a decent burial by Hawke in 1983, that's 31 years ago, before the internet was invented. Maybe we read different papers. Not all the commentary has been from the left side; John Howard, who could easily have reinstated them had he been so minded, did not, and has been far from positive in his comments this week. And Malcolm Turnbull, of course, has been biting his tongue so hard it's bleeding. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 23:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

:::These last posts bring up an issue I think needs to be addressed. As I see it, the role of an encyclopaedia, which WP professes to be, is to purvey factual information about the subject concerned. It is not to purvey opinion on the subject concerned. Whether or not public opinion is for or against the subject should be irrelevant to a presentation on the subject, UNLESS the subject is a news type item, or specifically about the public reaction to an issue. This article as presented is well written, presents the actual facts of the subject Order of Australia, and should not include public attitudes to changes in the subject matter. Such amounts to POV, and frequently seem to reflect the POV of the writer. I've seen a lot of this in various articles on controversial topics, including sections attempting to debunk or comment on a topic not generally agreed with, rather than simply presenting the information about the subject. Such should be "sanitised"! [[User:Ptilinopus|Ptilinopus]] ([[User talk:Ptilinopus|talk]]) 00:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

==When did the AK/ADs come back?==
See [http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/was-dame-quentin-bryce-really-a-dame-when-tony-abbott-said-she-was-20140402-35xnu.html this] from ''The Age'', 2 April. Yesterday 3 April there was a follow up piece titled "It seems that Dame Quentin was actually nothing like a dame", that says the PMO has advised "the documents" were signed by the Queen on 19 March. Yet the first the outside world knew anything about it was 6 days later on 25 March. And as of yesterday, 15 days after the signing, Government House says it has not seen the Letters Patent or any copy of them. All very odd.

So, we need to see something to clarify all this. Was Bryce an ex-officio Dame from 19 March when the Queen signed "the documents", or did the re-establishment occur only wef 25 March, the day of the public announcement? Is there a Gazette notice or anything on ComLaw yet? -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

:So far, the only "official" document I've seen is the Abbott press release dated 25 March. (http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians)
On the GG's website, possible pages to watch:
*[http://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/newamendments-regulations-determinations New/Amendments to Regulations & Determinations] (Last updated 8 January 2014)
*[http://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/links Links] (Last updated 4 March '''2012''')
*[http://www.gg.gov.au/australian-honours-and-awards/order-australia The Order of Australia] (Last updated <u>3 April 2014</u>:
**"In addition, the Governor-General makes appointments as Knight or Dame, in the General Division only, on the Prime Minister’s recommendation. Knights and Dames rank above the Companion level."
**Quotas - Note: They have increased!
**Knight or Dame of the Order – 4
**Companion of the Order – 30
**Officer of the Order – 125
**Member of the Order – 300
**Medal of the Order – no quota limitation
*[http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/honours/osgg_6519_order_of_australia.pdf The Order of Australia booklet] - Ninth Edition 2009
:All sorts of stuff, but no answer to your questions. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 04:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

== People stripped of their awards ==

Is it worth mentioning that 22 people have been stripped of their Order of Australia?[http://www.crikey.com.au/2006/01/16/the-22-australians-stripped-of-their-orders-of-australia/] Usually after being convicted of serious crimes. [[Special:Contributions/203.9.185.136|203.9.185.136]] ([[User talk:203.9.185.136|talk]]) 23:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

:It is a good idea, however the article you link to only shows 22 revokations. There have been around 50 all up since the early-mid 80's. See - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/achievers-stripped-of-their-australian-honours-after-disgrace/story-fni0fit3-1226805020770 [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

== James Wolfensohn, honorary officer ==

[[James Wolfensohn]] is listed as an honorary officer. As he has reclaimed his Australian citizenship, is he now a substantive officer? [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:The [http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au official site] still lists the award as honorary. [[User:Wikiain|Wikiain]] ([[User talk:Wikiain|talk]]) 23:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

==Prince Philip's AK==
When his son Prince Charles was made an AK, the Constitution of the Order had to be amended to specifically include him as a substantive knight, because otherwise he would have qualified only for an honorary award, not being an Australian citizen. It seems to me that Prince Philip is in exactly the same position, yet I've seen no mention that his AK today is honorary, nor any mention of the Constitution of the Order being amended to accommodate him in the same way that Charles was. Does anyone know any more about this? -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 12:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

: See [[Talk:Order of Australia#Prince Philip's AC|Prince Philip's AC]] thread above for relevant background to his AC. Note that the AK/AD level is not split into General and Military divisions like the AC and lower orders, so some of the above considerations do not apply here. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::The constitution of the order was amended for Philip: "His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be a Knight in the General Division of the Order and shall have precedence in the Order immediately after the Governor-General." [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015G00155]. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

::: Ah ha! Thanks very much for that, Mies. I knew I was right, one way or the other. :) -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 19:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

:::: Prince Philip now ranks after the Governor-General, and before Prince Charles in the Order of Australia.

::::: Yes, that's covered above. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, I know that, but the main article doesn't have them in that order.

:::::::: I wanted to correct it earlier today but the article was protected. And it still is. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 11:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Now fixed. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family:Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 02:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

== (Jan 2015) Can someone please protect this page? ==

{{help me-helped}} Can someone please protect this page? [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Pdfpdf}}, I've put in a request for page protection. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

== Elizabeth II, as a designator, is inappropriate in the Australian context ==

By an Act in 1953, Australia formally recognises the Royal Style, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth"; but not "Elizabeth the Second", nor "Elizabeth II". Therefore the page for 'Order of Australia' should not refer to "Elizabeth II". After all, she is not the second Queen Elizabeth in relation to Australia, just as James VI of Scotland was James I of England. It may be argued that 'Elizabeth II' is simply the Royal Style (as recognised by Australia) in abbreviated form. However, "Elizabeth, Queen of Australia", "Queen Elizabeth" and "Elizabeth" are even more succinct abbreviations; and Australia has no justification for any intermediate abbreviation.

P.S. I don't know who set up the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth
[[Special:Contributions/110.143.242.138|110.143.242.138]] ([[User talk:110.143.242.138|talk]]) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:I disagree, and so do others who have reverted your edits. I recommend you learn more about Wikipedia and Australia before you make further edits. [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 14:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

::Feel free to disagree, but can you counter the rational argument I've presented on this Talk page? Whether you agree or disagree with a certain 'opinion', it's different from *defending* your own opinion against a good argument. (And it has nothing to do with skill at editing Wikipedia!) [[Special:Contributions/110.143.242.138|110.143.242.138]] ([[User talk:110.143.242.138|talk]]) 14:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::No it has nothing to do with skill - it has everything to do with behavior, and following Wikipedia policy and guidelines (e.g. [[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:BRD]], etc.) [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::What are you proposing and which reliable source are you using as justification? [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 14:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Her title in Australia is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth": Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), Schedule. (See [[Royal Style and Titles Act]] external links.) Then Australians abbreviate "Elizabeth the Second" to "Elizabeth II". [[User:Wikiain|Wikiain]] ([[User talk:Wikiain|talk]]) 22:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:Although that abbreviation of the full Royal Style is traditional in Australia, it is more sensible, in the Aussie context, to take the abbreviation one step further, to simply "Elizabeth". However, I guess tradition trumps sense. [[Special:Contributions/110.143.242.138|110.143.242.138]] ([[User talk:110.143.242.138|talk]]) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
::Please take notice of what [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] said yesterday. [[User:Wikiain|Wikiain]] ([[User talk:Wikiain|talk]]) 00:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I took very careful notice of what [[User:Pdfpdf|PdfPdf]] said. Our opinions differ. Anyway, it turns out that the same matter has been previously discussed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monarchy_of_Australia#There_has_only_ever_been_one_Elizabeth [[Special:Contributions/110.143.242.138|110.143.242.138]] ([[User talk:110.143.242.138|talk]]) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::::The answer here is the same as there. The Queen is [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004C00605 officially Elizabeth the Second]. [[User:Hack|Hack]] ([[User talk:Hack|talk]]) 02:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::She is officially "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" - so you are in fact abbreviating! The issue is *how much* abbreviation is sensible in Oz as opposed to the UK; and we all have opinions. But hey, above I admitted that tradition trumps sense - so I'm no longer pushing for the change. Relax. [[Special:Contributions/110.143.242.138|110.143.242.138]] ([[User talk:110.143.242.138|talk]]) 02:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


== Ribbon images ==
== Ribbon images ==
Line 580: Line 42:
:::::::::::By the way, I would suggest that the SVG versions be uploaded to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be no indication that the user who uploaded them to Commons is any way authorized to release them as uncopyrighted. [[User:Esrever|Esrever]] <sup>([[User talk:Esrever|klaT]])</sup> 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::::By the way, I would suggest that the SVG versions be uploaded to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be no indication that the user who uploaded them to Commons is any way authorized to release them as uncopyrighted. [[User:Esrever|Esrever]] <sup>([[User talk:Esrever|klaT]])</sup> 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== Eligibility contradiction ==


The lead sentence is
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:The Order of Australia is an honour that recognises Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.
This is almost immediately contradicted in the infobox, by the omission of noncitizens:
:Eligibility
:: All living Australian citizens


--[[User:Thnidu|Thnidu]] ([[User talk:Thnidu|talk]]) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on [[Order of Australia]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814080826|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625225416/http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/Summer_2007_CMN.pdf to http://www.monarchist.ca/cmn/2007/Summer_2007_CMN.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325130621/http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians to http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-03-25/new-honour-pre-eminent-australians


: Only citizens qualify for a substantive award. Non-citizens may be given an honorary award. So, both statements are correct. The honour does recognise "Australian citizens and other persons", but only citizens are "eligible". Non-citizens get their honorary award as an act of grace. -- [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-size:85%; font-family: Verdana;"><sup>[pleasantries]</sup></span>]] 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


== Future sources ==
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}


Just putting this source here to look at later and potentially include in the article
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
* Taylor, G. (2020). Knighthoods and the Order of Australia. AUSTRALIAN BAR REVIEW, 49(2), 323–356. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20201201040511
[[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:Is there a way to access the full article? (It looks like an interesting read). [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 06:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


== Add source of advice to infobox ==
== Eligibility contradiction ==


Hi,
The lead sentence is

:The Order of Australia is an honour that recognises Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.
I made a change that was restored that included Gough Whitlam as the source of advice to the monarch in the founder section of the infobox. I think this should be included for the following reasons:
This is almost immediately contradicted in the infobox:
* Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience and we can't assume that readers know how constitutional monarchies work. Without that prior information, the infobox would suggest that Queen Elizabeth II founded the order on her own initiative. The Order of Australia is also different from previous awards like the Victorian Cross and the Order of British Empire, where the monarch was heavily involved in the creation of the award. Instead, the Australian Government at the time were de facto founders at the time and it was their policy preferences that led to the creation of the award.
:Eligibility
* Without knowing the source of advice to the monarch, knowledge of the founder of the order only tells you who happened to be the monarch at the time they were advised to create the order. This isn't important enough to be included in the infobox.
:: All living Australian citizens
(Also, sorry for undoing your restore without explanation @[[User:Nford|Nford]]. I had the edit window open and didn't see your change when I made a different edit.) [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 03:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Infobox information ==

There seems to be a push for cluttering the info box & for inaccurate information to be suggested, and I had advised [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] to get a consensus, though that hasn't happened yet. The three points that shouldn't be listed are;
* 1, |eligibility = All living Australian citizens (non-citizens eligible for honorary awards) - There is no need to mention that honorary awards are made for the Order of Australia, every Australian honour can be made honorarily & no are similar orders article mentions this in the infobox, it is however mentioned in the lead and in several sections throughout the article.
* 2, "Also, shouldn't imply only Aus. are eligible." - The fact is that only Australian citizens are eligible. The order consists of two divisions, Military and General. There is no honorary division. Honorary awards can be made in either division for "permanent residents & non-citizens" with the additional requirement that "Approval of an honorary appointment or award may require permission from the person’s home country."<ref>{{cite book |title=Order of Australia Handbook |publisher=Governor General of Australia |page=11 |edition=Sixteenth |url=https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/Order%20of%20Australia%20Booklet_16th%20edition_0.pdf |access-date=30 July 2024}}</ref>
* 3, |founder = [[Elizabeth II]] on the [[Advice (constitutional law)|advice]] of [[Gough Whitlam]] - Much like the first point, its not standard on any Australian medal article or on any similar orders articles. This point it also specifically discussed in the lead so is just clutter.
I would suggest that it would require consensus to make these changes considering they're not standard practice on WP and have clearly been challenged. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 21:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

:I don't quite understand your objection to talking about honorary awards in the infobox. You seem to contradict yourself by stating that honorary awards can be awarded to permanent residents & non-citizens, while also stating that only Australian citizens are eligible. Are you suggesting that honorary awards aren’t technically Orders of Australia? If so, I’d disagree with that as the letters patent state that order consists of ‘…members and honorary members’. If we don’t want to clutter the infobox with the distinction between honorary and substantive awards, I’d support deleting the "eligibility" parameter.
:Secondly, I do think it’s needed to say that Elizabeth II received advice when founding the award. As the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the page, the fact that the information is already included in the page is besides the point. Also, the reason most other pages don’t include the source of advice to create an award in their infobox is that most other awards were created directly by the person listed. There is a significant difference between Napoleon creating the Legion of Honour as de facto ruler of France, or George V creating the OBE due to their own personal view and the Order of Australia, which was created without any de facto input from the Queen. It’s similar to how the infobox of the UK Government states that ministers are appointed by the King on the advice of the PM, as it would be misleading and suggest an autocracy otherwise. [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

::Firstly, restoring it is blatantly [[WP:EDITWAR|Editwarring]] and goes against [[WP:BRD]], and I can see no attempt to gain a consensus for going alternate to the current layout practices. Your first point I can respond to quite clearly, but I'm assuming you didn't even read the reference I provided? Do I really need to explain what honorary means? and therefore why honorary awards do not form part of the yearly quota? No Australian medal article currently mentions the fact that honorary awards and awards to non-citizens are available in the infobox, likewise on similar articles [[New Zealand Order of Merit]], [[Order of New Zealand]], [[Order of Canada]], [[Legion of Honour]], [[Order of the Garter]], [[Order of the Bath]], [[Order of Merit]], [[Order of St Michael and St George]], [[Royal Victorian Order]] etc. The same response also applies for the second point, every medal in the current suite of Australian honours were recommended either by the PM&C, DoD, the random decidedly honours reviews and by public suggestion. The reason the sovereign is listed only it because they create the specific honours through the instruments as the fons honorum. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't understand why you are asking a rhetorical question about whether I understand something when I explicitly asked you to explain. Specifically:
:::* Yes, I would like you to explain what you think honorary means. My reading of the letters patent suggests that honorary members belong to the Order of Australia alongside non-honorary members, the Sovereign and the Governor-General. Australian citizens are eligible for ordinary awards and non-citizens are eligible for honorary awards. In other words, eligibility for the Order of Australia as a whole (which is what the scope of the page is) is not limited to just Australian citizens. If you disagree with this, it would be much easier for me to figure out your perspective so that we could come to a solution if you just stated what you think instead of posing rhetorical questions or by making assumptions about what I have and have not read.
::::* In regards to your reference specifically, I don't understand how it's relevant to the eligibility section of the infobox that that some honorary awards require permission of the home country before being award. Whether or not another country's permission may be required doesn't seem to be to change the fact that non-citizens can be awarded honorary awards. If you could clarify what you meant by this, this would be greatly appreciated.
::::* I also don't see why it's relevant that there is no honorary division, with honorary members appointed in the existing general and military divisions. This doesn't seem to change the fact that they belong to the Order.
::::* I don't understand your reference to the quota. Section 14 of the Order Constitution appears to be the reason honorary members are excluded from the annual limits. This section doesn't appear to affect their eligibility to appointed as honorary members.
:::* While most of those pages you have listed don't make a distinction in the eligibility section, I don't think that by itself is that important to deciding what to do on ''this'' page. It is the reasons that other pages do things certain ways that is relevant, not just the fact that they do. Those pages may not make a distinction just because no one has clarified it in the infobox or because their honour system is different. If there has been previous discussions on the talk pages of those pages on this, that could be relevant and I'd be happy to read it. I would have to do more research on those other pages to before making similar changes, but many of those awards appear to be similar to the Order of Australia and would also benefit from distinguishing the eligibility requirements of honorary and non-honorary awards in their infoboxes. Specifically:
::::* The statutes of the [[New Zealand Order of Merit]] state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign, a Chancellor, and five levels of Membership ... Each of the five levels shall be composed of Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." In other words, honorary members are members of the order. These just seem to rank lower that Ordinary and Additional members.
::::* Similarly, the statutes of the [[Order of New Zealand]] state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign and Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." They have all the same privileges as other members of the order, including the use of post-nominals and are subject to the same criteria for appointment.
::::* Likewise, the Constitution of the [[Order of Canada]] states that "The Order shall consist of ... Members ... and honorary Companions, Officers and Members." They are entitled to post-nominals and to wear their award and don't seem to be treated differently from non-honorary members.
::::* I can't find the specific rules for the [[Order of Merit]], but assuming that honorary members are treated exactly the same as non-honorary members, the above would also apply.
:::* However, the other pages you have mentioned either have a greater distinction between honorary and non-honorary awards or describe their eligibility section in the infobox differently or not at all.
::::* The [[Legion of Honour]] [https://www.legiondhonneur.fr/en/page/award-criteria/405 website] states that "only French citizens may be admitted into the Order. Foreigners can be distinguished in the Order of the Legion of Honor, but they are not members." This is different from the Order of Australia and the above orders which explicitly state that honorary members belong to the order. The eligibility section also only states that the award is available to military and civilians and doesn't mention being limited by citizenship at all, so I don't think this is relevant to this discussion.
::::* The pages [[Order of the Garter]], [[Order of the Bath]] and [[Royal Victorian Order]] don't include an eligibility section in their infobox, which is what I had proposed alternatively in my first response on this talkpage above.
::::* The [[Order of St Michael and St George]] page has its infobox section for eligibility read: "Typically Commonwealth realm citizens". This is another possible solution to avoiding the problem of the phrase "All living Australian citizens" implying that non-citizens cannot become a member of the order through an honorary award. Personally, I think it is less preferable than keeping the mention of the honorary awards or deleting the section entirely as it seems imprecise, but I'm open to this change if you would prefer it.
:::<br/>
:::In regard to your second point, while bodies like the defence department or PMC may have suggested or lobbied for the creation of a particular award, they did not create or found any. Instead, the power to create this and all other awards belongs to the royal prerogative (as discussed by Greg Taylor [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3644129 here]) and may only be made by advice to the governor-general or monarch by the relevant minister (in this case the prime minister). This is seen in the 1975 letters-patent for the award, which is countersigned by Whitlam, not any other body. I can't find any evidence by a quick google that this position is changed by the monarch being a "fons honorum" and acting alone or any mention of that concept in the Australian context. If you have a relevant source about this, I'd be happy to read it.
:::* Regardless of the specific legal position, I think mentioning the source of advice in the infobox is useful simply because it provides useful information that summarises the information of the page. Because Australia is a ''constitutional ''monarchy, knowing who the founder is only tells you that the Order was created while they were on the throne, as the monarch does not have any independent discretion in deciding to create awards (unlike other historical honours that were created by people or monarchs with more independent powers). Adding the source of the advice provides a [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE|"key fact"]] that I believe is more important that just listing the founder alone. It is also avoids giving the wrong impression to those unfamiliar to constitutional monarchies. In most other contexts, the founder is both the de facto and de jure creator of something, be it a company, a business or other organisation. Adding the source of advice ensures that the infobox doesn't give the impression that Queen Elizabeth II decided to create the award on her own initiative.
:::I am happy to discuss further on these two points and am open to other wordings or solutions involving footnotes or removing parameters. [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I do have to apologise for the extremely delayed response, I was waiting to hear back from the Order of Australia Association on their position on honorary members, and they don't accept honorary members/non-citizens into the association. [[User:Nford24|Nford24]] ([[User Talk:Nford24|PE121 Personnel Request Form]]) 20:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::No problem. If they can provide further sources that would be great, but as they are a private body with a different purpose and rules to the Order, I don't think their practice would be directly relevant to this talk page discussion. However, more sources could be used to expand their section or spin it off into its own page. [[User:Safes007|Safes007]] ([[User talk:Safes007|talk]]) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
--[[User:Thnidu|Thnidu]] ([[User talk:Thnidu|talk]]) 20:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:34, 15 September 2024

Ribbon images

[edit]

WP Commons template "vector version available" says, when a vector version (e.g. .svg) of an image exists: "It should be used in place of the raster image (e.g. .jpg) when not inferior." The problem with the vector version of the images of the Order of Australia ribbons is that the vector versions are inferior to the raster images. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(After-word: I am currently unable to locate a copy of the "official" photo I had of the version of the ribbon that matches .png)
File:OrderAustraliaRibbon.png File:Order of Australia (Military) ribbon.png
File:AUS Order of Australia (civil) BAR.svg File:AUS Order of Australia (military) BAR.svg
The .svg versions are unquestionably superior and indeed are very accurate. In my view, the vector version IS inferior, and therefore should be replaced.Lexysexy (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the vector versions are "unquestionably superior", why would I say the vector versions are inferior? Clearly, it isn't unquestionable.
Wouldn't it be more useful if you explained why and/or how you think they are superior? And why do you say they are accurate?
What IS clear and unquestionable is that both of us moving away from opinion and towards fact would be an improvement. I look forward to reading your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a terminology problem here, pdf? What I wrote was, I thought, entirely in agreement with your comment. I said the .svg versions are unquestionably superior, and by that I meant the bottom two bars. Are they not .svg? As I sit here comparing the actual ribbon with the illustration, I say they are unquestionably superior because the rosette accurately reflects the reality. Would you like me to post a photograph?Lexysexy (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS I took the "vector version" to mean the .png bars.Lexysexy (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a terminology problem here - Maybe, but I don't think so. (Vector=.svg; Raster=.jpg/etc.)
I think what we have is different base references. Unfortunately I can't locate my base reference. But yes please, if you could point me at your base reference that would be very useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am entirely confused. You seemed to be criticising the images that are displayed, ie, the blurry bars, which are .png. If they are indeed the better version, why on earth did you raise the subject in the first place? And as I said, the .svg reflect reality, the wattle flower is nothing like the .png version (and there are too many on the bar. Only three will fit on a bar, two whole, one in part). My reality sits on the desk in front of me, but I suppose you will consider that original research<g>Lexysexy (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! It's been a long day. I'll come back when my brain is working better and try to be clearer. (i.e. I know exactly what I mean, but I'm not saying it at all clearly!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.defence.gov.au/medals/_Master/images/HD/AM-obv-L.JPG .jpg but still reasonably goodLexysexy (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PPS I have to admit to being upside down in my terminology (vector/raster) but have now researched the matter. Nevertheless I maintain the notion (opinion!) that the .svg version is superior.Lexysexy (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what do you think, pdf? Time to replace the images with the .svg versions?Lexysexy (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I can't find my base reference, but more relevantly, given that every reference that I now find looks like the one you found, I have no evidence to support disagreement. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

Given the detail available in the cited sources, it seems clear that the SVG/vector versions are the better choice. The PNG/raster versions are blurry and indistinct. Esrever (klaT) 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would suggest that the SVG versions be uploaded to Wikipedia, and not Wikimedia Commons. There seems to be no indication that the user who uploaded them to Commons is any way authorized to release them as uncopyrighted. Esrever (klaT) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility contradiction

[edit]

The lead sentence is

The Order of Australia is an honour that recognises Australian citizens and other persons for achievement or meritorious service.

This is almost immediately contradicted in the infobox, by the omission of noncitizens:

Eligibility
All living Australian citizens

--Thnidu (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only citizens qualify for a substantive award. Non-citizens may be given an honorary award. So, both statements are correct. The honour does recognise "Australian citizens and other persons", but only citizens are "eligible". Non-citizens get their honorary award as an act of grace. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future sources

[edit]

Just putting this source here to look at later and potentially include in the article

Safes007 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to access the full article? (It looks like an interesting read). Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add source of advice to infobox

[edit]

Hi,

I made a change that was restored that included Gough Whitlam as the source of advice to the monarch in the founder section of the infobox. I think this should be included for the following reasons:

  • Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience and we can't assume that readers know how constitutional monarchies work. Without that prior information, the infobox would suggest that Queen Elizabeth II founded the order on her own initiative. The Order of Australia is also different from previous awards like the Victorian Cross and the Order of British Empire, where the monarch was heavily involved in the creation of the award. Instead, the Australian Government at the time were de facto founders at the time and it was their policy preferences that led to the creation of the award.
  • Without knowing the source of advice to the monarch, knowledge of the founder of the order only tells you who happened to be the monarch at the time they were advised to create the order. This isn't important enough to be included in the infobox.

(Also, sorry for undoing your restore without explanation @Nford. I had the edit window open and didn't see your change when I made a different edit.) Safes007 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox information

[edit]

There seems to be a push for cluttering the info box & for inaccurate information to be suggested, and I had advised Safes007 to get a consensus, though that hasn't happened yet. The three points that shouldn't be listed are;

  • 1, |eligibility = All living Australian citizens (non-citizens eligible for honorary awards) - There is no need to mention that honorary awards are made for the Order of Australia, every Australian honour can be made honorarily & no are similar orders article mentions this in the infobox, it is however mentioned in the lead and in several sections throughout the article.
  • 2, "Also, shouldn't imply only Aus. are eligible." - The fact is that only Australian citizens are eligible. The order consists of two divisions, Military and General. There is no honorary division. Honorary awards can be made in either division for "permanent residents & non-citizens" with the additional requirement that "Approval of an honorary appointment or award may require permission from the person’s home country."[1]
  • 3, |founder = Elizabeth II on the advice of Gough Whitlam - Much like the first point, its not standard on any Australian medal article or on any similar orders articles. This point it also specifically discussed in the lead so is just clutter.

I would suggest that it would require consensus to make these changes considering they're not standard practice on WP and have clearly been challenged. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your objection to talking about honorary awards in the infobox. You seem to contradict yourself by stating that honorary awards can be awarded to permanent residents & non-citizens, while also stating that only Australian citizens are eligible. Are you suggesting that honorary awards aren’t technically Orders of Australia? If so, I’d disagree with that as the letters patent state that order consists of ‘…members and honorary members’. If we don’t want to clutter the infobox with the distinction between honorary and substantive awards, I’d support deleting the "eligibility" parameter.
Secondly, I do think it’s needed to say that Elizabeth II received advice when founding the award. As the purpose of the infobox is to summarise the page, the fact that the information is already included in the page is besides the point. Also, the reason most other pages don’t include the source of advice to create an award in their infobox is that most other awards were created directly by the person listed. There is a significant difference between Napoleon creating the Legion of Honour as de facto ruler of France, or George V creating the OBE due to their own personal view and the Order of Australia, which was created without any de facto input from the Queen. It’s similar to how the infobox of the UK Government states that ministers are appointed by the King on the advice of the PM, as it would be misleading and suggest an autocracy otherwise. Safes007 (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, restoring it is blatantly Editwarring and goes against WP:BRD, and I can see no attempt to gain a consensus for going alternate to the current layout practices. Your first point I can respond to quite clearly, but I'm assuming you didn't even read the reference I provided? Do I really need to explain what honorary means? and therefore why honorary awards do not form part of the yearly quota? No Australian medal article currently mentions the fact that honorary awards and awards to non-citizens are available in the infobox, likewise on similar articles New Zealand Order of Merit, Order of New Zealand, Order of Canada, Legion of Honour, Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath, Order of Merit, Order of St Michael and St George, Royal Victorian Order etc. The same response also applies for the second point, every medal in the current suite of Australian honours were recommended either by the PM&C, DoD, the random decidedly honours reviews and by public suggestion. The reason the sovereign is listed only it because they create the specific honours through the instruments as the fons honorum. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are asking a rhetorical question about whether I understand something when I explicitly asked you to explain. Specifically:
  • Yes, I would like you to explain what you think honorary means. My reading of the letters patent suggests that honorary members belong to the Order of Australia alongside non-honorary members, the Sovereign and the Governor-General. Australian citizens are eligible for ordinary awards and non-citizens are eligible for honorary awards. In other words, eligibility for the Order of Australia as a whole (which is what the scope of the page is) is not limited to just Australian citizens. If you disagree with this, it would be much easier for me to figure out your perspective so that we could come to a solution if you just stated what you think instead of posing rhetorical questions or by making assumptions about what I have and have not read.
  • In regards to your reference specifically, I don't understand how it's relevant to the eligibility section of the infobox that that some honorary awards require permission of the home country before being award. Whether or not another country's permission may be required doesn't seem to be to change the fact that non-citizens can be awarded honorary awards. If you could clarify what you meant by this, this would be greatly appreciated.
  • I also don't see why it's relevant that there is no honorary division, with honorary members appointed in the existing general and military divisions. This doesn't seem to change the fact that they belong to the Order.
  • I don't understand your reference to the quota. Section 14 of the Order Constitution appears to be the reason honorary members are excluded from the annual limits. This section doesn't appear to affect their eligibility to appointed as honorary members.
  • While most of those pages you have listed don't make a distinction in the eligibility section, I don't think that by itself is that important to deciding what to do on this page. It is the reasons that other pages do things certain ways that is relevant, not just the fact that they do. Those pages may not make a distinction just because no one has clarified it in the infobox or because their honour system is different. If there has been previous discussions on the talk pages of those pages on this, that could be relevant and I'd be happy to read it. I would have to do more research on those other pages to before making similar changes, but many of those awards appear to be similar to the Order of Australia and would also benefit from distinguishing the eligibility requirements of honorary and non-honorary awards in their infoboxes. Specifically:
  • The statutes of the New Zealand Order of Merit state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign, a Chancellor, and five levels of Membership ... Each of the five levels shall be composed of Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." In other words, honorary members are members of the order. These just seem to rank lower that Ordinary and Additional members.
  • Similarly, the statutes of the Order of New Zealand state that "The Order shall consist of the Sovereign and Ordinary, Additional, and Honorary Members." They have all the same privileges as other members of the order, including the use of post-nominals and are subject to the same criteria for appointment.
  • Likewise, the Constitution of the Order of Canada states that "The Order shall consist of ... Members ... and honorary Companions, Officers and Members." They are entitled to post-nominals and to wear their award and don't seem to be treated differently from non-honorary members.
  • I can't find the specific rules for the Order of Merit, but assuming that honorary members are treated exactly the same as non-honorary members, the above would also apply.
  • However, the other pages you have mentioned either have a greater distinction between honorary and non-honorary awards or describe their eligibility section in the infobox differently or not at all.
  • The Legion of Honour website states that "only French citizens may be admitted into the Order. Foreigners can be distinguished in the Order of the Legion of Honor, but they are not members." This is different from the Order of Australia and the above orders which explicitly state that honorary members belong to the order. The eligibility section also only states that the award is available to military and civilians and doesn't mention being limited by citizenship at all, so I don't think this is relevant to this discussion.
  • The pages Order of the Garter, Order of the Bath and Royal Victorian Order don't include an eligibility section in their infobox, which is what I had proposed alternatively in my first response on this talkpage above.
  • The Order of St Michael and St George page has its infobox section for eligibility read: "Typically Commonwealth realm citizens". This is another possible solution to avoiding the problem of the phrase "All living Australian citizens" implying that non-citizens cannot become a member of the order through an honorary award. Personally, I think it is less preferable than keeping the mention of the honorary awards or deleting the section entirely as it seems imprecise, but I'm open to this change if you would prefer it.

In regard to your second point, while bodies like the defence department or PMC may have suggested or lobbied for the creation of a particular award, they did not create or found any. Instead, the power to create this and all other awards belongs to the royal prerogative (as discussed by Greg Taylor here) and may only be made by advice to the governor-general or monarch by the relevant minister (in this case the prime minister). This is seen in the 1975 letters-patent for the award, which is countersigned by Whitlam, not any other body. I can't find any evidence by a quick google that this position is changed by the monarch being a "fons honorum" and acting alone or any mention of that concept in the Australian context. If you have a relevant source about this, I'd be happy to read it.
  • Regardless of the specific legal position, I think mentioning the source of advice in the infobox is useful simply because it provides useful information that summarises the information of the page. Because Australia is a constitutional monarchy, knowing who the founder is only tells you that the Order was created while they were on the throne, as the monarch does not have any independent discretion in deciding to create awards (unlike other historical honours that were created by people or monarchs with more independent powers). Adding the source of the advice provides a "key fact" that I believe is more important that just listing the founder alone. It is also avoids giving the wrong impression to those unfamiliar to constitutional monarchies. In most other contexts, the founder is both the de facto and de jure creator of something, be it a company, a business or other organisation. Adding the source of advice ensures that the infobox doesn't give the impression that Queen Elizabeth II decided to create the award on her own initiative.
I am happy to discuss further on these two points and am open to other wordings or solutions involving footnotes or removing parameters. Safes007 (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to apologise for the extremely delayed response, I was waiting to hear back from the Order of Australia Association on their position on honorary members, and they don't accept honorary members/non-citizens into the association. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 20:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If they can provide further sources that would be great, but as they are a private body with a different purpose and rules to the Order, I don't think their practice would be directly relevant to this talk page discussion. However, more sources could be used to expand their section or spin it off into its own page. Safes007 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Order of Australia Handbook (PDF) (Sixteenth ed.). Governor General of Australia. p. 11. Retrieved 30 July 2024.