Jump to content

Talk:Order of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nford24 (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 23 August 2024 (→Infobox information: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ribbon images

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

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

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

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

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]
  1. ^ Order of Australia Handbook (PDF) (Sixteenth ed.). Governor General of Australia. p. 11. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Australia&oldid=1241908342"