[WikiEN-l] Queen Elizabeth II

Fri Mar 4 09:13:38 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> Sigh! I shouldn't have bitten. 
> 
> The Australia page has been through this before, and the ,um, debate, 
> involving someone called Daeron , whose views seem similar to yours, 
> can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia/Archive_2. 
> 
> Peter is not correct, period. India is a republic, yes, but Australia is not. 

Hmm, yes the above statement was like those in the archive, mere
assertion, without an attempt to reason.  I see no reason to
change "constitutional monarchy" to "republic", in fact constitutional
monarchy is more specific because of the figurehead monarch,
certainly the change to republic is not something to fight a revert
war over.  Unless one likes that sort of thing.

> The wikipedia's articles are NOT meant to be an outlet for political 
> hopes and fallacies such as yours and Peter's. Nor is the wikien-l. 

What is the hope or fallacy?  The change to a republic was made
when Austrailia assumed its current form of constitutional monarchy.

Or are you claiming "republic" means something different in
Australian english, perhaps that could be explained in the article?

                                  -- Silverback