Talk:1916 Australian conscription referendum

Should be renamed
This should be re-named   Australian Referendum 1916. Or more well known,  Australian Conscription Referendum of 1916.

The word plebiscite was not used in Australia for this vote. If you check www.nla.gov.au Trove website,  which contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers throughout the first half of the 20th century,   you will see 16,000+  references to "Conscription Referendum" in Australian newspapers.

If you search for "Conscription Plebiscite"  you will find extensive newspaper references to the Canadian conscription plebiscite of 1942  and you won't find any references at all to an Australian plebiscite of 1916.

The word "referendum" is used in Australia, not only for approval of constitutional amendments,  but also for votes of this kind which are not constitutional amendments. For example, the vote around 1980 to decide on a new national anthem. The word plebiscite is not used in Australia.Eregli bob (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Eregli bob above, as the writer of this article the plebiscite terminology is confusing in the article head because almost no one used that term at the time, and in parliamentary debates and in the government proposal it's almost always referred to as a referendum. It should be made clear in the article introduction though that it is technically not a referendum as referred to in the Australian Constitution, but a self-imposed referendum, and the term 'plebiscite' is now sometimes applied by contemporary sources because of this. --Unus Multorum (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I:I I third this recommendation. The term used at the time, not just by the public and the media,but in the legislation itself and in parliamentary discussion about the event, was "Referendum". The National Archives of Australia provide a useful factsheet about the referendums of 1916 and 1917, together with links to relevant documentation of the time. --Rod Hagen (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the background noting that it was historically called a referendum & the current usage of plebiscite to distinguish it from a constitutional alteration, with appropriate references including the factsheet noted by Rod Hagen. I don't have strong views as to the title of the page as long as the content reflects the important differences. The proposal to rename the page has been around since 2012 & no-one has expressed any opposition. I will give it another month (say 13 January 2017) & unless someone objects I will move the page to "Australian conscription referendum, 1916" Find bruce (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the page title you propose is quite suitable (the current title lacks the key "conscription" IMHO) so long as the article clearly explains the popular use of "referendum" for what was officially a "plebiscite". Ditto for the 1917 one. Kerry (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Article renamed "Australian referendum, 1916 (Conscription)" to reflect the consensus on the important words referendum & conscription & using the naming convention used in most other referendum articles Find bruce (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The question
The question should be: Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * probably listed under "Proposal", rather "Results"
 * formatted better (not italics, maybe in quote or one of the other such templates)
 * explicitly stated to be the question ("the plebiscite asked the question: ...")


 * I tend to agree, but the reason it was done that way was to remain consistent with the other articles on Australian referenda. Not sure if this is an agreed style for these pages or just convention.... Unus Multorum (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

English variation
G'day, interesting article. I have been working through it looking for typos and MOS issues in order to help prepare it for GAN, and one thing I've noticed is that it seems to use US English variation (for instance favor, color, honor, defense, authorize, mobilize, etc.). Is there a reason for this? My understanding per WP:ENGVAR is that it should use Australian English. I've left as is, as it seems like something that should be discussed first before changing. Are there any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In general, we should use Australian spelling, but a quick search through the article finds a couple of exceptions to watch out for:
 * Australian Labor Party is spelt that way.
 * Color is used in quotations, so should probably appear as it does in the original. MOS:QUOTE allow us to correct spelling errors, but these are probably not strictly "errors".
 * "...ize" vs "...ise" is debatable - see WP:ISE and WP:IZE.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work AustralianRupert and Mitch Ames, as you can see I've written just about all of what is currently here but I'm still a bit green in terms of Wiki formatting, the Manual of Style and other conventions and I'm glad for your help. Now that I'm better acquainted with coding citations I will be redoing them soon. In terms of the use of US English, even though I am Australian I almost always write in US English for various personal and professional reasons, and I had just assumed that this was the convention on an American encyclopedia. However I've read the links and noted that yes, Australian spelling should be used and I have no problems with it being changed, although I have a strong preference for '-ize' in Australian English regardless. The use of 'color' and 'colored' in quotations is well noted actually, and I will check whether this is actually as stated or whether I changed it myself. Unus Multorum (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be hosted on US servers owned by the US company Wikimedia Foundation, but it's an English language (with all it's variations) encyclopaedia, not an American English encyclopaedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Unus Multorum, I'll leave you to it. When you've checked the quote, please let me know if you want a hand or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Failure to include the Irish Executions of 1916 & Dr. Mannix's power play.
Dr. Mannix heavily swayed the vote in the Aus-Irish Catholics, to vote down the Plebiscite, simply because 16 people had been executed by the British Army - from the Easter Uprising. Without Dr. Mannix's push, the Plebiscite would have voted for a "YES", for pro-conscription. Yet, it remains properly untold. — Preceding Wiki of Dr. Mannix Government Letters regarding Mannix's intention or interaction with the 1916 affair. unsigned comment added by Spanrz (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place for an "untold story" - see No original research. Attribution of why a referendum went one way or another is often controversial - the article lists a range of other factors in the section Aftermath. It is especially controversial to attribute success or failure (depnding on your point of view) to an individual where it is reported he only spoke twice in the 1916 campaign (his oration at Richmond racecourse was for the 1917 plebiscite) and whose main influence was in Victoria, a state that voted slightly in favour of conscription. Even the attribution of motivation for an individual is problematic and adding this to the article would require the existence of reliable, published sources. Find bruce (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)