Talk:Emu War/Archive 1

earlier comments
Some context from Emu, perhaps about changing Australian ecological approaches to Emus would be better. Hard to see why this is separate. --Wetman 07:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's pretty much a duplicate of the information I added to emu years ago. I see no pressing need to merge it, but have no objection either. Tannin 01:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LMAO dumb australians lost to some emus XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.125.226 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
Why is it that valid additions with sources are being reverted with no discussion? This article is blatantly biased. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How we lost the "Emu War" source
I'm not sure is an appropriate source. Emugigs looks like just a web designer, nothing indicating the reliability needed. While it claims to be from GEO (magazine), I think until we have more detail on the exact issue, we shouldn't include the quote (which may be completely ridiculous). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about that one, and I don't have any problem with it disappearing. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I thought that the source was marginal, but the article is probably better off without it. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

is this really real???
"The machine-gunners' dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month" --142.162.71.149 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly yes. :) The media of the day was rather creative in how they described the events, as they seemed to be enjoying it, and it appears that Serventy decided to have fun as well. He's quoted over at the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Rain scatters Emus"
Regarding the source "Rain scatters Emus" : the article states that the settlers requested the "post-ponement of the departure of the machine-gun party", which I took to mean that the soldiers were going to retreat from the area due to the rains, but were asked to stay. However, I see since then someone else has interpreted the article in exactly the opposite way, inferring that the settlers asked the miltary to delay the operation. I guess the determining factor here is whether "depart" means "leave on a mission" or "go home". Anyone have thoughts/analysis of the source? Some guy (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right - I didn't realise that there two ways of reading it, but yes, depart could go either way. I never thought of that, but both interpretations make sense in the context of the article. However, I just checked Johnson, and he describes it thus:
 * By early October 1932, all was in readiness for the military offensive when the unexpected happened: heavy rain fell in the interior and the emus temporarily withdrew from the wheat-lands. The respite was only short, however; the birds returned to attack the settlers' crops later the same month. Meredith and his gunners were hastily entrained in Perth on the Kalgoorlie express, alighting at Burracoppin on the morning of 2 November. ( "'Feathered foes': soldier settlers and Western Australia's 'Emu War' of 1932", p. 151).
 * As the Argus article was from October 1932, I'm assuming that it refers to the rain before they departed for Burracoppin. - Bilby (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the Johnson article as well, and I dont't think that section really explains what the soldiers did during the rainy period. They went to Burracoppin when the rain ended, but it's not clear where they were before the rain ended. Some guy (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough. I guess my reading was that they were ready to go, but weren't sent until later that month when the birds returned. Perhaps we need another source clearly stating their deployment? - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, hopefully another source will clear it up. Some guy (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Source of the name "Emu War"
This article suggests that the name "Emu War" is a "satirical name" adopted by the media. Yet Robin et al. write, "He thought the Emu was a scourge to be routed, and that this would make excellent military target practice. Pearce declared an 'emu war'" (2009: 256). It is unclear from the portion of Robin et al. available on Google Books whether Sir George Pearce used the name in 1932 or it was created post-hoc by media commenters. Are other sources clearer on this point? Cnilep (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources which were listed actually state that the name "Emu War" was a satirical name which was adopted by the media. A few have "Emu War" in quotations. However, that means absolutely nothing. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the problem with the use of "satricial"? The Argus article refers to the emu war, both in the title and the body, and other articles use the term as well. So the term was in use in the media at the time. - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with just the terminology of "Emu War". The sources were being cited to support the notion that the name was somehow adopted as a satirical name, though. And none of the sources say that. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem then - would it work better if we just dropped the "satricial"? - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I was thinking. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The majority of sources regarding the "Emu war" place the name in quotes to suggest it is not to be taken entirely literally. You will very rarely see the name of an actual war presented in quotes in this manner. Satire by nature does not usually directly state "I am a satire" - in fact, most effective satire goes to overwhelming lengths to pretend to be serious (Stephen Colbert, Maddox, etc). This book notes the name "Emu war" is ironic but the way the passage is worded would make it a very weak source. Some guy (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Colbert. I'm a big fan. Even with The Colbert Report there are sources which say the show is satirical. Just putting assumptions into an article is original research. It also seems that the person who originally coined the term "Emu War" was Sir George Pearce. Perhaps he was a closet satirist himself? Lt.Specht (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speciescide?
Dr. Dominic Louis Serventy writes in A Handbook of the Birds of Western Australia (with the exception of the Kimberley Division (page 63):

...the affected farmers persuaded the Commonwealth and State Governments to become involved in that bizzare and fantastic interlude, the Emu War of November, 1932. This was an attempt at the mass destruction of the birds with machine guns operated by a military unit. The attempt proved an utter failure. In 1935 the Northampton and neighbouring districts suffered another severe Emu invasion and the Government agreed to pay a bonus of 1/- per head without insisting on corresponding subsidies from the local vermin boards. Altogether 57,034 birds were destroyed.
 * 57,034 birds? This was no ordinary cull. The Oxford Dictionary also defines cull as "reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter", mass destruction fits this? Really? Lt.Specht (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it that you're not familiar with wildlife control on Australian scales then. As an example, it was recently seriously proposed that the Australian Government kill a million camels in Central Australia: and the Kangaroo Industry Association states that permits are granted to kill 1-2 million kangaroos per year: . Emus have always been very common, and 57,000 would be drop in the ocean. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess I wasn't aware of that kind of scale. It just seems a little weird when looking at all the words like "mass destruction", "destroyed", "extermination", etc. Conservationists clearly have a different point of view regarding this "war" (as the conservationists did call it). Lt.Specht (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Specht, from what I've gathered from the article and sources I've read, the military's involvement was not nearly that successful and at most a few thousand birds were killed. The 57,034 bird total was reached through the bounty system that was implemented afterwards. So even if it actually were an unprecendented massacre it wouldn't be accurate to associate it with the military involvement. Some guy (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We're better than texas in australia - when we do things we do it big - just check the WA dimensions to see why we think we have something big about our landmass... - and when it comes to animal pests - we have them in big numbers too SatuSuro 08:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2012 military conflict infobox discussion

 * I've added the infobox for military conflicts for several reasons. First, as stated above, it is the most effective way to present the information given in the article.  However, I agree that stating some things such as an "emu victory" would be inappropriate.  "Australian withdrawal" is both more encyclopedic and more accurately portrays the situation.  I do not think it is appropriate to have an entry for "leaders" on the emu side, as it's completely ridiculous to.  The "strength" side currently says "2 machine guns".  That is fine for now, however, I think that it could be better filled by giving an account of the number of human participants.

I feel like the main issue people take with the infobox is that is says "belligerents". That is fairly acceptable in my opinion, however, would it be possible to change it to 'participants' to better suit the article? I feel that it would be very informative and have not a bit tongue-in-cheekness or satirical undertones without the use of the term "belligerents". I think it is acceptable as is, though.

LusitsBotnet (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you actually think that is a logical argument? "most effective way to present the information given in the article"? Please. Cut out "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", and "casualties", and you have... a regular infobox. The only information different between the current infobox and the military infobox is how many emus died, though the current infobox's link to the Aftermath section is perfectly adequate.
 * You know what actually is the most effective way to summarize the information given in the article? The first two sentences of the article. Drop this childishness. Some guy (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for six months
As the only IP edits to this page are a slow but steady flow of vandalism, I've just semi-protected it for six months. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I went to add a link to Rabbits in Australia to cover the word rabbit in the intro, but you locked the article, so could you add it? It is necessary to explain why rabbits entering a broken fence in Australia are such a problem.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.1.233 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that suggestion; has made this change. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"Military action"
If we're going to avoid phrases like "military action" that suggest this was actually a serious war (and I'm happy to avoid them, I didn't think that wording through when I wrote it) shouldn't we be removing words such as engagement, conflict, and ambush from the article? Some guy (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's tons of sources which use phrases like military action, engagement, conflict, etc. For the sake of maintaining a fair and balanced NPOV we should be sticking to the sources. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You realize that if you use the wording of a biased source, you are perpetuating their POV? Some guy (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The dozens of sources which use the wording are not POV. Some are highly reliable sources published by Cornell University Press and University of Michigan Press. They are also secondary sources, compared to newspapers like "The Argus", one of the only sources which uses words like "cull", and is actually a Primary source. Per WP policy the primary sources should be taken out of the article, until reliable secondary sources can be found for correct interpretation (e.g. "Rain scatters Emus" interpretation problems). Lt.Specht (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Argus, being a newspaper reporting on events they did not actively take part in, is a secondary source. Pearce would be an example of a primary source. You might want to read more about primary and secondary sources. Anyway, you have repeatedly demonstrated you aren't interested in cooperation or taking the article seriously, so we should wait for additional input. Some guy (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks. After doing some quick searches there's tons of reliable sources which define newspapers from the period of the event as a primary source (including WP's cited definition, "an inside view of a particular event..", compared to the definition of a secondary source, "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field..."). A highly prestigious university, Duke University, defines first hand newspaper articles as primary sources. Lt.Specht (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from WP: Gaming the system. That single example of a secondary source from Wikipedia policy doesn't exclude newspapers. The Argus articles aren't an inside view of the event. They are once removed from the subject which fits the definition of secondary source. A newspaper article would be a primary source if written by a field journalist or eyewitness but that does not seem to apply here.Some guy (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be no need to use phrases such as 'military action' for something which plainly wasn't. This was a cull conducted by soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "If we're going to avoid phrases like "military action" that suggest this was actually a serious war (and I'm happy to avoid them, I didn't think that wording through when I wrote it) shouldn't we be removing words such as engagement, conflict, and ambush from the article?" Some guy (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. 'Ambush' is probably OK though, as I think that this is a tactic animal hunters often use. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambush implies some sort of tactical, well thought out approach. You try sneaking up and ambushing a bunch (flock?) of emus! The reality is it was a couple of soldiers with some guns told to do something that they were not really prepared for. Most of the sources used seem to be from sarcastic media sources using military terms in a derisive way and as a juxtaposition to the reality of the matter. If it was just farmers and no military personnel were involved there is no story at all. And just because some media at the time published articles doesn't really make it noteworthy apart from a curiosity to outside observers. Numerous things are mocked on a regular basis in the Australian press but not all of them end up on Wikipedia. Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Further info
Considering this is an encyclopaedic article about a war, shouldn't the actual winners be mentioned? I can see a rough indication of casualties, fair enough, but it should be made clear who was the official victor in the conflict. Mr Poo 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those slippery Emus. Koalorka (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be specifically stated that the emus were victorious, as well as the casualties on both sides (emus 2000, Australians 0) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmuResearch (talk • contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This is EmuResearch's only edit. Some guy (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox proposal
Hi! I was thinking to propose a military-style infobox again for the article. It is copied from the earlier proposal with some tweacks. Here it is, below:

I know that people may argue that the infobox both treats the subject as a war and is a magnet for vandalism, but I disagree with those charges. First of all, here on Wikipedia we pride ourselves in NPOV (Neutral point of view), and if the media at the time reffered to it as a serious war, and if soldiers were actually sent with machine guns to fight these emus, then we should acknowledge that it was a war and exersize NPOV (even though Homo sapiens is the only species reading Wikipedia). Secondly, the article is now protected, meaning that only auto-confirmed users can edit, and those that vandalize can be blocked. That is my opinion.

I will add the military infobox in one week if no one objects to the adding of the military infobox. Gug01 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
 * This wasn't a military conflict, and the infobox is inappropriate. The fact that you're proposing to claim that this was a "tactical emu victory" and claiming that not presenting this as a war somehow isn't a neutral POv makes me wonder about whether you're editing in good faith here. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Personally I consider this proposal close to vandalism. This topic has been discussed at length and rejected for obvious reasons. Anotherclown (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also don't think adding this infobox is a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I won't add the infobox. Gug01 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

two things
This has become my new favorite article and I don't think there's anyway to improve this article, the opening line is perfect with describing the emu scum as "running amok." —   dain -  talk   06:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Emus are not 'scum' - they are a large and relatively rare flightless avian dinosaur (a bird) that mankind intruded upon and then judged it necessary to destroy in large numbers.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing I disagree are the First attempt and Second attempt topics. Those clearly were battles, not attempts. 05:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.169.193 (talk)

Does this need its own entry?
I don't know if this article needs to be separate from Emu, to be honest, or if it needs the Infobox- it just strikes me as some kind of awful parody or "Onion" style entry, even though it isn't. The event wasn't really a "War" in the traditional sense, either. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems sensible to me. This article is nothing but a vandal-magnet and it would be difficult to expand it much beyond its present length. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does it not deserve its own entry? The conflict is valid and genuine. Only Australian apologist revisionism wants this article erased. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What conflict? You can't have a "War" against a flightless bird species, for a start. Look, what happened was back in 1932 the Australian Government sent a couple of blokes with Lewis Guns and a couple of crates of ammo to cull some Emus. They managed to shoot about 12 of them in a fortnight or so, which is an embarrassing result by anyone's standards, but it's not a "War", it's not a "Conflict", and at best (IMHO) it's an amusing incident from nearly 80 years ago that belongs on the Emu page as a testament to the hardiness of the animals and how they were viewed at the time. There's no "Australian apologist revisionism" here- no-one is denying that the event happened and that the Australian Government was presumably embarrassed by the result, but it's not really that notable in the grand scheme of things- certainly not notable enough (again, IMHO) to warrant its own article. Especially not an article that reads like a bad parody. Commander Zulu (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd argue you can't be at war with psychoactive chemicals myself, but the term War on Drugs is an accepted term. --219.89.83.234 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the sources in external links seem to refer to this incident as a "conflict" and "war". I don't see why it should not be referred to as such. Additional sources would need to be found to say otherwise. However, it seems that the prejudiced revisionism wins either way due to unexplained sourced statement removal. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about with regards to "unexplained sourced statement removal"- I haven't removed anything and I understand that there's an editor facing a week long block for some sort of edit warring. My concern is that this is not a particularly notable incident- the only "official" reference in the article is from the National Library of Australia, which cites over 300 Emus killed and describes the incident as an "attack" (cull), not a "War" or "Conflict". Blogs are not reliable sources, and the other websites don't (IMHO) appear much better, with the exception of the NLA link. Now, 300 Emus killed is a lot more impressive than 12 (still not a lot, given two machine-guns and lots of time and ammo, but even so) and my reading of the source material is that the event was basically an unsuccessful cull that got picked up on by a local newspaper during a slow news day in late 1932. There's no revisionism here. Most Australians have probably never heard of the incident, and giving the incident its own article and trying to pretend it was an actual "War" or "Conflict" is just silly. Let me re-iterate that no-one wants to pretend this never happened and make it all vanish. The plan is to move it to the Emu article, where presumably even more people will see it. I just honestly don't think it really deserves its own article, especially not one that- as I've said- appears to be un-encyclopedic, for want of a better term. Commander Zulu (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay but needs a good rewrite to make it more encyclopaedic and less tongue-in-cheek. Referring to the operation as a war and misplacing it in war categories etc is just being silly. For a start, how about a rename to 1932 Emu cull? –Moondyne 08:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind after playing with this for a while in my sandbox Its non-notable. –Moondyne 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I fail to see how this is notable, given that it only appears to have been picked up as a one-time alleged gaffe by the Australian government and/or armed forces. I imagine hunts like these occur all the time, with a variety of animals, and I fail to see why this is notable enough to warrant it's own article. I'd recommend merging it into emu as an example of the need to cull the animal in Australia, or somesuch. Skinny87 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this to be notable, but if someone felt the need to retain some mention of the incident, perhaps it could be merged to the article on Emus but as it stands it is misleading and to be honest makes Wikipedia look like a joke. To call this incident a war, and to use the military conflict infobox and include emus as belligerents is just being silly. Yes it is funny, but no it should not be included in an encyclopedia. (It may have been colloquially called a war, but clearly it isn't. A war involves two or more groups of human beings. If this stands, are we going to have articles on wars with possums, koalas, kangaroos, sharks, etc? (all of which have been or are subject to 'culls' or 'punitive expeditions'). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. The only reason we're having this discussion is that some editors think that its funny to edit this article to claim that it was a 'strategic emu victory', that the casualties included 'Australian dignity', etc, then harass the editors who revert this nonsense by accusing them of Australian nationalist POV-pushing and don't want to give up their fun. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment the only other article that links to this page is Emu, so it seems logical to put the details of this incident in there. It is an interesting incident and would sit well in the 'Relationship with Humans" heading.  I would probably describe it as an incident or cull, rather than a war though... or at least sub head it The Emu "War" or something like that.  Ranger Steve (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the intro a little and I think it makes the whole article less silly, but if it's still not "worth keeping" maybe we could just throw the tag on it. Some guy (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly you have improved the article, thanks. I feel that perhaps if the conflict infobox and the erroneous categories (certainly Wars involving Australia, but also possibly Military history of Australia) were removed, then maybe (emphasis on maybe) it could be kept. That is my opinion, anyway. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree- the whole thing is so absurd as to be farcical (Emus are not capable of organised resistance, establishing a high command, or engaging in guerrilla warfare for example) and Serventy is clearly writing with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Although Some Guy's edits do improve it, I think we need to lose the infobox and seriously consider merging this IMHO non-notable event into the main Emu article. If Wiki had an article on every "filler" piece run by local newspapers on slow news days, the servers would have overloaded years ago. Really, what encyclopedic purpose does this article serve? Commander Zulu (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually from digging through newspaper archives it seems that there is enough source material to both improve and expand this article enough to keep it. I will try to start adding additional sources and information/corrections tomorrow. Some guy (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm, we're still missing the bigger picture: How is this encyclopedic? There are animal culls all the time here and they get reported on in the newspaper, but they don't get their own articles. Before you rush off and put lots of work into expanding this, let's make sure the consensus is in favour of keeping the article and not merging it. Commander Zulu (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How often are soldiers with machine guns tasked to slaughter hoards of 6-foot-tall birds? The Premiere and the Minister of Defence both supported the event, and it was discussed in the Senate. Adding additional sources and material makes the article more encyclopedic - it's better to expand the article and then decide if there is consensus to keep it. Again, I will do this tomorrow, which is not rushing and is my own endeavor so there's no need for you to worry about how much work I put into it. Some guy (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvements
As many of you will probably notice, I have substantially rewritten the article based on all newspaper sources I could find through the National Library of Australia web newspaper archive. I feel it is much more encyclopedic (and accurate) now and worth maintaining as its own article. Any comments or additions/corrections/etc are welcome. Some guy (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. I'd suggest that the infobox be removed though, as it's not appropriate in this article - as demonstrated by it being frequently targeted by vandals. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I feel that the article has been improved greatly. I also feel that the infobox should be removed and the "Wars involving Australia" category. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is definitely improved, but I've taken the liberty of A) correcting the Americanised spellings, B) removing the infobox, and C) removing the "Wars involving Australia" category, since no-one has objected and they're patently silly in the article anyway. Commander Zulu (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with infobox removal also. –Moondyne 11:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm glad everyone is happy with the changes. Thanks for removing the infobox and category, I don't know why I didn't do that :P . Should we remove the merge and pov templates? Some guy (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. This looks much better and much more worthy of its own article, well done some guy.  It would be nice to get more links to it next - maybe history of Western Australia, or some link from wildlife and nuisance management.  Or even a relation to other nuisance control in Australia like the Rabbit fence.  Ranger Steve (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article still appears far to Australian revisionist. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask in what way you find the culling of birds Australian Revisionist? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority, if not all of sources refer to this as a "war", and that it resulted in an Emu Victory. Instead this is ignored and things like "nuisance wildlife management operation" are put into the article with no factual basis. Emu history is being lost to this revisionism. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most seem to call it an "Emu War", indicating it is a name, not a war in the same sense as the Peninsular War where the words are separated to clarify the name of a war. This is probably because most sources realise this wasn't a war.  As noted above this was neither a war nor a conflict, terms which would imply battle between two opposing forces.  This was not even a battle - there was no organised resistance or strategy on the emus part.  Nor is there an emu history to be lost.  Do they call it a victory, or celebrate it with street parties? Ranger Steve (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hasn't the joke run its course? Some guy (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is basically disruptive editing. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I am dismayed that the Emus are being denied their legacy, their valiant struggle will NEVER be forgotten. Wikipedia proves her systetmic bias yet again. I will disengage now. Koalorka (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the "Australian Lobby" wins this one. One day the The Great Emu War will have its place in history. The decisive victory over Australian Imperialism will always be remembered. Lt.Specht (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and WP:ANI discussion
An Administrators' Noticeboard discussion over the recent block and tangentally the infobox content which provoked it has concluded that treating the article as a military campaign is probably too far into silly / humorous for Wikipedia's normal standards.

While this does not overrule other content decisions, I strongly recommend that anyone who feels that treating this incident as a military campaign / war versus as a wildlife management incident (with humorous military aspects) start an article Requests for Comment here on the talk page and generate a consensus prior to re-inserting the infobox or any other blatantly military-campaign-like content.

The current status of the article - discussing the military involvement and media reactions to the humorous aspects - seems like a good balance to me, personally, but that's just my personal opinion.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you post a link to the ANI report here at the time you made it? Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick. I think someone might have pointed out that a blog is not generally a valid source, unless I'm missing something. Some guy (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Embellishment
Okay yes some people seem to think this is all good fun, let's laugh at the Australians etc - I really don't care, it's not like we spent billions building a wall with another country and left big holes in it but we don't have that sort of vision or for that matter, a land border. But could we at least not embellish the article with references that imply this was some major operation? Lines like:


 * employed soldiers armed with machine guns
 * the troops were deployed
 * After the withdrawal of the military

Sounds kinda impressive and heavy handed. But how many soldiers? Well that's mentioned once - "a pair of soldiers armed with two Lewis Automatic Machine Guns". Not really as impressive. Could we possibly give some greater prominence to the true scale of the "operation"? A couple of blokes in upstate WA plus a CO shooting at some fast moving birds? The article as it stands is far longer than numerous articles are far more important (okay POV acknowledged!) events.

Now I have no problem with the article name - that seems to be what it was called - but it is a sarcastic title given by the media who obviously thought the whole thing was overblown - a little like this article. Personally I think it is far too long for what is a very, very minor episode of (West) Australian history. Ask the average Australian about it and they won't know what you're talking about.

On the upside I will say it is a very well written article. Tigerman2005 (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Who says Australians can't take a joke, eh? This article treads a fine line between describing the wildlife management and the satire around it. The satire was the far more important aspect, from a historical point of view (A ~5% cull of a population in a small area isn't really historically significant) and it treads that line very well. Any sensible reader would surely realise that? Audigex (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * People used to put up the Military conflict infobox as if it was an actual battle so it's a little more serious now. It's an 80-year wildlife management project that went wrong but yeah we use the WP:COMMONNAME even if it's just a jab by a couple of newspapers. Feel free to reword it so that it's clearer that the name is from the media. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "leading the media to adopt the name "Emu War" when referring to the incident" isn't clear enough for you? Some guy (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You're missing my point. As I said, my beef (so to speak) isn't with the article of the name, it's the general treatment of the war/event/wildlife management here. The tone in the prose implies something a lot more heavy duty than the facts would suggest. I'm certainly not proposing changing the article name. The infobox is silly though and I'd suggest deleting that. Do we put one of those together for every duck hunting season? Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure no government's ordered soldiers with machine guns to try and wipe out ducks in an area... And end up in the papers for failing to keep such political promises. Apples and oranges. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. It's notable because of (a) the extreme measure they tried to do and (b) thefailure that came from it. Well at least the press picked it up. It's no different that the hysteria over ebola compared to the millions of deaths that malaria will bring this year, it's the 'man bites dog' story the press lives for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from being good tabloid material, the subject here is really fascinating and informative. I had no idea that emus could be a pest or how difficult wildlife management can be in Australia until finding this article. Some guy (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * At the very least, he has a point with this: "The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units[...]". 86.157.222.94 (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is a quote from an ornithologist and taken from Encyclopedia Brittanica. The article is playing up how it was treated at the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I hadn't thought to check the reference. :) 86.157.222.94 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016
Bintang Amri (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see the section immediately above regarding the use of Infobox military conflict as opposed to Infobox historical event. clpo13(talk) 19:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess this is trending on Reddit yet again. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Cultural references"
Is it worthwhile to create a section for "cultural references" to include this: Scenes from the Emu War?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization
To the user who keeps wrongly capitalizing the word "emu" in this article - stop it. This is the English - not German - Wikipedia. In English nouns are only capitalized when they are proper nouns or the first word of a sentence. --Centauri 23:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. You also capitalise in a range of other circumstances. For example, the first letter of a scientific genus name is always captialised (and the first letter of a specific name never capitalised). Of more relevance to our discussion here, the common name of a species is always capitalised, so as to indicate that this is a particular exact species we are talking about. So, for example, you write Black Rat if you mean Rattus rattus but write black rat if you mean a dark-coloured rat of unspecified species. A little egret could be any of many smaller birds in the heron family (egrets are a form of heron), but a Little Egret is Egretta garzetta and no other.
 * Note, however, that a group of species is not capitalised - so we write wombat (because there are 3 species) or kangaroo (because there are 3 to 5 different species). Similarly with egrets, rats and herons above. "Emu" can be tricky, as the word "emu" has two distinct meaninmgs - it is both the group name and the name of one of the species within the group. Uncapitalised, "emu" means any of the several emu species (all bar one of them now extinct) - it is the name of the group; capitalised, it means Dromaius novaehollandiae, and not Dromaius baudinianus the Kangaroo Island Emu or Dromaius Ater the King Island Emu.


 * Follow? Tannin 01:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Scientific and unique names are proper nouns and should be capitalized, as I have already stated above. Generic descriptions of animals are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. See my post on the Emu talk page for further detail.--Centauri 01:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do believe two people were killed in              "The Emu War"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.181.244 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016
Use the Military conflict infobox?


 * I take it that you're coming here from Reddit? This has been discussed previously, with the consensus being that that infobox is inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Managing emu
The article never explains why it was (and perhaps is) difficult to manage the emu. The emu article says "Once common on the east coast of Australia, emus are now uncommon there" but does not explain if perhaps while emu may have won the battles of 1932 that humans won the war. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Add a battle-header
In the norwegian wiki, they've put a table that basically treats this the same way as any other battle or war on wikipedia. Why can't we have something like that here? "Emu's vs Australia".

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu-krigen

--2001:4646:18D3:0:8434:303B:C136:D8E1 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We have decided to not do that here - please see the previous discussions. This was not a battle or war. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Include identities of the soldiers?
Should the names of the pair of soldiers that Meredith commanded be added to the article? According to this newspaper article their names were Sgt. S. McMurray and gunner J. O'Halloran, both of the R.A.G.A in Fremantle.

There is a possibility that J. O'Halloran is actually John Alexander O'Halloran and S. McMurray is Sam McMurray but I haven't found anything to back this up outside of original research. Lemunz (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2017
change Emu victory to decisive Emu victory Jordanirving (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 14:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed there was no consensus for the original change from "Failure" to "Emu victory" either . Wikipedia is not the place for jokes no matter how harmless or "tongue in check" you might think they are. Anotherclown (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Outcome
Can you aussies stop dancing around the subject and just meme yourselves? If we are going to call it a war, there should be a war info box. -Bryce, History nerd (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the previous discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017
In Outcome, change failure to Emu victory SolFooooo (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That would not be an improvement, per the previous discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018
109.103.189.242 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Decisive Emu Victory
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per above. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

outcome
it shouldn't say "failure", it should say "decisive Emu Victory". this was a victory for the Emu species in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fm010il (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No that would of course be nonsense. Anotherclown (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support It seems quite clear to me that an army of unarmed voluntary avian underdogs overwhelmed colonists in a war of attrition by eating all their food and spoiling their crops. Pretending like these aren't belligerents in a conflict seems speciest and unfair to the those who participated in the rebellion, especially having suffered loses to the extent of 20,000 fallen comrades. I would like to see this wording reformed as suggested. Evan Carroll (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your change to the infobox regarding the result of this event, can you please discuss why you believe "Emu victory" is more appropriate than "Failure"? Continuing to revert multiple editors who disagree with you is not constructive, however, if you can provide good reasons for the change you may be able to establish consensus. My concern with your edit is that it is too tongue-in-cheek, and is therefore inappropriate humour. In my opinion, "failure" is more appropriate as it summarises the result of a wildlife management operation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * *Sigh* I really don't want be spending my time on editing right now, I've merged the two recent discussions as they are about the exact same thing even if this may not strictly be in line with policy. I have already outlined my reasons in my edit summaries and on my talk page, as this military operation is widely reported as being a war, I believe that it is against WP:NPOV to use "failure" as an outcome, as this is biased against the emus, bearing in mind this war was controversial at the time. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse. As I pointed out earlier the the original editor introducing the change and reverting edits is  I just threw my support in. Although I will admit admit that the humorous nature of this fact is precisely what originally drew me to become involved here. Mainline421 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I do not agree that treating this as a failed wildlife management operation represents a non neutral point of view, indeed I would argue the opposite. Treating emus as a belligerent in a conflict seems like a WP:FRINGE theory to me. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It may be called a war, but it that's just an interesting public name for an unusual wildlife control program. As there was no war, there could be no victor. Just a failure to successfully control the wildlife population. - Bilby (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose changing this to “Emu Victory”. Regardless of the popular name of this event, it was quite obviously in no way a “war”. Even if warfare itself may take a multitude of forms, it inherently involves the interests of human actors. To the best of my knowledge there is no sensible, reliable source that considers this a war in the literal sense of that word. As such changing the outcome of what is clearly stated to be a wildlife management operation to “Emu Victory” is not just “tongue in check” but blatantly false. Whilst Wikipedia has many flaws it strives to be an accurate source of information. No policy has been cited by those that wish to change the outcome to “Emu Victory” to justify such nonsense, while equally no references have been advanced to support this position. As best I can tell this seems to be being suggested as some kind of joke, and at worst it might well be considered deliberate disruption (as evidenced by the repeated edit warring of those that wish to change this ,,,,, , and the refusal to actually attempt to provide a reasoned argument for their stated position and thereby develop consensus in good faith. There are numerous issues with ’s statement above. They write:
 * "WP:NPOV to use "failure" as an outcome, as this is biased against the emus". The implication that somehow the Emus constituted an organised and intelligent group, with its own articulated views and interests, that was capable of co-ordinated action and rational thought beyond basic animal instinct is WP:FRINGE and deserves no weight at all. It is also a misapplication of NPOV which actually requires representing “all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources .” What reliable sources state that this was an “Emu Victory”? Any source that used such an obvious falsehood would only be doing so in the context of a joke and as such would inherently be unreliable.
 * “WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse.” This is of course irrelevant in this context, and seems like an attempt to skirt the issue. You are the one that wishes to change something in the article by including the claim this was an “Emu Victory”, and therefore you need to WP:PROVIT with references.
 * “Although I will admit that the humorous nature of this fact is precisely what originally drew me to become involved here...” This is the real reason for you advancing this position, as a joke. Essentially you think its funny and WP:LIKEIT. Yet this goes to the heart of what What Wikipedia is not. We are not a joke site or someone’s personal blog.

That said if you are somehow genuine in your belief that “Emu Victory” is an accurate description of the outcome then you will need to justify it and get other editor's agreement. Perhaps the best way to do that is to get a wider range of editors involved by starting an WP:RFC and advertising it on the relevant Wikiprojects? (Although some might consider even that to be disruptive and a waste of the community’s time). Anotherclown (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Further to this please be aware of the restrictions on "humorous" edits as provided by Disruptive editing, which specifically states: "all edits that are intended to be humorous should be kept out of the article namespace and be tagged with (or equivalent template, such as the inline  or  ) to avoid misleading users". Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It scarcely needs to be said, but Anotherclown and AustralianRupert (and others) are quite right. Just because this event has the common name of a "war" doesn't mean it was actually a war (which we define as "an armed conflict between societies", clearly not the case here), any more than, for example, the history wars. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
So, obviously at this point we need to discuss what would be an acceptable infobox. The last one seemed pretty good to me, as it doesn't suggest this was a legitimate military conflict. Everyone please throw your hat about what you would like to see in an infobox (or lack of infobox) in so we can decisively solve this issue. Some guy (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the historical event infobox works out best, and doesn't contain any disputable or objectionable things. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the historical event one, but the problem in the past wasn't that the infobox was necessarily a bad idea, but that it was a magnet for edit warring and vandalism. I'm happy to see it tried again, though. - Bilby (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I designed an alternative version of the infobox (on the right). =) J I P  &#124; Talk 10:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous concensus was not to use the military conflict infobox in this article. At best I'd support the nondescript historical event infobox, but not the military conflict infobox. Using the military conflict infobox is too tongue in cheek, IMO, and makes the encyclopedia look less than serious. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, even Wikipedia runs the risk of taking itself a little too seriously at times. That said, I think this article finds a good balance of not over-serious-ing something that was in essence satire, but also of not making into too much of a joke Audigex (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why an infobox is needed, but the historical event one currently in the article is OK. As AustralianRupert notes, the military infobox has been discussed previously and is clearly unsuitable. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I put it here first before putting it into the article, so as not to change the infobox without discussing it here first. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also feel the conflict infobox is much too silly for the article; the historical event one seems fine. The article doesn't really need an infobox but it doesn't hurt and I'm so used to nearly every article having one I think we might as well use the historical one. Some guy (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit the infobox but someone reverted it back. I will revert my edits if no one else complains. I simply added the number of emus they were trying to kill (2000) and the number of emus they managed to kill (~1000) before they left (withdrew) which I think is something that most people would want to know right off the bat when looking at this article. The "results" pointing to "aftermath" is inaccurate because aftermath isnt the same thing as results. In fact in the infobox, the date given for this historical event are not the same as the events discussed in aftermath Absolutezero273 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been lots of discussions of this topic, and the consensus has been to not present this as a military conflict. Your addition of the nonsensical "Australian withdrawal" in the infobox and numbers of emus seems to go against this consensus. I've just reverted you, but am happy to discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I thoughtthe discussion was about using a military conflict infobox. Im happy to take out the "australian withdrawal" part.  I just know that when I ran into this article, the number of emus present and killed was something that seemed to be important enough to summarize and present in the infobox.  Absolutezero273 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I oppose the change as it's treading too close to silly. The infobox is fine how it is. Some guy (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Military info box inclusion. It gives more information more concisely than the other format of infobox. The fact that it is a clever application to an unexpected use of the word "war" should not be a reason to avoid presenting it if it is the clearest way to convey the most important information to the reader, which it is.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Military info box inclusion. The Title of the Article DOES say Emu War.  The pun intended improves what would otherwise be a mundane page IMHO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.2.179 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP only has two edits and should be considered a sock puppet. Bluerasberry, the military infobox is misleading, as it implies this was more of a full military operation than it was; the number of Emus and the number of casualties is not "the most important information", nor is it appropriate to call the Emus belligerents or imply they had commanders and leaders. Some guy (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not cool to call an IP a sock without giving a rationale, especially when the comment is constructive and serious. I came here from another website and probably that person followed the same link.
 * I do not think anyone would see the box and misunderstand anything or be misled. The box is the most efficient way to convey what happened, and if that field is the major concern, then the "leaders" section could be changed to "no leader". I do not know the difference between a "full military operation" and a "military operation" but what happened was an official recorded military function under the command of named official who directed a named artillery division, and the sources refer to the event as a war. I oppose making a judgement call that in contemporary times this would not be classified as a war when it was notable and reported using that term when it happened. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it's "cool", that is appropriate. "I came here from another website and probably that person followed the same link" is practically the definition of a sock (well, perhaps more accurately a meatpuppet). Common sense clearly dictates that the event was not an actual war, it's tongue in cheek humor. This was for all intents and purposes a wildlife control operation, and doesn't deserve to be called a military conflict any more than a training operation; would you think it was appropriate to have a military infobox for a shooting range, with participants "soldiers and paper targets" and casualties "ten thousand paper targets"? The important information is properly conveyed by the existing infobox. Some guy (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I still disagree.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   00:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI the image is trending on reddit --George Spurlin (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up George. Some guy (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That helps explain the massive surge in page views, and vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is going to damage my ability to nominate the best Australian article no one reads at the next Wiki meet-up. Last time this one gave me the win. Otherwise, it is good that it is being read, and the comments there seemed positive and enjoyable. - Bilby (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for two days to stop the persistent vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I support the use of 'Infobox military conflict' because it adequately sums up the loses incurred by the Emu army in a form consistent with Wikpedia conventions. Evan Carroll (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
A conflict between chimpanzees has a relevant infobox but not one that actually involved armed forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.117.163 (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. The Linked article even says 'Decisive Kasakela victory', which seems dangerously close to (perhaps inspired by by?) 'decisive Emu victory'. Seems bizarre and vaguely NPOV-violating to treat one as a 'war' but the other as an 'event'. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2018
The article said australia instead of oceania 204.232.80.162 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox battle format
Can we change the current infobox so that it is in the battle format? GeistHunt (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. That was rejected by editors a long time ago. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019
Please change the infobox and aftermath information on the outcome of the Emu War to how the cull was (at least partly) successful as the source provided explains how "although on the last occasion their destruction by soldiers with machine guns was criticised in many quarters, the method proved effective and saved what remained of the wheat'.

source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217998228?searchTerm=emu%20war%20effective&searchLimits= Ytypy (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add to the information in the aftermath section regarding the outcome of the operation, that it was reported to have been “effective saved what remained of the wheat” based on the source provided above. Ytypy (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019
please add to the article that the cull was reported to have been of some succes based on the source provided.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217998228?searchTerm=emu%20war%20effective&searchLimits= Ytypy (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, I had a go at this. This diff shows the change I made: . Can you please confirm if this is what you were wanting added? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020
Change "Major G. P. W. Meredith" to "Major C. W. P. Meredith". All mentions of him in "The Sunday Herald" newspaper name him as Major C. W. P Meredith. Bungel (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing other sources saying that – Thjarkur (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A war is a war
This page should have a Campaignbox. Grassynoel (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed, seems uncontroversial to me despite the scary warning in the page source. Roland Crosby (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I presume that you've seen a screenshot of the the funny military battle infobox that used to be in this article somewhere on the internet and want to bring it back for the lulz? The current infobox is the result of an extensive discussion of this issue a few years ago. This (very obviously) wasn't a military conflict. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per Nick-D. None of the additional line items in the military infoboxes would make sense in the context of this article. The existing infobox is fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * G'day, I agree with Nick and Euryalus, the existing infobox is fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Emu War/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Emu War/Archive 1. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Cor tex 128  17:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

War or not?
There really needs to be a thread for this. The general consensus seems to be that this wasnt a war or a genuine conflict. Thats highly debatable. Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the archives, its been debated to death. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
Hello, would it be possible to add “Emu victory” or “Emu ‘victory’” to the ‘Outcome’ part of the summary? 2001:8003:857A:6200:885D:2254:50D8:9DF4 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, if you read the talk page archive - the archive bit in the beige boxes above - you'll see that this has been discussed and a consensus reached not to be silly and conflate this as any kind of conflict. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does that, a silly conflation, starting with the infobox. I've proposed that it be removed, it was suggested I had no sense of humour. ~ cygnis insignis 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I want to add a mention of The Great Tribble Hunt... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Coolgardie Miners
In the "second attempt" section, the Coolgardie Miner is mentioned. It's probably worth it to link to the Wiki page for it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolgardie_Miner. The article is semi-protected, and I don't know enough to do it myself even if I could, so if someone could do that that would be great, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.106.132 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Done - makes sense to do so; if anyone disagrees rabidly then by all means undo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021
In the infobox, please change "Outcome: Failure. See (Aftermath)" to "Result: Emu victory. See (Aftermath)"

This brings it in-line with other war pages like WW2, is obviously a lot more informative, and very very funny Soulus98 (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2021
This is fake I have a friend who is historian he has no records about this. 110.174.94.109 (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

 * 2601:603:1181:330:0:0:0:538B (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the film already has a mention at the end of the page, however, Wikipedia is rightly skeptical of films "in development". Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sng Pal (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Change infobox to Military Conflict
Can we please change the infobox to military conflict? Since it appears more proper that way as because this was an actual military conflict as the first line of the article says. There was armed involvement and this particular topic also garnered much international attention and was discussed in the Senate too.


 * There have been various replies to this "request" in the past. Some time ago I wrote, "if you read the talk page archive - the archive bit in the beige boxes above - you'll see that this has been discussed and a consensus reached not to be silly and conflate this as any kind of conflict". On reflection I rather prefer Nick-D's most recent reply to a similar request. It was very short and consisted of two letters. For reasons that reading the archive will make clear. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above. It was not a military conflict. It doesn't need a military conflict infobox. See also archives of this talkpage where this has been discussed many times before. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the silly infobox hasn't been in the article for many years now (close to a decade, I suspect), this must be a meme that gets repeated on various websites. Restoring the infobox is vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could include on this talk page a permanent link to one of the military infobox revisions, to satisfy anyone looking to relive the joke? I know I just spent 5 minutes looking through the history to find such a page. Something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emu_War&oldid=745808065 Might cut down on the amount of vandalism if people see some respect being given to this old gag. --Evan Dec 16 2021

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mccormickct.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And then what happened?
The last paragraph of the section Aftermath is as follows:

"In November 1950, Hugh Leslie raised the issues of emus in federal parliament and urged Army Minister Josiah Francis to release a quantity of .303 ammunition from the army for the use of farmers. The minister approved the release of 500,000 rounds of ammunition."

This is only the beginning of something. It needs some follow-up editing to say what happened with the 500,000 rounds of ammunition.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this event will fill readers in as to what happened next. 2601:200:C000:1A0:44DE:EE4C:BC1:30D5 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

War outcome
The page has flipped back and fourth in the information card at the start of the page regarding the outcome. It once was written that the war was a failure. This was reverted. It was also written that the was was an emu victory. This was reverted.

The outcome currently isn’t descriptive for someone reading the page at a glance. There should be something written in the card. Patate324 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to provide a suitably neutral summary ('Minimal impact on the overall emu population'), and also noted the claimed casualty figures from the operation. However, the actual overall situation was more complex than a simple 'the emus won'/'failure'. After all, although the Australian Military withdrew on 8/11/1932, the operation was resumed two days later at the request of the government of Western Australia; further military intervention was requested by the local farmers in 1934, 1943, and 1948; and, as reported by the Coolgardie Miner on 23/8/1935, . If this war was universally deemed as a total unmitigated omnishambles (or as a 'decisive emu victory'), chances are that these requests for further military intervention would have never been made (as the requesters would probably just anticipate further failures if this was the case).
 * But, because of the full complexity of the situation and subjectivity of the outcome, perhaps 'See aftermath' might end up being the most descriptive infobox-friendly way of describing the outcome possible, without delving into 'haha funni birb beat military'. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 16:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

A major name
Major GPW Meredith's name is Gwynydd Purves Wynne-Aubrey Meredith AWMWinters (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWMWinters (talk • contribs) 12:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This one: ? (I mean, I don't suppose there are two people with that name!) Sam Wilson 02:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Samwilson yes thats the one. he served from before The First World War and served up to the Korean War 58.178.81.30 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * yep, that's him I spent way to long chronicling his military career, and he is the only person in Australia in the Permanent Military Force who was in Western Australia as part of the 7th Heavy Battery at the time this occurred. He actually served before the First World War and through the Second World War. He would end up being a Brigadier General in the US Army in the Korean War AWMWinters (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he should have an article! :-) I started his Wikidata item; I'm sure there's more that could be added. Sam Wilson 10:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * he probably does, as his career extended well beyond this operation, and by all accounts was completely unphased by it. the only reason why i went into a deep dive about him was that in every instance of telling this event he wasn't given a name.
 * so what should I do to flesh him out some more?
 * AWMWinters (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's some info I found, huge file at NAA
 * NAA B883, QX41376
 * MEREDITH GWYNYDD PURVES WYNNE - AUBREY :
 * Service Number - QX41376 :
 * Date of birth - 19 Apr 1887 :
 * Place of birth - SWANSEA TAS :
 * Place of enlistment - TOWNSVILLE QLD :
 * Next of Kin - MEREDITH GWENDOLINE
 * Birth Date - 19 Apr 1887
 * Birthplace - Glamorgan District, Tasmania, Australia
 * Father's Name - George Llewellyn Meredith
 * Mother's Name - Maclean Alicia Louisa Meredith 49.179.44.233 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed, his career spans 47 odd years
 * DocWinters (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Bring back Decisive Emu Victory
The Emus deserve credit for their efforts. 2605:A601:A0DD:5B00:F9CC:4A76:3294:39E6 (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The emus won. Why can't that be acknowledged here? PsychologicalAirport226 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See . 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"Legacy"
This movie keeps getting delayed forward, is it ever gonna release at this point? I can't remember hearing anything about it anywhere at all, I feel like it can be removed at this point, for it also serves no purpose to the article. Perhaps it can be re-added again if it actually releases? 2001:1C07:10E:200:7C14:E314:9EF7:964F (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Outcome"
Could be simplified to 'Decisive Emu victory' with a note to refer to the 'Aftermath' section for ruther detail. Loser1k (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we don't include vandalism in articles like that. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)