text:
Australia national cricket team

The Australia men's national cricket team represents Australia in men's international cricket. As the joint oldest team in Test cricket history, playing in the first ever Test match in 1877, the team also plays One-Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 International (T20I) cricket, participating in both the first ODI, against England in the 1970–71 season and the first T20I, against New Zealand in the 2004–05 season, winning both games. The team draws its players from teams playing in the Australian domestic competitions – the Sheffield Shield, the Australian domestic limited-overs cricket tournament and the Big Bash League. Australia are the current ICC World Test Championship and ICC Cricket World Cup champions. They are regarded as most successful cricket teams in the history of Cricket.

The national team has played 866 Test matches, winning 414, losing 232, 218 draw and 2 Tie. , Australia is ranked first in the ICC Test Championship on 128 rating points. Australia is the most successful team in Test cricket history, in terms of overall wins, win–loss ratio and wins percentage. Australia have won the ICC World Test Championship once, defeating India in 2023.

Test rivalries include The Ashes (with England), the Border–Gavaskar Trophy (with India), the Frank Worrell Trophy (with the West Indies), the Trans-Tasman Trophy (with New Zealand), and with South Africa.

The team has played 1,000 ODI matches, winning 609, losing 348, tying 9 and with 34 ending in a no-result. , Australia is ranked third in the ICC ODI Championship on 107 rating points, though have been ranked first for 141 of 185 months since its introduction in 2002. Australia is one of the most successful team in ODI cricket history, winning more than 60 per cent of their matches, with a record eight World Cup final appearances (1975, 1987, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015 and 2023) and have won the World Cup a record six times: 1987, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015 and 2023. Australia is the first (and only) team to appear in four consecutive World Cup finals (1996, 1999, 2003 and 2007), surpassing the old record of three consecutive World Cup appearances by the West Indies (1975, 1979 and 1983) and the first and only team to win 3 consecutive World Cups (1999, 2003 and 2007). The team was undefeated in 34 consecutive World Cup matches until the 2011 Cricket World Cup where Pakistan beat them by 4 wickets in the Group stage. It is also the second team to win a World Cup (2015) on home soil, after India (2011). Australia have also won the ICC Champions Trophy twice (2006 and 2009) making them the first and the only team to become back to back winners in the Champions Trophy tournaments.

The national team has played 195 Twenty20 International matches, winning 105, losing 83, tying 3 and with 4 ending in a no-result. , Australia is ranked fifth in the ICC T20I Championship on 251 rating points. Australia have won the ICC Men's T20 World Cup once, defeating New Zealand in the 2021 Final.

On 12 January 2019, Australia won the first ODI against India at the Sydney Cricket Ground by 34 runs, to record their 1,000th win in international cricket.

Australia are the reigning World Test Champions and World Cup Champions, winning both titles in 2023, the former against India at The Oval in London and the latter at the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad, also against India.

Early history
The Australian cricket team participated in the first Test match at the MCG in 1877, when defeating an English team by 45 runs, allowed Charles Bannerman to make the first Test century, a score of 165, allowing the team to win. retired hurt. Test cricket, which only occurred between Australia and England at the time, was limited by the long distance between the two countries, which would take several months by sea. Despite Australia's much smaller population, the team was very competitive in early games, producing stars such as Jack Blackham, Billy Murdoch, Fred "The Demon" Spofforth, George Bonnor, Percy McDonnell, George Giffen and Charles "The Terror" Turner. Most cricketers at the time were either from New South Wales or Victoria, with the notable exception of George Giffen, the star South Australian all-rounder.

One of the highlights of Australia's early history was the 1882 Test match against England, which began at The Oval. In this match, Fred Spofforth took 7/44 in the game's fourth innings, saving the match by preventing England from making their 85-run target.

After this match, The Sporting Times, a major newspaper in London at the time, printed a mock obituary in which the death of English cricket was proclaimed and the announcement made that "the body was cremated and the ashes taken to Australia."

The major newspaper was also the start of the famous Ashes series in which Australia and England play a series of Test matches to decide the holder of the Ashes. To this day, the contest is one of the fiercest rivalries in sport.

Golden age
The 'Golden Age' of Australian Test cricket occurred around the end of the 19th century, concluding to the beginning of the 20th century with the team under the captaincy of Joe Darling, Monty Noble and Clem Hill, winning eight of ten tours. It is considered to have lasted from the 1897–98 English tour of Australia and the 1910–11 South African tour of Australia.

Outstanding batsmen such as Joe Darling, Clem Hill, and Reggie Duff, all helped Australia to become the dominant cricketing nation for most of this period.

Victor Trumper became one of Australia's first sporting heroes, who was widely considered Australia's greatest batsman before Bradman became one of the most popular players. He played a record (at the time) of a number of Tests at 49, and scored 3163 runs at a high for the time average of 39.04. He died in 1915 at the age of 37 from kidney disease, causing national mourning. The Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, in its obituary for him, called him Australia's greatest batsman: "Of all the great Australian batsmen Victor Trumper was by general consent the best and most brilliant."

The years leading up to the start of World War was marred by conflict between the players, led by Clem Hill, Victor Trumper and Frank Laver, the Australian Board of Control for International Cricket, led by Peter McAlister, who was attempting to gain more control of tours from the players.

This led to six leading players (the so-called "Big Six") walking out on the 1912 Triangular Tournament in England, with Australia fielding what was generally considered a second-rate side. This was the last series before the war, and no more cricket was played by Australia for eight years; Tibby Cotter was killed in Palestine during the war.

Inter-war period
Test cricket resumed in the 1920/21 season in Australia with a touring English team captained by Johnny Douglas losing all five Tests to Australia, captained by the "Big Ship" Warwick Armstrong. Several players from before the war, including Warwick Armstrong, Charlie Macartney, Charles Kelleway, Warren Bardsley and the wicket-keeper Sammy Carter, were instrumental in the team's success, as well as new players Herbie Collins, Jack Ryder, Bert Oldfield, the spinner Arthur Mailey and the so-called "twin destroyers" Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald. The team continued its success on the 1921 tour of England, winning three out of the five Tests in Warwick Armstrong's last series. The side was, on the whole, inconsistent in the latter half of the 1920s, losing its first home Ashes series since the 1911–12 season in 1928–29.

Bradman era
The 1930 tour of England heralded a new age of success for the Australian team. The team, led by Bill Woodfull – the "Great Un-bowlable" – featured legends of the game including Bill Ponsford, Stan McCabe, Clarrie Grimmett and the young pair of Archie Jackson and Don Bradman. Bradman was the outstanding batsman of the series, scoring a record 974 runs, including one century, two double centuries and one triple century, a massive score of 334 at Leeds which including 309 runs in a day. Jackson died of tuberculosis at the age of 23 three years later, after playing eight Tests. The team was widely considered unstoppable, winning nine of its next ten Tests.

The 1932–33 England tour of Australia is considered one of the most infamous episodes of cricket, due to the England team's use of bodyline, where captain Douglas Jardine instructed his bowlers Bill Voce and Harold Larwood to bowl fast, short-pitched deliveries aimed at the bodies of the Australian batsmen. The tactic, although effective, was widely considered by Australian crowds as vicious and unsporting. Injuries to Bill Woodfull, who was struck over the heart, and Bert Oldfield, who received a fractured skull (although from a non-bodyline ball), exacerbated the situation, almost causing a full-scale riot from the 50 000 fans at the Adelaide Oval for the third Test. The conflict almost escalated into a diplomatic incident between the two countries, as leading Australian political figures, including the Governor of South Australia, Alexander Hore-Ruthven, protested to their English counterparts. The series ended in a 4–1 win for England but the bodyline tactics used were banned the year after.

The Australian team put the result of this series behind them, winning their next tour of England in 1934. The team was led by Bill Woodfull on his final tour and was notably dominated by Ponsford and Bradman, who twice put on partnerships of over 380 runs, with Bradman once again scoring a triple century at Leeds. The bowling was dominated by the spin pair of Bill O'Reilly and Clarrie Grimmett, who took 53 wickets between them, with O'Reilly twice taking seven-wicket hauls.

Sir Donald Bradman is widely considered the greatest batsman of all time. He dominated the sport from 1930 until his retirement in 1948, setting new records for the highest score in a Test innings (334 vs England at Headingley in 1930), the most runs (6996), the most centuries (29), the most double centuries and the highest Test and first-class batting averages. His record for the highest Test batting average – 99.94 – has never been beaten. It is almost 40 runs per innings above the next highest average. He would have finished with an average of over 100 runs per innings if he had not been dismissed for a duck in his last Test. He was knighted in 1949 for services to cricket. He is generally considered one of Australia's all-time greatest sporting heroes, if not the greatest.

Test cricket was again interrupted by war, with the last Test series in 1938 made notable by Len Hutton scoring a world record 364 for England, and with Chuck Fleetwood-Smith conceding 298 runs in England's world record total of 7/903. Ross Gregory, a notable young batsman who played two Tests before the war, was killed in the war.

Post-war era
The team continued its success after the end of the Second World War with the first Test (also Australia's first against New Zealand) being played in the 1945–46 season against New Zealand. Australia was by far the most successful team of the 1940s, being undefeated throughout the decade, winning two Ashes series against England and its first Test series against India. The team capitalised on its ageing stars Bradman, Sid Barnes, Bill Brown and Lindsay Hassett while new talent, including Ian Johnson, Don Tallon, Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey, Bill Johnston and the fast bowling pair of Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller, who all made their debut in the latter half of the 1940s, and were to form the basis of the team for a good part of the next decade. The team that Don Bradman led to England in 1948 gained the moniker The Invincibles, after going through the tour without losing a single game. Of 31 first-class games played during the tour, they won 23 and drew 8, including winning the five-match Test series 4–0 with one draw. The tour was particularly notable for the fourth Test of the series, in which Australia won by seven wickets chasing a target of 404, setting a new record for the highest run chase in Test cricket, with Arthur Morris and Bradman both scoring centuries, as well as for the final Test in the series, Bradman's last, where he finished with a duck in his last innings after needing only four runs to secure a career average of 100.

Australia was less successful in the 1950s, losing three consecutive Ashes series to England, including a horrendous 1956 Tour of England, where the 'spin twins' Laker and Lock destroyed Australia, taking 61 wickets between them, including Laker taking 19 wickets in the game (a first-class record) at Headingley, a game dubbed Laker's Match.

However, the team rebounded to win five consecutive series in the latter half of the 1950s, first under the leadership of Ian Johnson, then Ian Craig and Richie Benaud. The series against the West Indies in the 1960–61 season was notable for the Tied Test in the first game at the Gabba, which was the first in Test cricket. Australia ended up winning the series 2–1 after a hard-fought series that was praised for its excellent standards and sense of fair play. Stand-out players in that series as well as through the early part of the 1960s were Richie Benaud, who took a then-record number of wickets as a leg-spinner and who also captained Australia in 28 Tests, including 24 without defeat; Alan Davidson, who was a notable fast-bowler and also became the first player to take 10 wickets and make 100 runs in the same game in the first Test; Bob Simpson, who also later captained Australia for two different periods of time; Colin McDonald, the first-choice opening batsman for most of the 1950s and early '60s; Norm O'Neill, who made 181 in the Tied Test; Neil Harvey, towards the end of his long career; and Wally Grout, an excellent wicket-keeper who died at the age of 41.

World Series Cricket and Restructuring
The Centenary Test was played in March 1977 at the MCG to celebrate 100 years since the first Test was played. Australia won the match by 45 runs, an identical result to the first Test match.

In May 1977, Kerry Packer announced he was organising a breakaway competition – World Series Cricket (WSC) – after the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) refused to accept Channel Nine's bid to gain exclusive television rights to Australia's Test matches in 1976. Packer secretly signed leading international cricketers to his competition, including 28 Australians. Almost all of the Australian Test team at the time were signed to WSC – notable exceptions including Gary Cosier, Geoff Dymock, Kim Hughes and Craig Serjeant – and the Australian selectors were forced to pick what was generally considered a third-rate team from players in the Sheffield Shield. Former player Bob Simpson, who had retired 10 years previously after a conflict with the board, was recalled at the age of 41 to captain Australia against India. Jeff Thomson was named deputy in a team that included seven debutants. Australia managed to win the series 3–2, mainly thanks to the batting of Simpson, who scored 539 runs, including two centuries; and the bowling of Wayne Clark, who took 28 wickets. Australia lost the next series 3–1 against the West Indies, which was fielding a full strength team; and also lost the 1978–79 Ashes series 5–1, the team's worst Ashes result in Australia. Graham Yallop was named as captain for the Ashes, with Kim Hughes taking over for the 1979–80 tour of India. Rodney Hogg took 41 wickets in his debut series, an Australian record. WSC players returned to the team for the 1979–80 season after a settlement between the ACB and Kerry Packer. Greg Chappell was reinstated as captain.

The underarm bowling incident of 1981 occurred when, in an ODI against New Zealand, Greg Chappell instructed his brother Trevor to bowl an underarm delivery to New Zealand batsman Brian McKechnie with New Zealand needing a six to tie off the last ball. The aftermath of the incident soured political relations between Australia and New Zealand, with several leading political and cricketing figures calling it "unsportsmanlike" and "not in the spirit of cricket".

Australia continued its success up until the early 1980s, built around the Chappell brothers, Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson and Rod Marsh. The 1980s was a period of relative mediocrity after the turmoil caused by the Rebel Tours of South Africa and the subsequent retirement of several key players. The rebel tours were funded by the South African Cricket Board to compete against its national side, which had been banned—along with many other sports, including Olympic athletes—from competing internationally, due to the South African government's racist apartheid policies. Some of Australia's best players were poached: Graham Yallop, Carl Rackemann, Terry Alderman, Rodney Hogg, Kim Hughes, John Dyson, Greg Shipperd, Steve Rixon and Steve Smith amongst others. These players were handed three-year suspensions by the Australian Cricket Board which greatly weakened the player pool for the national sides, as most were either current representative players or on the verge of gaining honours.

Golden era
The so-called 'Golden Era' of Australian cricket occurred around the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. This was a period in which Australian cricket recovered from the disruption caused by World Series Cricket to create arguably the strongest Test team in history.

Under the captaincy of Allan Border and the new fielding standards put in place by new coach Bob Simpson, the team was restructured and gradually rebuilt their cricketing stocks. Some of the rebel players returned to the national side after serving their suspensions, including Trevor Hohns, Carl Rackemann and Terry Alderman. During these lean years, it was the batsmen Border, David Boon, Dean Jones, the young Steve Waugh and the bowling feats of Alderman, Bruce Reid, Craig McDermott, Merv Hughes and to a lesser extent, Geoff Lawson who kept the Australian side afloat.

With the emergence of players such as Ian Healy, Mark Taylor, Geoff Marsh, Mark Waugh, and Greg Matthews in the late 1980s, Australia was on the way back from the doldrums. Winning the Ashes in 1989, the Australians got a roll on beating Pakistan, Sri Lanka and then followed it up with another Ashes win on home soil in 1991. The Australians went on to the West Indies and had their chances but ended up losing the series. However, they bounced back and beat the Indians in their next Test series; with the retirement of the champion but defensive Allan Border, a new era of attacking cricket had begun under the leadership of firstly Mark Taylor and then Steve Waugh.

The 1990s and early 21st century were arguably Australia's most successful periods, unbeaten in all Ashes series played bar the famous 2005 series and achieving a hat-trick of World Cups. This success has been attributed to the restructuring of the team and system by Border, successive aggressive captains, and the effectiveness of several key players, most notably Glenn McGrath, Shane Warne, Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden, Steve Waugh, Adam Gilchrist, Michael Hussey and Ricky Ponting.

21st century
Following the 2006–07 Ashes series which Australia won 5 nil, Australia slipped in the rankings after the retirements of key players. In the 2013/14 Ashes series, Australia again defeated England 5 nil and climbed back to third in the ICC International Test rankings. In February/March 2014, Australia beat South Africa, the number 1 team in the world, 2–1 and overtook them to return to the top of the rankings. In 2015, Australia won the World Cup, losing just one game for the tournament.

, Australia are ranked first in the ICC Test Championship, fourth in the ICC ODI Championship and second in the ICC T20I Championship.

2018 ball-tampering incident
On 25 March 2018, during the third Test match against hosts South Africa; players Cameron Bancroft, Steve Smith, David Warner and the leadership group of the team were implicated in a ball tampering scandal. Smith and Bancroft admitted to conspiring to alter the condition of the ball by rubbing it with a piece of adhesive tape containing abrasive granules picked up from the ground (it was later revealed that sandpaper was used). Smith stated that the purpose was to gain an advantage by unlawfully changing the ball's surface in order to generate reverse swing. Bancroft had been filmed tampering with the ball and, after being informed he had been caught, he was seen to transfer a yellow object from a pocket to the inside front of his trousers to hide the evidence. Steve Smith and David Warner were stood down as captain and vice-captain during the third Test while head coach, Darren Lehmann was suspected to have assisted Cameron Bancroft to tamper the ball. The ICC imposed a one-match ban and 100%-match-fee fine on Smith, while Bancroft was fined 75 percent of his match fee and received 3 demerit points. Smith and Warner were both stripped of their captaincy roles by Cricket Australia and sent home from the tour (along with Bancroft). Tim Paine was appointed as captain for the fourth Test. Cricket Australia then suspended Smith and Warner from playing for 12 months and Bancroft for 9 months. Smith and Bancroft could not be considered for leadership roles for 12 months after the suspension, while Warner is banned from leadership of any Cricket Australia team for life. In the aftermath of these events, Darren Lehmann announced his resignation as head coach at the end of the series, with Justin Langer replacing him. On 8 May 2018, Tim Paine was also named as the ODI captain while Aaron Finch was reinstated as T20I captain hours later, although Finch replaced Paine as the ODI captain after the 5–0 ODI series whitewash in England in June 2018.

October 2018–present
On 7 October 2018, Australia played their first Test match under new coach Justin Langer and a new leadership group, which included Tim Paine as Australia's 46th Test captain. After a 1–0 loss to Pakistan in a two match Test series against Pakistan in the UAE and a 2–1 defeat against India in a four match Test series, they found success against Sri Lanka, winning the two Test match series 2–0.

In 2019, Australia played in the Cricket World Cup, where they finished second in the group stage before being knocked out by England at Edgbaston in the semi-final. Australia later went on to retain the Ashes during the 2019 Ashes series, the first time on English soil since 2001, by winning the fourth Test at Old Trafford.

In 2020–21, Australia hosted India for 3 ODIs, 3 T20Is, and 4 Tests. They won the ODI series 2–1, but lost the T20I series 2–1. Then, the two teams competed for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy which saw one of the greatest overseas Test triumphs by India in the 4th Test to win the series 2–1, with the 3rd Test being drawn.

In 2021, Australia named a 15-member squad for the upcoming T20 World Cup with regular limited overs captain Aaron Finch leading the side. In finals, they would face their trans-Tasman rivals New Zealand and win the match to claim their maiden T20 World Cup Trophy.

On 19 November 2021, Tim Paine resigned from the captaincy due to off-the-field misconduct, and was replaced by Pat Cummins, who became Australia's 47th Test captain, with Steve Smith named as his deputy. Under Pat Cummins, Australia retained 2021-22 Ashes at home by winning the series 4-0.

Australia then toured Pakistan in March 2022 for the first time since 1998 to play 3 test matches and 3 ODIs and one-off T20. Australia won all the series. Australia failed to advance to knockouts in 2022 T20 World Cup. Australia's white ball captain Finch retired from international cricket. Afterwards, Pat Cummins was made ODI captain.

2023 was a memorable year for Australia where they won their maiden ICC World Test Championship title (which made them the first team in history to win all major ICC Trophies across all formats), and retained the Ashes. In November, they won the World Cup for the 6th time, defeating the host India in the final.

International grounds
Australia currently plays International cricket at each of the following grounds:

Team colours
For Test matches, the team wears cricket whites, with an optional sweater or sweater-vest, with a green and gold V-neck for use in cold weather. The sponsor's (currently Toyota for home matches and Qantas for away matches) logo is displayed on the right side of the chest while the Cricket Australia emblem is displayed on the left. If the sweater is being worn the Cricket Australia emblem is displayed under the V-neck and the sponsor's logo is again displayed on the right side of the chest. The baggy green, the Australian Test cricket cap, is considered an essential part of the cricketing uniform and as a symbol of the national team, with new players being presented with one upon their selection in the team. The cap and the helmet both prominently display the Australian cricketing coat-of-arms instead of the Cricket Australia emblem. At the end of 2011, ASICS was named the manufacturer of the whites and limited over uniforms from Adidas, with the ASICS logo being displayed on the shirt and pants. Players may choose any manufacturer for their other gear (bat, pads, shoes, gloves, etc.).

In One Day International (ODI) cricket and Twenty20 International cricket, the team wears uniforms usually coloured green and gold, the national colours of Australia. There has been a variety of different styles and layouts used in both forms of the limited-overs game, with coloured clothing (sometimes known as "pyjamas") being introduced for World Series Cricket in the late 1970s. The Toyota or Qantas logo is prominently displayed on the shirts and other gears. The current T20I kit consists of green as the primary colour and gold as the secondary colour. The ODI is the opposite of the T20I kit, with gold as the primary colour and green as the secondary colour. However, since Australia beat New Zealand at the MCG in the 2015 Cricket World Cup wearing the gold uniform, it has also become their primary colour, with the hats used being called 'floppy gold', formerly known as 'baggy gold', a limited-overs equivalent to a baggy green. Until the early 2000s and briefly in early 2020, in ODIs, Australia wore yellow helmets, before using green helmets as in test matches.

Former suppliers were Asics (1999), ISC (2000–2001), Fila (2002–2003) and Adidas (2004–2010) among others. Before Travelex (and 3 in test matches), some of the former sponsors were XXXX (1990–1992), Coca-Cola (1993–1998), Fly Emirates (1999) and Carlton & United Breweries (2000–2001).

Squad
Cricket Australia released the list of their 2024–2025 national contracts on 28 March 2024. Players can still be upgraded to national contracts throughout the year by receiving 12 upgrade points. A Test is worth five points, while each ODI and T20 international is worth two.

This is a list of every active player who is contracted to Cricket Australia, has played for Australia since June 2023 or was named in the recent Test, ODI or T20I squads. Uncapped players are listed in italics.

 * David Warner appeared in all formats during this period however has retired from international cricket.

Last updated: 24th June 2024

 * Forms – This refers to the forms they've played for Australia in the past year, not over their whole Australia career
 * S/N – Shirt number
 * C – Contracted to Cricket Australia (Y = Holds contract)

Coaching history

 * 1986–1996: 🇦🇺 Bob Simpson
 * 1996–1999: 🇦🇺 Geoff Marsh
 * 1999–2007: 🇦🇺 John Buchanan
 * 2007–2011: 🇦🇺 Tim Nielsen
 * 2010–2013: Mickey Arthur
 * 2013–2018: 🇦🇺 Darren Lehmann
 * 2018–2022: 🇦🇺 Justin Langer
 * 2022–present: 🇦🇺 Andrew McDonald

Team

 * Australia is the most successful Test team in cricketing history. It has won more than 350 Test matches at a rate of almost 47%. The next best performance is by South Africa at 37%.
 * Australia have been involved in the only two Tied Tests played. The first occurred in December 1960, against the West Indies in Brisbane. The second occurred in September 1986, against India in Madras (Chennai).
 * Australia's largest victory in a Test match came on 24 February 2002. Australia defeated South Africa by an innings and 360 runs in Johannesburg.
 * Australia holds the record for the most consecutive wins, with 16. This has been achieved twice; from October 1999 to February 2001 and from December 2005 to January 2008.
 * Australia shares the record for the most consecutive series victories winning 9 series from October 2005 to June 2008. This record is shared, with England.
 * Australia's highest total in a Test match innings was recorded in Kingston, Jamaica against the West Indies in June 1955. Australia posted 758/8 in their first innings, with five players scoring a century.
 * Australia's lowest total in a Test match innings was recorded in Birmingham against England in May 1902. Australia were bowled all out for 36.
 * Australia are one of only two teams to have lost a Test match after enforcing the follow-on, having been the losing side in the first three of four such matches, with England becoming the second team to follow a similar fate with their loss to New Zealand in 2023:
 * The first Test of the 1894–95 Ashes.
 * The third Test of the 1981 Ashes.
 * The second Test of the 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy series against India.
 * The second Test of the 2023 English Tour of New Zealand
 * Against India in March 2013, Australia became the first team in Test history to declare in their first innings and then lose by an innings.
 * In the 2013–14 Ashes series, Australia took all 100 wickets on offer in the 5–0 sweep over England.

Appearances

 * Ricky Ponting and Steve Waugh have played in the most Test matches for Australia, both playing in 168 matches.

Batting

 * Charles Bannerman faced the first ball in Test cricket, scored the first runs in Test cricket and also scored the first Test century.
 * Charles Bannerman also scored 67.34% of the Australian first innings total in match 1. This record remains to this day as the highest percentage of a completed innings total that has been scored by a single batsman.
 * Ricky Ponting has scored the most runs for Australia in Test cricket, with 13,378 runs. Allan Border is second, with 11,174 runs in 265 innings, a record which was broken by Brian Lara during his innings of 226 against Australia, while Steve Waugh has 10,927 from 260 innings.
 * Allan Border was the first Australian batsman to pass 10,000 and the first ever batsman to pass 11,000 Test runs.
 * Ricky Ponting was the first Australian batsman to pass 12,000 and 13,000 Test runs.
 * Matthew Hayden holds the record for the most runs in a single innings by an Australian, with 380 in the first Test against Zimbabwe in Perth in October 2003.
 * Donald Bradman holds the record for the highest average by an Australian (or any other) cricketer of 99.94 runs per dismissal. Bradman played 52 Tests, scoring 29 centuries and a further 13 fifties.
 * Ricky Ponting holds the record for the most centuries by an Australian cricketer, with 41. Former Australian captain Steve Waugh is in second position, with 32 centuries from 260 innings.
 * Allan Border holds the record for the most fifties by an Australian cricketer, with 63 in 265 innings.
 * Adam Gilchrist holds the record for the fastest century by an Australian.
 * Glenn McGrath holds the record for the most ducks by an Australian cricketer, with 35 in 138 innings.

Bowling

 * Billy Midwinter picked up the first five-wicket haul in a Test innings in match 1.
 * Fred Spofforth performed Test cricket's first hat-trick by dismissing Vernon Royle, Francis McKinnon and Tom Emmett in successive balls.
 * Fred Spofforth also took the first 10-wicket match haul in Test cricket.
 * Shane Warne holds the record for the most wickets by an Australian cricketer, with 708 wickets in 145 Test matches.
 * Arthur Mailey holds the record for the best bowling figures in an innings by an Australian cricketer, with 9/121 against England in February 1921.
 * Bob Massie holds the record for the best bowling figures in a match by an Australian cricketer, with 16/137 against England in June 1972. That was also his first Test match for Australia.
 * J. J. Ferris holds the record for the best bowling average by an Australian bowler, taking 61 wickets at 12.70 in his career.
 * Clarrie Grimmett holds the record for the most wickets in a Test series, with 44 against South Africa in 1935–36.

Fielding and wicketkeeping

 * Ricky Ponting holds the record for the most catches in a career by an Australian fielder, with 196 in 168 matches.
 * Jack Blackham performed the first stumping in Test cricket in match 1.
 * Adam Gilchrist holds the record for the most dismissals in a career by an Australian wicketkeeper, with 416 in 96 matches.

Team

 * Australia's highest total in a One-Day International innings is 434/4, scored off 50 overs against South Africa in Johannesburg on 12 March 2006. This was a world record score before the South Africans later surpassed it in the same match.
 * Australia's lowest total in a One-Day International innings is 70. This score has occurred twice; once against England in 1977 and once against New Zealand in 1986.
 * Australia's largest victory in One-Day International cricket is 309 runs. This occurred against The Netherlands at the 2023 World Cup in India.
 * Australia are the only team in the history of the World Cup to win 3 consecutive tournaments; 1999, 2003 and 2007.
 * Australia went undefeated at the World Cup for a record 34 consecutive matches. After being defeated by Pakistan in 1999, Australia would remain unbeaten until they were again defeated by Pakistan in 2011.
 * Australia have won the most ODI World Cups – 6.

Appearances

 * Ricky Ponting has played in the most One-Day International matches for Australia, playing 375 matches.

Batting

 * Ricky Ponting has the most One-Day International runs by an Australian batsman, with 13,291.
 * Ricky Ponting has the most One-Day International centuries by an Australian batsman, with 30.
 * Ricky Ponting has the most One-Day International fifties by an Australian batsman, with 82.
 * Ricky Ponting is the first Australian batsman to pass 10,000 One-Day International runs.
 * Glenn Maxwell has the highest individual not out score in an innings by an Australian batsman, with 201*.
 * Shane Watson has hit the most sixes in a single innings by an Australian player, with 15.
 * Phillip Hughes was the only Australian player to score a century on debut in One-Day International cricket.

Bowling

 * Glenn McGrath has the most One-Day International wickets by an Australian bowler, with 381.
 * Glenn McGrath has the best bowling figures by an Australian bowler, with 7/15.
 * Brett Lee has the most five-wicket hauls by an Australian bowler, with 9.

Fielding and wicketkeeping

 * Ricky Ponting has the most catches taken by an Australian fielder, with 154.
 * Adam Gilchrist has the most dismissals by an Australian wicketkeeper, with 470.
 * Adam Gilchrist has the most catches taken by an Australian wicketkeeper, with 416.
 * Adam Gilchrist has the most stumpings made by an Australian wicketkeeper, with 54.

Tournament history
A red box around the year indicates tournaments played within Australia

ICC

 * World Test Championship:
 * Champions (1): 2021–2023
 * World Cup:
 * Champions (6): 1987, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2015, 2023
 * Runners-up (2): 1975, 1996
 * T20 World Cup:
 * Champions (1): 2021
 * Runners-up (1): 2010
 * Champions Trophy:
 * Champions (2): 2006, 2009

Others

 * Commonwealth Games:
 * Silver medal (1): 1998

Under the Southern Cross I Stand
The team song is "Under the Southern Cross I Stand", which is sung by the players after every victory and "treated with reverential consideration and respect" within the team. The official lyrics are as follows, though when it is sung by the players, the word "little" in the last line is instead replaced by "bloody" or the expletive "fucking".

 * Under the Southern Cross I Stand
 * A sprig of wattle in my hand,
 * A native of my native land,
 * Australia you little beauty.

The authorship of this "Under the Southern Cross I Stand" is credited to former wicketkeeper Rod Marsh, who was apparently inspired by Henry Lawson's 1887 poem, "Flag of the Southern Cross". Marsh initially had the role of leading the team in singing it and, on his retirement, passed it on to Allan Border. The other players to have taken on the role are David Boon (when Border took over the captaincy), Ian Healy (on Boon's retirement), Ricky Ponting (on Healy's retirement), Justin Langer (when Ponting took over the captaincy). The role was then passed on to Michael Hussey, who took it on when Langer retired in January 2007. Following Hussey's retirement on 6 January 2013, he announced that he would be handing the duties over to Nathan Lyon. With Nathan Lyon's departure from the team due to injury after the Second Ashes Test at Lord's in 2023, custody of the song has passed to wicketkeeper Alex Carey.

title: Australia national cricket team


text:
User:Just~enwiki

November 21, 2003.

Astounding and colorful idea Wikipedia has become - am delighted to contribute to the Law section wherever additions would be needed. I will concentrate therefor on "Judicial Discretion" as the first topic that would seem to need immediate amendment.

Laters,

Just

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Just~enwiki


text:
User talk:Wik/Kosebamse discussion

Hi Wik - some work has been done about Silesia and Görlitz, and also Nico has gotten involved, so I guess it would be a good idea if you re-entered into the debate on the respective talk pages. Cheers, Kosebamse 08:16, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I still support my last versions and I'm not wasting my time with Nico. Everything has been said before. --Wik 09:13, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

But Nico and szopen have exchanged apologies, removed each other from the problem users and seem to be working together now. It's too early to say what the others who were involved say about this, but your opinion would matter very much. It takes two to tango or to fight a war, and it also takes two (or more) to make peace. Please don't stick to hostility when your opponent is willing to accept a compromise. Kosebamse 09:47, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * There's no need for a "compromise". The article was fine before Nico arrived. He just tries to get as much of his POV into it as he can get away with. He starts with some completely outrageous things, then backpedals a bit and generously suggests a "compromise". I'm not falling for that. --Wik 14:26, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, it takes two to tango. Some people may find your views as outrageous as you find theirs. NPOV is about writing things that everyone can accept, however much one autor disagrees with the others. Please calm down, think it over, and give peace a chance. Kosebamse 15:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't accept this relativism. Nico has a pretty obvious agenda, while I am defending NPOV here as in any other place. Just look at 2002 Gujarat violence - in your view I probably should have made a compromise with LibertarianAnarchist there. But I steadfastly defended the NPOV version, and by now that person is about to be banned, as it has finally dawned on some other users that he is only interested in pushing an extreme POV, something that was clear to me from the beginning. Nico is exactly the same kind. --Wik 16:05, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Call it relativism if you like, I would call it openness. I don't want to decide about good or evil, wrong or right etc. - I just would like NPOV to prevail. As Jimbo once said, NPOV is not about an article that everybody agrees with (that would be illusory in politically charged fields), but about one that nobody disagrees with too strongly. I don't want to argue about other people's agendas - as long as people stick to the rules (no personal attacks, if I may repeat it) and cooperate, I would accept that there is a wide variety of opinions on Wikipedia. Of course there are views that are more mature, are expressed superiorly, are better backed by facts, have more followers etc. than others. But these will prevail through discussion in a climate of mutual respect, not through refusal to discuss. Kosebamse 16:46, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * "one that nobody disagrees with too strongly" is illusory too. There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV. You still seem to refuse to recognize the fact that some people have no interest whatsoever in NPOV. --Wik 17:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

It may be illusory in some cases, but it is a goal that we can strive for. Nobody said it would be easy! There are indeed some who openly disrespect NPOV, and I don't want to be too lenient with these (it was my initiative that got Khranus banned this week), but there are others who just don't understand or trust NPOV, or are too much in love with their own opinions. That's o.k. to some degree, and perhaps it's not even desirable to be too neutral about one's own opinions - after all, love can motivate you to great deeds. But it is these less-than-perfect Wikipedians (AKA normal humans) who need everybody's respect, because otherwise they won't cooperate. I doubt that Wikipedia would ever have gotten off the ground had it relied only on Buddhas and Jesuses who never quarrel, or on reputable scholars who understand their field so well that they need no counterpart to write encyclopedia articles. I am convinced that Wikipedia can very often deal with strong opinions, but not with refusal to cooperate. It is not my or your or their Wikipedia, it's ours. Kosebamse 17:52, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't think Nico is any more useful than Khranus. --Wik 19:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

How does that agree with the fact that he is now talking with one with whom whe strongly disagreed, and that they have apologized, and stopped shouting at each other on the problem users page? Many people would not have expected that from him. And many people, I guess, would not expect that you apologize and talk instead of revert, complain, revert, complain. How about proving them wrong? Can't you see that you are being given a lot of leeway? Intelligence, knowledge and motivation are very fine and valuable, but cooperation is equally important. Kosebamse 19:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * What should I apologize for? Cooperation with vandals is not helping the Wikipedia. --Wik 19:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

You could apologize for calling people vandals without hesitation or second thought, for example. Or in general, for being confrontational when there would have been other ways. I know it can be hard to stay cool and assume good faith when confronted with people writing garbage or being aggressive. But as you might learn from how people tend to deal with you, it does not help much to always insist on being right. Sometimes you could just try to forgive and forget, even if you are convinced that you have been wronged. That way you would probably gain a lot of respect without making much fuss. Kosebamse 19:53, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) And by the way, I'm going to bed now. But lets talk tomorrow. Goodnight. Kosebamse 20:12, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * You might as well apologize for accusing me of things I don't do. It's not me who's throwing around the word "vandal" liberally. Those I do call vandals are ones I have no doubt about. I can't help it if other people take longer until they come to the same conclusion. Assuming good faith is what you do in the beginning when you meet someone - then, however, when you deal with that person for a while you see someone's good or bad faith and you don't have to assume anything anymore. Apparently you just haven't followed the goings-on at Silesia and elsewhere long enough to know what Nico has been up to. I'm here to write an encyclopaedia, not to be respected by those who have other goals. --Wik 11:39, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * "Assuming good faith"? Wik you rarely assume that initially from what I have observed in your edits ...  IMO, you don't assume anything, but label ppl quickly as "vandals" when thier edits don't fit into your POV (as your repeated rv's, edit wars, and the otherwise uncompromising POV edits show) ... since my inital interactions with you, i've watched some of your edits and see a cycle ... [no need to reply as it will be a denial and probably an attack on me; so save the space] Sincerely, reddi

 * Note to others: See Talk:August 2003 where both Ann O'nyme and Jtdirl have agreed that Reddi's "homicide bombing" nonsense amounted to vandalism. Reddi is clearly a vandal, much like Nico promoting his political views in conscious violation of NPOV policy. --Wik 13:28, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * "homicide bombing" has alternate meanings which you (and others [among which is Jtdirl [who is antiUS]]) refuse to accept ... it was 1st used to describe a fundementalist christian bomber that killed ppl in the US and has that meaning. As to labeling me a vandal, see the vandal page on that account (and how quick wik was to label me as such). reddi

Wik, after all it's your decision how you want to treat others, but please don't complain if Wikipedians judge you by your social skills as well as the quality of your work. Did you ever wonder why so many highly gifted and productive people are never discussed at problem users while you are a seemingly constant topic there? Did you ever consider that this might be because people view you as a tad uncompromising, or less than cooperative, or self-righteous? Did it ever dawn on you that you might gain everybody's respect by showing a mature attitude when confronted with immature behavior? It's not that I particularly like working with people who are problematic to work with. But I highly respect those who have reformed their ways. Do you know the story of the prodigal son? Try to apply it to Nico, or to Lir, who was once banned, was allowed to return, and by now has gained the respect of those who formerly criticised him fiercely, like Jtdirl.

I think that have said everything that I can say about all this. Initially I started this talk because I tried to convince you that your cooperation on Silesia and Görlitz would be highly desirable so that everybody can agree on a compromise and the war be declared ended. Given the attituide that you defend so doggedly, I am afraid it will be difficult to find peace there. But please don't act annoyed if work is going on there without you, and things are agreed upon in a way that you don't like. I am rather certain that people will have a clear opinion of you if get involved in another reversion war. Kosebamse 14:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Highly gifted and productive people are routinely listed on Problem users. Anyone can put any frivolous complaint there, so what? People are entitled to their opinions. Yes, I am uncompromising toward vandals and trolls. No one has everybody's respect, that's an impossible thing. I know I have the respect of those people whose respect I care about. I am quite ready to welcome anyone who has reformed his ways, but I haven't seen it from Nico or Lir. Feel free to work with Nico if you are so inclined, I will see what you come up with. But of course I don't have to accept any "compromise" you agree with him, and am free to edit those articles. Remember if I "get involved" in a reversion war, there must be someone else involved too. --Wik 14:34, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't imagine for a moment that you're so gifted and productive that WP really needs you. I would have see you leave than have you discourage dozens of other good contributors by your behavior. Stan 16:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Good contributors are discouraged by the ridiculous tolerance of vandals and trolls here. --Wik 16:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * Then please be discouraged and go away. As a bonus, you'll have the advantage of feeling superior to that lame Wikipedia that tolerates all those "vandals and trolls". Stan 16:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I am discouraged, but I'll try to make it less lame or be banned in the attempt. "Wikipedia" is just what the users make of it, there's no inherent lameness to it, it's just a certain minority of users that is lame. --Wik 17:32, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

 * You're not the first editor who's decided to save Wikipedia unilaterally and singlehandedly; but all have failed. They either give up, or get themselves banned and their edits mass-reverted, or they learn to work with the rest of the community (this last is unfortunately rare). I've been working in large-scale net-based projects for a little over 20 years, and your approach always fails. Maybe you're so arrogant as to think you can beat the odds somehow; but are you intelligent enough to learn from others' experiences? Stan 18:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Who said anything about unilaterally? I'm hardly the only one who thinks there should be a stricter policy against vandals and trolls. Just ask those who now clean up all the articles Khranus edited. And that one was banned relatively quickly. He would have lasted much longer if he didn't refuse to talk to Jimbo, or if he didn't insult people as much, etc. Yet some people are more busy complaining about "self-righteous" users than about vandalism... --Wik 19:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Wik, it's neither your Wikipedia nor your NPOV, it's ours, if that word means anything to you. If you think there's no way to reconcile POV with NPOV, I wonder how you think NPOV is reached? By survival of the most reckless? That's not how Wikipedia works, nor how it should work. But if you feel so far above community norms, you might be better off with a project of your own; after all, its GFDL, so you're free to copy whatever you like from here and make an encyclopedia of your own. And as for reversion wars and somebody else getting involved, that's exactly what I said above: it takes two to tango, and while there are indeed highly respected Wikipedians who have, regrettably, gotten involved in such wars, I don't know of any who have made it a hobby. Kosebamse 18:56, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * NPOV is reached by discussion between users who accept this principle. Nico's history conclusively proves that he doesn't. And the vast majority of edit wars I am in are with this kind of users, where discussion is pointless: LibertarianAnarchist (who is about to be banned), Lir (who has been banned before multiple times), and Nico. As far as I know NPOV is the community norm, and I am its staunchest defender. And this inevitably (and regrettably) involves getting into edit wars. What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there? I would prefer if repeat POV offenders could be banned, or if there were another procedure to settle such disputes, but that's not the case, so edit wars are the only alternative. I don't enjoy them; if I'm more involved in them than others it must be because I have greater patience. --Wik 19:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Wik, one word on farewell. NPOV is reached by discussion and consensus, not by unilateral declaration. It's neither your NPOV nor mine, nor theirs, it's ours. Whatever arguments you'll find to defend any kind of POV supremacism, they are not in line with the spirit or policies of Wikipedia. Same goes for refusal to assume good faith and forgive people who are willing to admit mistakes and reform their ways. Good luck on your crusade.Kosebamse 22:29, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Repetition of previous arguments that have already been replied to, combined with an Eric-Cartman-style "I'm going home", is a sure sign that someone has lost an argument. I don't want to repeat my answers, but: 1) I have always assumed good faith - right until someone has proven my assumption either right or wrong. 2) Neither Nico nor Lir have admitted to their mistakes (if you have seen such please point me to it) nor otherwise shown that they have reformed. Also, I have on many occasions submitted to other views when they convinced me or when it was a subjective matter (not a matter of hard fact) and I was outnumbered. So what are you talking about with "POV supremacism"? --Wik 22:42, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

From problem users
the following copied from problem users

 * I am sorry to note that Wik seems totally unwilling to accept the right of other users to disagree with him, instead explicitly states that he will revert anything done by those Wikipedians he likes to call vandals and trolls, even if these have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behavior. I had a lenghty discussion with him about this which I recommend everybody to study (see User talk:Wik), and it is my impression that his idea of cooperation is seriously flawed at a very fundamental level. Kosebamse 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Please do demonstrate how they have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behaviour. That should be interesting. --Wik 13:55, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned at the very beginning of our talk on 15 November, Nico has in the past week returned to discussion on Silesia and agreed with szopen on a compromise text; they have also exchanged apologies on their talk pages. Also, he agreed with SpaceCadet on Baldhurs compromise text on Görlitz. You however insisted on calling him a vandal and said he were not "any more useful than Khranus" who was banned last week. All this is on your talk page, see this version. With Lir, it's a long story that reaches far back behind the beginnings of your (and my) Wikipedia engagement. When he was allowed to return this summer, he has demonstrated a collegial attitude and has gained the respect of his former adversaries. The mere fact that he was engaged in reversion wars (with you, mostly) does not speak against his overall good standing (that fact would not even speak so strongly against you, had you not made reversionism a long standing habit, starting on your second day on Wikipedia, and had you not repeatedly argued that your POV = NPOV, which you claimed to "staunchly defend"). Yet you included Lir in your statements about "this kind of users, where discussion is pointless". Again, all of this (and, sadly, much more) is on your talk page. As said page tells much more about your attitudes than I ever could I would like to repeat my suggestion that our fellow Wikipedians should make their judgement by reading it. Kosebamse 15:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that. If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise? You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous. And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg! Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany. As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution). As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history will disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day. Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir. Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users? Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV". Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"? --Wik 16:49, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

 * I will answer you on your talk page in order to keep this page readable. Kosebamse 17:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-- end of copied text---

 * Wik, I'll answer you bit by bit, and would suggest that you put your reply at the bottom so as to keep this readble.Kosebamse

 * Now that you've divided it up, I'll also answer point by point. --Wik

 * Wik, I have left you some more answers below. As I won't have the time for much more debate, I'll leave it at this. I am sure you will enjoy the chance of having the final word. While it does not look like you will change your views, you have done Wikipedia a favor with your extreme attitudes, as there is now a policy under discussion to make clear when reversions are acceptable. I do wonder whether you will waste as much as a thought on respecting it, however. Kosebamse 20:18, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Such a policy would require the setting up of another mechanism of settling disputes, and I would be the first to welcome that. So, yes, if I help bring that about, it is just further vindication of my conduct. Otherwise people would continue to act like you recommend and just let the Nicos and Lirs have their way for the sake of peace. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

''Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that.''

 * My issue with you is your belief that NPOV can be approached by bullying instead of discussion. I have never doubted that your opinion in many matters is valuable. However, you regularly defend it by reversion wars instead of argument, and you conveniently label your adversaries as vandals, trolls, and whatnot, only to avoid talking with them.Kosebamse

 * That is simply not true. I'm always talking, except with those people where it would be wasted time. I'm using the terms vandals and trolls exactly where appropriate. Do you think those don't exist? I mean, if you want to take someone seriously who proclaims on his user page that he is "the world's foremost authority. I yearn for the aliens from New Zimbabwe to come and once again declare me their leader" then that's your business, but you'll have to accept that others beg to differ. --Wik 03:29, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * I have never denied that there are vandals and trolls, but I do deny your right to decide on your own (except in obvious cases) who is and who isn't, and where it's "exactly appropriate" to call someone vandal or troll in clear violation of hard-and-fast policy (see No personal attacks). If your judgement were backed by uncontroversial facts or community consensus, your use of such words might be accepted, but it is not, as you may see from the enormous amount of controversy that you create. And that controversy is not created by those whom you attack that uncivilly and deny the right to be spoken to, but by ordinary Wikipedians like me. Kosebamse

 * Everyone decides that for himself. I don't want to decide it for you. But I'll say what I think, and act accordingly. Again, it's not a personal attack. It is my view of those people's contributions. Would you prefer if I say "this person's edits are vandalism" instead of "this person is a vandal"? --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise?

 * This kind of argument is in itself invalid, and if you wish, I will look up for you what exactly this logical fallacy is called.Kosebamse

 * I don't care what it's called, just tell me why it's invalid. I think it fits perfectly. --Wik

 * As I can't find what kind of logical fallacy this is, I'll retract my above statement. To answer your question, I would not say any such ridiculous thing, but would apply the idea of NPOV and mention somewhere that while some people actually think that the earth is flat, this idea is far from accepted science. Done. There's not a compromise then but a better article in terms of NPOV, and any future flat-earther would have no reason to change it. NPOV creates stable articles. Reversionism creates unstable articles, leading to fruitless edit wars. (see Flat earth, by the way.) Kosebamse

 * So you would accommodate any crackpot by including a statement "some people believe ". You're sacrificing the quality of the encyclopaedia for the sake of harmony. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous.

 * I am indeed not familiar with that subject, and never claimed to be. And for that very reason I have explicitly stated my neutrality in matters of content when I asked Nico and you to return to discussion. I protected these pages to end the reversion wars in the hope that you would return to discussion.Kosebamse

 * Then you shouldn't express opinions on Nico's behaviour, nor indeed interfere at all in that article. It is a fundamental misconception to think that edit wars can be solved by protecting the page and telling the people to discuss. If both sides were reasonable they wouldn't go to an edit war to begin with. If one side is not interested in NPOV, then no amount of discussion will solve this. --Wik

 * Neither will any amount of counter-force. It is a fundamental misconception to think that controversy can be ended by force. A page protection is a temporary measure to give the hotheads time to cool off. Edit wars are indeed sometimes not solved that way, but sometimes they are. And regarding Nico, I don't need specific knowledge of a subject to judge people's behavior. Kosebamse

 * Of course it can be ended by force. Edit wars aren't endless, at some point one side gives up. Let me quote from this post by Erik:
 * To say that the other side should simply let it rest for a few days and come back later is idiotic if you're dealing with a regular who will be just as willing to do blanket reverts three days later as he is today. Edit wars are not purely a symptom of heightened emotions, they are a symptom of fundamental differences in beliefs and an unwillingness to bridge them through NPOV.
 * And that was precisely the case with Nico, who wouldn't agree to any NPOV version. And if you knew enough about the subject, you would have seen that he is the POV pusher. Without him there would never have been a problem on Silesia. Most edit wars are not between two POVs, but between POV and NPOV. Articles are normally in a state of NPOV, and the conflict erupts when one person comes along with an intent to push a POV, and others defend the NPOV version. This happened with Nico pushing his German-nationalist views on Silesia, Erwin Komenda's granddaughter trying to promote Komenda's name on Porsche etc., or LibertarianAnarchist pushing his Hindu-extremist views on 2002 Gujarat violence. But to you I guess that's all relative. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

''And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg!''

 * But he has returned to cooperative behavior, however reluctantly, and apologized, and talked with his adversaries, which I highly respect, and which fact you have refused to comment throughout our conversation. I can only speculate that discussing it would make you risk accepting that he is not the vandal and troll that you like to call him.Kosebamse

 * No he hasn't. He always "talked", but to no constructive effect. He won't agree to any NPOV version. The talk archives are overflowing; the problems here are not caused by a shortage of talk. --Wik

 * It takes two to make peace. He did make peace with szopen, which fact you have conveniently ignored ever since I mentioned it. He might even had made peace with you had you not stubbornly refused to talk. And the problems here are caused by a shortage of cooperation, common sense, mutual respect, and humbleness. Kosebamse

 * What happened was that Szopen, apparently tired of the fighting, decided to accept Nico's latest version. Of course Nico made peace then. It is exactly the strategy I described before: he starts with the most extreme POV version, then offers a watered-down version as a "compromise". Some fall for that, some don't. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany.

 * As I said, I don't want to argue about the contents of that article, as it's your behavior that I find problematic.Kosebamse

 * The behaviour can not be separated from the substance, unless you think everyone is obliged to waste his time going in endless circles with people who won't give up their POV, thus allowing the latter to win by just tiring everyone else out. --Wik

 * You are defending my actions here: I did interrupt your fruitless wars to avoid the endless circles. And if behavior could not be separated from the substance, we would not be talking here, because you are by far the most discussed problem user on Wikipedia and remarkably unwilling to accept other opinions than your own. So why do we talk here? Because it can be separated. And as for people who won't give up their POV, you might wish to look into a mirror. (There are others, however, who don't give it up either, but have the common sense and the humbleness to realise that they should not label their POV NPOV only to bully everyone else with it). Kosebamse

 * Obviously you (and others) do separate it, but it makes no sense. It's just more of your relativism. "Stop fighting, I don't care who's right or wrong." This is no way to solve a conflict. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution).

 * I have never claimed that Lir is a perfect Wikipedian. But he is one who admitted his errors and returned to cooperation, however difficult it may sometimes be to work with him. I would like to repeat my mentioning of the prodigal son story and I would be interested to learn what you think of it.Kosebamse

 * He admitted his errors? Where? I have never seen that, although I repeatedly asked for it. The prodigal son story doesn't apply. --Wik

 * We have Jimbo Wales' word that he has admitted his errors and asked for pardon, and no reason whatsoever to doubt it. Kosebamse

 * I am not convinced. In the same statement of Jimbo where he says "I feel comfortable with his sincerity" he notes that Lir told him directly that he wasn't Pizza Puzzle. Later he admitted it. I don't know what Jimbo is thinking, but Lir is making a fool out of him. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history wil disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day.

 * Your first edit was on 11. September, and the first reversion (at least the first that is marked as such in the commentary) was your ninth edit overall, on 12 September. On 14 September you reverted the same page thrice within 8 minutes. I did not bother to count all your reversion wars, but they have been a constant topic of discussion for weeks now. And your edit wars make up a large proportion of all those that have occurred in those weeks. You may also wish to consider that a majority of Wikipedians, even the highly productive ones, don't editwar at all and revert only in cases ob obvious vandalism.Kosebamse

 * You didn't look right; my first edit was on July 16. And I wouldn't call three reversions an edit war. If others don't editwar, that means they let a POV stand when they see one or they correct it only once and leave it alone when the other person reverts it. Is this better behaviour? I don't think so. I suppose people avoid edit wars precisely to avoid being indiscriminately blamed for it, regardless of whether they are vandalizing or removing vandalism. For example, everyone agrees now that LibertarianAnarchist is a vandal, and many people have occasionally reverted his stuff. But no one as much as I. I guess it's consensus now to say that was the right thing. --Wik

 * You are correct about the dates (however, when I looked, and looked carefully, Wikipedia gave me your first edit on 11. September 2003, and when I looked again yesterday, there was an edit "16:51, 25 Feb 2002 Soren Kierkegaard (moved to "Søren_Kierkegaard")" listed under your name, which I don't believe to be correct; so I think there may be some database weirdness going on). And as to behavior, yes, it is indeed better to abstain from reverionism. If something is corrected and reverted, it comes to the attention of many via recent changes, and there is a good chance that some obviously inferior POV will be removed, or NPOVed. So you won't get your hands dirty by re-reverting, and the holder of the other POV will see that there is not only one opposing him. However, this requires trusting the community and being able to accept that something you don't like will nevertheless stay for a while. Or even for a long while, in which case you would have to reconsider your views, because they might after all be even not as good as the other's. I am afraid that these ideas and you exist on two different planets. Your fundamental misconception is the idea that there is one and only one truth (or one and only one ideal version of an article), which has only waited for you to create or discover it so you can defend it against the "vandals and trolls". In assuming this, you are overestimating your role and your abilities, to put it mildly. Kosebamse

 * Seeing that not only one is opposing him doesn't stop a vandal. In most of the edit wars I was in, I was not the only one. So the only question is, should vandalism be reverted (as often as necessary) or should it be left standing for a long time? Apparently you prefer to let it stand just to avoid the evil of an edit war. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir.

 * Did you ever consider following the advice given at Wikiquette and Staying cool when the editing gets hot? I have found the suggestions given there highly helpful, especially the idea of going away from a problem page for a while. Accepting them does however include the idea of admitting the possibility of error on one's own side, or even more, of being not in error but letting things calm down nevertheless. Did you ever consider one of these possibilities? (And furthermore, did you ever consider accepting the explicit policy of No personal attacks? Given your abundant use of words like "vandal" and "troll" I wonder whether you have even read it.)Kosebamse

 * I'm not getting into an edit war when I'm not positive I'm right. Going away doesn't solve anything. Again, I use the words vandal and troll where appropriate; they are not meant as attacks but as accurate descriptions. Unlike Nico, who calls pretty much everyone who opposes him a vandal. Just look at today's edit history of Silesia. So take your lecture about personal attacks to where it actually belongs. --Wik

 * You are using these words in clear violation of hard-and-fast policy. And your "accurate descriptions" might be taken a little more seriously were you at all willing to discuss them instead of repeating them ad nauseam. And as for your reversionist attitude, see about your fundamental misconception that I have outlined repeatedly. Kosebamse

 * I have actually discussed them ad nauseam. If it's not clear to you, then it's once again because you don't understand the substance. What you have outlined is a misconception of your own. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users?

 * I wonder why you think that I believe this. In fact, while I have been well aware of your numerous conflicts, I have often not bothered looking into the details so I don't really know what you quarrel about so passionately. And it is not that important anyway, it's your attitude that I find problematic: not what you write, but how you treat your fellow Wikipedians.Kosebamse

 * You misunderstood that. It is a fact I don't have edit wars with respected users. So I asked why, do you think, is that so? It was a rhetorical question. The answer of course is because I only have serious edit wars with unquestionable problem users, where talk is futile and the edit war well justified. --Wik

 * Edit wars are almost never justified. Some exceptions may exist for true/obvious vandalism (for which there is, by the way, a definition that does not at all coincide with your idea of vandalism). It is, furthermore, well accepted that edit wars never serve to improve an article. They do however serve the needs of the ego of somebody who can't live with the idea of diversity. Kosebamse

 * Blatant disregard of NPOV is a form of vandalism and not "diversity". --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV".

 * On this talk page, you wrote: "I steadfastly defended the NPOV version". By this you imply that you know what "the NPOV version" is, and that it's up to you to defend it. You don't admit the possibility that your opinion is just another point of view, or that NPOV is an ideal to approach, not a fixed version of an article that only waited for you to discover and defend it.Kosebamse

 * Yes, sometimes I know what the NPOV version is. Call me arrogant, but if someone says 2+2=4 and the other 2+2=6 then I know what the NPOV version is, and I don't like people who are ignorant about the subject stepping in, asking both sides to discuss the matter, and getting impressed when the second person offers a compromise of 2+2=5. --Wik

 * Is earth flat? No it's not, but there are some who think it's not, so let them have their way, mention it somewhere, and go on with the work. Alternative: start an edit war, make somebody with a similarly belligerent attitude happy for fighting with him, waste everybody's time, clutter the edit history, and make people dislike you. One way is useful and does not harm anybody, the other satisfies you ego. Kosebamse

 * Adding irrelevant nonsense is very much harming the integrity of the encyclopaedia. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, you wrote "There is no way to reconcile POV and NPOV", again implying that you know what NPOV is, while it is the others whose opinion is unworthy.Kosebamse

 * See above. Yes, some people's opinion is unworthy. --Wik

 * And the world has waited for you to discover it? Kosebamse

 * I'm not the only one to discover it, anyone who isn't a total relativist discovers it. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Furthermore you wrote "Yes, I am uncompromising toward vandals and trolls", implying not only that you have a right to call your fellow Wikipedians such, but deriving a right to bully them from your subjective judgement of them.Kosebamse

 * See above. Are you suggesting there is no such thing as vandals and trolls, or that those words should not be used by anyone at all? --Wik

 * See also above. They should be used with extreme caution. Khranus was quite probably a troll, but even he might have acted in good faith,as there are people who believe all that incredible junk. What do you gain by calling him a troll? Wikipedia has one useless conflict more and your ego is satisfied. Great. Kosebamse

 * I do use the terms with extreme caution. When I use them, I mean it. Of course, your mileage may vary. But who are you to tell me my opinion is unworthy? --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, you wrote "What is the alternative, just leaving the POV version there? I would prefer if repeat POV offenders could be banned", again implying that there is a "POV version" (and consequently, a NPOV version) and that it's up to you to decide which one is which.Kosebamse

 * Yes, of course there is a POV version and an NPOV version. If you think it's all relative, why would we even use the terms? NPOV is not meant to be simply the majority's decision, even though in practice things may have to be settled in a democratic way. So I can very well decide (for me) what NPOV is; others may disagree, in which case there should be some democratic decision. But as yet there is no efficient mechanism in place for such decisions. And I don't editwar when I see the majority has a different view, no matter how sure I am that I am right. I only do so when I'm reasonably sure that my version would also be chosen in a vote over the alternatives. I did give up on some articles where I could not find sufficient support, though I still think my view in those cases is the correct one. --Wik

 * Fundamental misunderstanding. NPOV is not a majority decision, nor a compromise. It is a version of a text that nobody disagrees with so strongly that he feels the need to change it. And NPOV is an ideal that is in reality only approached gradually. By reversion wars you make this approaching impossible and make sure that the fighting never ends. Kosebamse

 * Well, by that view of NPOV, there couldn't be anything said about many things, because there are often two wholly irreconcilable views so that some will always disagree. Just take the ROM/FYROM thing - there will never be a title for that article that nobody disagrees with. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * All of this convinces me that you refuse to accept that the opinions of others may be just as valid as yours, and that you reserve a right not only to deride your fellow Wikipedians as "vandals and trolls" but also to decide which version of an article is "the NPOV version" which you then "staunchly defend". Such an idea is not compatible with the very foundational principles of Wikipedia: openness, tolerance, mutual respect, cooperation.Kosebamse

 * See above. --Wik

''Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"''

 * No, it isn't NPOV. There are of course better and worse versions of every article, and some are outright ludicrous, but while yours may be better, it is a community-based, iterative approach that leads to an improvement of an article, not your declaration of "the NPOV version" and your reckless attitude in defending it. That is what I mean by "POV supremacism": your idea that you have the right to violate community norms (Wikiquette, policies, openness, discussion) because of your conviction that you alone know what is best for Wikipedia.Kosebamse

 * "Community-based, iterative approach"? Sounds nice, but vandals don't care about that. Will you just tell me what I should do when I make a correction and it is reverted and the other person can not be convinced by discussion? Either there is a mechanism for settling the question, or there is an edit war. There can always be only one version of the article in place. If I'm convinced it is the wrong one, I'll change it. How is that reckless? I don't see how I violate any community norm. I haven't heard of a community norm to leave errors in place. --Wik

 * I described the mechanism for settling the question above. That mechanism demands that you sometimes accept that you are probably right, but nevertheless don't start a war. Your behavior is reckless in ignoring the right of other users to read an uncluttered edit history, in ignoring the possibility that you might be wrong, and in assuming you know your thing so well that you are above discussing it, and in making it impossible to actually improve an article, to point only out a few. Kosebamse

 * "Don't start a war" doesn't settle anything. It just lets every persistent POV pusher have his way. --Wik 23:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * I am under the impression that you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Did you ever wonder why banning users is a rarely employed last resort measure on Wikipedia? Because tolerance works so well. It is even extended to the intolerant. Think about it. Kosebamse 19:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Quite obviously this tolerance does not work well. Khranus should have been banned on his second day based on his edits. Ditto for LibertarianAnarchist. Too much time is wasted dealing with this kind of users. --Wik 03:29, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't. See User:Chiramabi's recent entry into userdom. -- Cyan 03:34, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * What about Chiramabi? --Wik 03:40, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

He started as a pure edit warrior, but we were able to get him to stop by attempting to communicate with him in a non-confrontational manner. In general, tolerance helps us move people towards a collaborative mindset. The object of the game is to try to get people to integrate well into Wikipedia's culture, as several people attempted with Khranus. He was banned only after repeated failure of our attempts, and that's as it should be. -- Cyan 03:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please note that Wik deleted my answer; you may find it in the page history. I will just say, that according to Silesia today, caius2ga came in and ignored the compromise, and used very hard words against both me and szopen ("Nazi"). Although we had consensus for our new version, caius2ga continued to revert to his own version, which in my opinion is nothing but vandalism. RickK have brought his name to the attention of the mailing list, and will see if others feel that his behavior justifies a ban. The article was btw. protected at my request. -- Sincerely, Nico 04:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Wik, as this is getting somewhat time-consuming, I'll answer you later, probably tomorrow. Kosebamse 12:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wik/Kosebamse discussion


text:
Conscious Party

Conscious Party is Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers' third album. It was released in 1988. This album became popular with the hits "Tumblin' Down" and "Tomorrow People". It won the Grammy Award for Best Reggae Album in 1989.

In 2009, "Tomorrow People" was voted the "85th Greatest One-Hit Wonder of the 80s" by VH1.

Personnel

 * Rita Marley - background vocals
 * Jerry Harrison - Hammond organ
 * Cedella Marley - background vocals
 * Chris Frantz - producer
 * Mulu Gessesse - guitar
 * Zeleke Gessesse - bass
 * Ziggy Marley - guitar, vocals, background vocals
 * Stephen Marley - vocals, background vocals
 * Dereje Makonnen - keyboards, composer
 * Sharon Marley Pendergast - background vocals
 * Lenny Pickett - clarinet, piccolo, saxophone, contrabass
 * Gary Pozner - keyboards
 * Melaku Retta - keyboards
 * Keith Richards - lead guitar on "Lee and Molly"
 * Chris Romanelli
 * Glenn Rosenstein - engineer
 * Mark Roule - tambourine
 * Asrat Aemro Selassie - percussion, bongos, conga, tambourine, background vocals, vibraslap, cabassa, wood block
 * Earl "Chinna" Smith - guitar
 * Raphael W'Mariam - drums, timbales
 * Franklyn "Bubbler" Waul - keyboards
 * Laura Weymouth - background vocals
 * Tina Weymouth - background vocals, producer

title: Conscious Party