Talk:Anti-Australian sentiment

old afd
'This article was subject to a VFD, the result of which was keep''. It is kept, for record, on this page.'''

Communism as motivation for tolerance of ET invasion?
I removed references to East Timor's being communist, and the invasion happening during the Cold War, because they seemed likely to create the false impression that Australia's motivation for supporting the invasion was anti-communism. The Whitlam government was the most left-wing Australia's ever had, not given to Red-baiting; all I've been able to find on this topic suggests that Whitlam was motivated not by anti-communism but only by a belief that it would be easier to do business with Indonesia. If somebody can find a reference for anti-communism as a motivation for Whitlam, feel free to re-add this. --Calair 01:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think there is a small amount of truth in the allegation about fears of Soviet/Maoist type regimes. I recall the use of typical Cold War phrases like "another Cuba, on our doorstep". Not all of the strident anti-communists had joined the Democratic Labor Party. So, my theory is that in 1975, this "commophobia" dovetailed with the long-standing sympathy to Indonesian nationalism in the Labor Party (expressed, e.g., in the idea Indonesians were just doing what India had done in Goa and Pondicherry) and a sense that E.Timor was "too small to go it alone". Grant65 (Talk) 07:47, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Unjustified Article
This is article tries really really hard to be relevant but doesn't quite make it. Australians are some of the "best-liked" people in the world, have a friendly, sports-based rivalry with Brits and Kiwis, though things sometimes turn "bitter." C'mon.

It's not badly written but at points turns into sop: ''Australia's Western sensibilities often bring it into conflict with its less Westernised neighbours. Australia has a strong ethos of tolerance (Uh, POV?) and rights of the individual. This often leads Australians to object to human rights abuses in neighbouring Asian countries; these countries are likely to interpret such objections as an attempt to meddle in their internal affairs and lack of respect for their sovereignty.''

I can vaguely see an Austalian-Indonesian relations article coming out of this as much of it deals with how the two countries fail to see eye-to-eye but his doesn't amount to a prejudice worthy of inclusion here particularly as it seems a largely bilateral thing. Marskell 07:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to disagree. Differing attitudes to human rights have, in the recent past, brought Australia into conflict with Indonesia, China, Malaysia. and probably quite a few other nations too, but those three are all recent and well-publicised, so I happen to remember them. The point of the para is valid. The expression, of course, is ... er ... how did Marskell put it? Sop. I suggest that we re-phrase the para in an NPOV way and then reinsert it. Tannin 10:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 'Websters: a concession given to mollify or placate; "the offer was a sop to my feelings."' The line read as a "sop" to Australians ;). Anyhow, I still think the whole thing is borderline and might better read as part of a "relations" article but that's just me. Marskell 20:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Relations" tends to imply government to government relations and the article isn't really (or shouldn't be) about that. There is still room for a lot of tweaking though. Grant65 (Talk) 02:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Their a many examples of "flag burning" of the Australian flag, this article is warranted even if the material isnt covered in it yet.. ;) - UnlimitedAccess 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Excised text
I have excised from the article this recently added paragraph:

"The treatment of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia is perhaps one of the earliest elements of Australian domestic policy to arouse a negative view of the Australian people. As early as the 1890s criticism and controversy occurred over the dwindling populations or abuses that the aboriginal peoples faced. Although at that point the issue was as much, or more, about Britain than Australia. Later however the policies that inspired events dramatized in films like Rabbit-Proof Fence encouraged the image of Australians as virulent racists."

There may be something that can be taken from it, but as it was written, it wasn't entirely clear. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have excerised this peice of absolute conjecture:

"''Some xenophobia among Australians in regard to Indonesians &mdash; manifested, for example, in beliefs that Indonesians wish to annex Australian territory and that Australia should acquire weapons of mass destruction, to alleviate the risk &mdash; is also a factor in tensions between the two countries.'"

IMHO most of this article is unsubstantiated conjecture and supposition. It is almost entirely unsupported by citations. I really seriously feel this page is a waste of space.

I have also removed this:

"''Modern Australia's origins as a British penal colony have proved difficult to shake off in terms of the country's image overseas, especially considering that the most numerically significant wave of immigration came during the Australian gold rushes of the 1850s.'"

It is factually incorrect, as well as badly written. See Australian Government, Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs for data on immigration. Specifically it says that the most numerically significant immigration to Australia was post World War II.

--Morgan Leigh 12:47 PM, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Numerically, yes, proportionally no. The white population increased from 400,000 in 1850 to 1.2 million in 1861. That is an increase of 20% per year. Roughly 2% of the entire population of the UK (which included Ireland at the time), emigrated to NSW and Victoria alone. The post-WW2 one million per decade, while significant, cannot top the 1850s. I am going to reinstate that passage. Grant65 (Talk) 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Neighbours & Home and Away
Where's the evidence for the supposition that some Brits can't stand Aussies because of their soaps ? You can always find some people to support a point of view, but if there is only an insignificant number of people voicing an opinion, such a view should hardly be included in this article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrleighton (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 August 2005.
 * True to an extent, but a number of quite high profile people in Brit have made comments about it. One example is blaming Australia for the Brits youth having a High rising terminal. But trust me it doesnt stop their, some of the conservatives politicians didn't like that the program shows naked bums on occastion.. *shock* :) - UnlimitedAccess 20:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but conservative Britons are probably the least likely people in the world to be anti-Australian. For most conservatives, the image of Australia is connected far more to the shared institutions (the Monarchy, the Commonwealth of Nations, etc), shared history (particularly the World Wars), expatriates (both ways), and sport (particularly the Ashes), rather than to Kylie Minogue and Holly Valance 'corrupting' our youth.  If we're discussing Conservatives, rather than conservatives, that observation is even clearer: Lynton Crosby and Amanda Platell serving as strategy advisors at the last two general elections, and the Australian Liberal Party is the strongest ally that the Conservative Party has in international politics.  Frankly, this seems as though either someone has blown out of all proportion Ashes-fuelled rivalry, or someone is trying to find incidence of anti-Australianism where none exists.


 * That's not to say that anti-Australianism doesn't exist elsewhere. Besides that in New Zealand, there is quite considerably anti-Australianism in France (hitherto unmentioned in the article), due to competition with Australian vinyards, Australian membership of the Coalition of the Willing, and French jealousy at the close ties that the UK retains with its former colony. If that needs to be articulated in the article (and it really should be), it would be a small task. However, crying wolf over a few Australian soap operas is hardly fair. Bastin8 01:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What you have to remember is that the UK and Australia still have a pretty close relationship, for two countries so far apart, and while that reflects a continuing closeness, familiarity has created a certain contempt in both places I think. The point is not about majority opinion in the UK, or about political (big C)Conservatives. It is about "cultural conservatives". Things may have changed a bit in the last 13 years but I lived in London in 1991-92 and my experience was that there was persistent low-level sneering about the soaps and Aussie culture in general, from (e.g.) the likes of newspaper columnists and other people in the media. Of course these people were completely out of touch with the 10-15 million people watching Neighbours every day.... Grant65 (Talk) 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I lived in the UK in the late '90s and the same 'sneering' from the Brits that Grant experienced was there, awful accent, didn't want to be mistaken for Aussies, etc. Sugplumxx 03:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I mention the Conservative Party because it is the best weathervane for conservative (and classically liberal) opinion in the UK. Whereas both William Hague and Michael Howard appointed Australians to manage their PR, Tony Blair complained (after the Crosby appointment) that the Conservatives were importing foreigners.  In the resulting debate, the Conservatives proved themselves to consider Australians to be their brothers and sisters (using practically that exact argument), whereas Labour and Lib Dems pretended as though we shared nothing.  Either it is the left-wing that has an issue with Australians (which is unlikely, given other factors) or Labour and the Lib Dems were being opportunistic (which is a certainty) and there is no anti-Australian sentiment worth noting.
 * I can also assure you that there is no contempt for Australian culture whatsoever. The British public and media readily accept Australians as their own.  One only has to look at the list of prominent Australians that have set up base in London, or have achieved disproportionate success in the UK to see that.  It also works the other way, with over a 800,000 Britons holidaying in Australia each year, and 200,000 Britons retired to Australia.
 * Yes, there is sneering, from some quarters, towards Neighbours and Home and Away, but only to the same extent that there is towards Coronation Street, Eastenders, and all other soaps. I can't imagine that anybody hates Neighbours or Home and Away simply because they're Australian (and, if they do, it can hardly be attributed to being conservative).  Perhaps they aren't quite as appreciated as British soaps are because the cultural references don't transfer, the accents are annoying, and the situations, particularly sunny weather, are sometimes incongruous for the British viewer.  Then again, that's not anti-Australianism, but the mark of a discerning audience that would just as readily discriminate against a British soap with those problems.
 * For the record, today, the idea that the country used to grind to a halt to watch Neighbours (as it did) is laughable. Nowadays, Neighbours might get three million or so.  However, even that audience displays a deep appreciation of Australian culture.  One only has to see a list of Australian singers that have achieved major success in the UK to see that.
 * All of this makes for a very interesting discussion in the article (and I'll be only too pleased to write much of it), but it also goes to show that any generalisations about the conservatives or Britons in general are out of place. Bastin8 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "The accents are annoying"? Ahem....LOL :-D. In fact, the sneering I referred to often came from left-leaning sources like The Guardian or The Independent. (I was so incensed by one article in the Indy that I wrote them a letter.) The origin/source doesn't make it any less "culturally conservative", and I suspect that had I been a regular reader of the Telegraph, I would have been more frequently annoyed. Grant65 (Talk) 06:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

''some British cultural conservatives dislike the supposed vulgarity and/or bad examples for young British people, demonstrated by Australian popular culture. The most common targets of such discontent are Australian soap operas shown on British television, such as Neighbours and Home and Away.''

Is this for real? Can someone cite specific examples of such criticsm? Bastie 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * any mention of accents is irrelevant in this article - many English speaking countries including Britain, America and Canada have several accents which plenty of people may find annoying yet aren't mentioned in their articles nor is it logical to atribute a negative sentiment for millions of people on a slight difference in how they speak.

Other stuff
Didn't Australia used to have like protectorates in the South Pacific? Wasn't Nauru or one of those ruled by Australia? That's probably been dealt with, but maybe they have some resentments.--T. Anthony 04:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see there was also a period of Papua (Australian territory). I remember reading of Anti-Australian sentiment there. An example is mentioned here. Should stuff like that be in here? Along with countries tending to say Australia is where to go for a good life as balance.--T. Anthony 04:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Australia had an assortment of trust territories throughout the region. There wasn't any resentment in any of them at independence; IIRC, Papua was hopefull of becoming the seventh state. Anti-Australian sentiment in those areas is a relatively recent (and minor) phenonmenon, probably attributable to recent/current foreign policies. --cj | talk 05:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What I've heard of people from there I am skeptical of that, but I don't have the sources to refute it.--T. Anthony 05:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New intro needed
Article needs an intro that summarises the who, why and when. At the moment it consists of a theoretical definition, how well-liked Aussies are and stuff about convicts - whose connection with the article is not well explained. Once readers get over their astonishment at the existence of this article, they should be able to quickly get an idea of who the dastardly antis are, why they're anti and whether this is just a phenom that has arisen in the last 10 years or has existed since the convict era or whenever. Nurg 09:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Pointless Article DELETE IT
This article is a total beat up.This is not an article you would find in an encyclopedia


 * On the contrary I feel it lacks address of the prime points of anti-Australian sentiment and purposively allocates the point of view as external to Australia whereas most anti-Australian sentiment is held by people -within- Australia. This underlying issue is rarely addressed, however. 211.30.80.121 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i sopuse that the anti-american artical should be deleted aswell if thats the case dont you think? Unknown User 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ties to the United States
POV about this section, "Although Australian contingents have been much smaller"

Why is it defending 'the size' of the contingents anyway? Australian troops help the effort, whatever the effort is.

The text about people being anti-Australian because of ties with the USA and being the USA's puppet as far as the WOT, I always have a problem with this mentality, I think it is POV, and I seriously doubt Australian's PM -- or any other country's PM of which the citizens have this mentality -- believes he is acting on behalf of anything but his own country and world security. Australia makes its own decisions. Australia initiates its own actions. Australia is powerful country and can take responsiblity.

And to top it off, 'American Imperialism' is POV as well. Sugplumxx 03:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern section
Could somebody delete the last paragraph on the page - the one about the anti-australian sentiment by australian-lebanese youths? lol The section is referenced to 60 minutes incase nobody noticed, they are by no means reliable and if there is anything worth salvaging from the section its already covered earlier on (under anti-australian sentiment for values and by australians). 124.176.54.123 11:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * there is on one who hate Australians more than Middle Eastern youths who hold Australian citizenship - look at the level of violence and the racist comments in the attacks - girls were rapes, others were almost murdered.


 * 60 minutes quoted court documents - i dont see how 60 minutes quoting a source makes the source unreliable - court documents are court documents no matter who quotes them - IF 60 MINUTES IN UNRELAIBLE, THEN LOOK AT THE SOURCE THEY USED IE COURT DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE BY EVERY MEANS RELIABLE - it is better to link to the sources in the 'sydney gang rapes' shich links to SMH and not just delete the section because you dont like 60 minutes - it doesnt make sense what you argued anyway - court documents are relaible even if the most unreliable satan himself quotes them... idiot...


 * what is worth salvaging is that Middle Easterns hold the highest level of anti-Australian sentiment as seen in the level of violence acted upon Australians at their hands,.Jacksyfoxy 10:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is tendentious, unencyclopaedic and almost indescribably bad
It seems to exist solely to popularise the notion that white Australians &mdash; until my edits of today, described in the article as the sole users of the term "Australian" &mdash; are the most victimised group, either within their country or outside it. This seems to be in response to Talk discussions around the Bilal Skaf and Cronulla Riots Wikipedia articles, where it was clear that an unknown number of persistent editors were making tendentious, unsupportable and unencylopaedic changes on the basis that they felt there was some unreported consiracy against white Australians (for which, read "Australian"), and that white Australians were the truest victims of racism and discrimination in Australia. No matter how much some contributors wish it to be the case, white Australians are not the victims of Lebanese Australian pogroms in south west Sydney.

The only merit in this article is its discussion of anti-Australian sentiment internationally, but even this needs to be well-referenced, and uncoupled from a slavish discussion of anti-American sentiment &mdash; I had to delete a large and gushing paragraph relating to Australia's supposed ancient relationship with the United States which singularly ignored a much longer relationship with Britain.

At present, the article is a waste of space, woefully constructed, partisan in its intent and argument and selection of facts, and extremely poorly referenced, if at all.

It is an embarrassment to Australians and to Wikipedia.193.61.177.147 16:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The material referred to above should be removed if unsupported by extraordinary sources. I tagged it as an essay entry, if that is any help to interested editors. I am not.  Articles in newspapers are intended to generate readership, sell things and are sources of letters to the editor, not the basis of wikipedia articles.  The very name of the article needs to be supported by actual and extensive usage of the term outside of its use by media presenters as "you know who I mean ;-|".   Fred ☻  14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree - this article is nothing short of a disgrace. The way it is written is awful, NOTHING is referenced and what is actually written is crap. Like the sentence about the beer we drink in Australia... WHAT? Why would that even warrant a passing mention? "Actually VB is more popular" etc. etc... awful article.


 * Agree too. I suggest culling anything that is not both (a) reliably referenced and (b) relevant/notable even if that removes, say, 90% of the article. --Merbabu 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

come on, it's a riot. don't you 'get' Wikipedia yet?140.184.192.117 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article is really bad; no sources. I suggest putting it through an Afd.-- Sef rin gle Talk 23:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you; the current article is a load of whatever. The question of notability though is different to the one of poor quality. I’d suggest removing all the unreferenced (original research?) material first, and then going for afd. --Merbabu 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did that. Would someone AfD it - please? Cygnis insignis 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Revived
If the article sucked it should have been improved. The subject is as plausible as Anti-Canadianism and Anti-Catalanism. Futher "Anti-Australian sentiment" either does exist or has been a subject of discussion for decades. Lastly if you believe this article should not exist it should have been put up for AfD. Redirecting it to "Anglophobia" was misleading at best.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that I did not return it to the version just before it became a redirect. I returned it to a smaller version that seemed to be better sourced. The idea, in part, being if this version also sucks you'll have less to rewrite.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed your comment, articles with titles like this are dubious. Even an anti-Nazi sentiment art would be unnecessary. The most reliable source for this article is Yellow journalism, and the rest relies on a synthesis of isolated reports. I restored the redirect until better sources are used, but I'm sceptical as to whether they exist. cygnis insignis 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article so controversial?
It's one of the more "delete by redirection" articles I recall. I was okay with that for awhile but there does seem to be some interest in it and it did survive Articles for deletion/Anti-Australian sentiment (2nd nomination). So I'm going to revive it again because I think it should probably have a proper delete or at least a proper "Should we redirect" discussion before eliminating it again.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I believe this article is ridiculous and should be deleted is because Anti-Australian sentiment does not exist at the same degree as anti sentiment exists towards other ethnicities. The reason it does not really exist is testament to other ethnicities been tolerable to Australians and their behaviour more so than those ethnicities liking Australians. In contrast, it has been found time and time again that Australians are so intolerable to other ethnicities (such as the Irish) and that this discriminatory behaviour by Australians towards other ethnicities has led to many reports (including a UN report) citing Australia within the top ten most racist countries in the world. I would encourage people to look this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.151.233 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)