Talk:Racism in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Claim of 40,000 year indigenous occupation[edit]

Looking at the 'racism in Australia' page, it's a shame people are allowed to make unbased claims and state them as fact here. Someone claims the natives of Australia were there 40,000 years before others came. Now first there is no firm documentation of anything before 6000 years ago or so. The lineages given in the bible are interwoven in the only history kept by a people group and the DETAILS remarkably match with plausible possibilities at every turn when evaluated in the language of that day.

Some estimates are that agricultural methods arose as early as 7000 years ago but the source of that claim is sketchy of course. I just mention it because a human kind that had any CHANCE of survival, would invent things that improved their survival odds fairly quickly as soon as there were reasonable numbers. IF you are in an underpopulated world, hey you're probably going to have lots of kids. 12 average maybe. 1000 people maybe the first hundred years starting from one couple. Maybe a million after a couple hundred years. IF you are a scenario of nice climate, wild food everywhere etc. that's a real likely scenario! IF people are surviving at all then they have minds like people today pretty much because otherwise they'd be eaten by wild beasts. lol. We are NOT the most physically formidable for certain. We rely on our tact. That SAME tact comes into play in inventing things to make life easier. And I just can't imagine HOW it would take more than a few hundred years to develop agricultural techniques! NOT 30,000 years! lol

So I'm highly skeptical about this claim of people being there 40,000 years and it should be stricken and something installed there that we have actual confirmed data to back....lest we just look presumptuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sounddoctorin (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "talk topic" is intellectually dishonest and should not even be up for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.193.231 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NT Intervention[edit]

Does anybody else question the presence of this legislation under an article intended to deal with 'Racism in Australia.' I don't think that section belongs here. Thoughts? (202.20.73.26 (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]


Encyclopaedic?[edit]

Would anyone else agree that this is not really encyclopaedic content? Racism is all to do with perspecitve, and the media (of course I'm not denying there are racists, of course they exist). It is hard to prove racism and racist attacks etc were due tor acism and not opportunity. Comments anyone?124.179.254.40 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Racism is a cultural phenomenon, which may not be empirically measured, but is widely recognised as a significant factor in various circumstances. As such it is a notable subject that should be documented here. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shiftchange, but the IP commenter is also correct in saying that we have to be careful about assumptions - 'racism' interpretations of violent acts need to be attributed appropriately. --GenericBob (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not agree. Racism exists in Australia in a variety of forms. Many researches or surveys have proven the experiences of people of non-English background or non-Western cultural backgrounds in this country. These researches or surveys can be easily found in the internet search engines, such as the google search. In fact, these researches or surveys are based on the real-life experiences of ordinary people of non-Western cultural backgrounds in Australia. One of the most prominent racist evidences is related to employment.

It is common sense that employment brings income and the related social status. The majority of employers in this country are white people of western culture. It is their attitude that makes it so hard, if not impossible, for the people of non-Western cultural backgrounds to be fully and fairly employed, compared with people of Western cultural backgrounds. As employers, they have designed and practiced a complicated set of procedures that suite their needs to filter out those they dislike, mostly those people are from non-Western cultural backgrounds. They practice this kind of racial discriminations in a subtle way, leaving little or no trace of racism. But the end result is always the same: no or little employment for people of non-western cultural backgrounds. Asking any unemployed people of non-Western cultural backgrounds about the main causes of their being unemployed, the answer being that racism is one of the major factors. This commonly seen phenomena is actually fostered and cultivated by the racism culture of this country. It is actually a collective responsibility of the white employers of Australia who help the fostering of the racism in this country. Talking about collective responsibility, Sara Ann Reiter and Paul F. Williams raised the issue of racist attitudes as an example. If someone harbors racist attitudes, the person is still responsible since his or her racist attitudes contribute to a climate of racism in which harm can be done, even though that person may not engage directly in harming other persons against which such attitudes are directed. Since racism is a matter of fact and since racism has caused so much harm to people of non-Western culture backgrounds in this country, it is a social problem that no government can neglect. It is a big social issue and should not and can not be hidden from public discussion and must not be excluded from public knowledge realm. Therefore, the racism of Australia should be fully covered in encyclopedia. The effects of racism are of wide range. Racism does harms than good. Any one with common sense should know the fact of racism in Australia and get rid of racism if he or she really wants a better world. reference: Sara Ann Reiter and Paul F. Williams , 'The Philosophy and Rhetoric of Auditor Independence Concepts', pp-370, Business Ethics Quarterly, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.20.250 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This article has a pronounced left-wing bias and is part of a series focused heavily on white racism. As the above comment makes clear, it is apparently edited by those who wish to find an avenue for their anti-Western resentment. You won't be able to shift it easily but don't worry - it only preaches to those already converted to the political class's approved viewpoints; nobody else will bother with it. Akafd76 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Left wing? LOL! I saw a newspaper comment last week describing the acceptance of the science of anthropomorphic global warming as left wing. It's all so silly, I think I'll go out of my way to deliberately believe in anything described as left wing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

This article has a number of issues;

  1. Coatrack - reads as a collection of recent non-notable incidents tied together under the same banner
  2. WP:NPOV - written as from a non neutral POV in that the word presumes/implies guilt without evidence
  3. makes generalised statements drawing conclusions
  4. severley under sourced
  5. Possible WP:BLP issues where it names individuals and organisations

These need to be addressed asap by sourcing and content removal, statments which identify individuals that are unsource need to removed Gnangarra 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on all points. I cleaned up a fair bit before your comments, but as for the rest i couldn't quite bring myself to removing all content even though it's appalling. --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed this tag as it applies to an earlier state of the article, when it was just a list of racial antagonisms. Doesn't help with stubification. Ottre 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
today's additions are also pov problems. I will copy edit later today. If problem persists, then I will seek wider opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care tbh. Everybody knows that the politicisation of race is far less important than the geographical aspects, such as in-migration and housing allocation. Somebody else can fix the article. Ottre 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Ottre 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


These look like they could be useful. thanks. It would be nice if they could be neutrally and accurately used on the article. So far though the article has been a mix of a list of unrelated incidents and unreferenced and largely esoteric and/or tangential musings. --Merbabu (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dunn, Kevin; Forrest, James (July 2006). "Racism and Intolerance in Eastern Australia: a geographic perspective". Australian Geographer. 37 (2): 167–186. doi:10.1080/00049180600711082.

Racism against students[edit]

The Racism against students section is bogus. There is no evidence to support the idea that there is wave of racism against students from India in Australia in 2009. There are some allegations, some sensationalist reporting in the Indian press and lots of reactionary groupthink but that is about it. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit uses Indian newspapers. Interesting --Merbabu (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sensationalist or not, the Indian press can't be ignored. Also, it's not our role to analyze evidence. If it's in the press, it should be on the page. I do agree the text needs some work tho. --vvarkey (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Someone removed the entire section, however, I have re posted it. If it was a false allegation, why in the world would the Australian Govt go ahead and setup a Helpline for the students to report such incidents [5] This source is from an Aussie website, I think people might consider this authentic as its Australian. With reference to the link provided by Merbabu: "everyone agrees that not all Australians are racist, however there are some handful and the incident has taken place. This article covers racial incidents in Australia and hence this news too should be covered. Also, when China too is expressing its views on the conditions is justifying enough that such attacks are actually carried out.Bmayuresh (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bmayuresh any reason you undid my comments on this talk page? --vvarkey (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that none of the references provided have proved that there is currently a significant rise in racism against Indians in Australia. A collection of attacks does not mean the target is the victim of racism. Racism involves things like discrimination, segregation, irrational fears against and a long-term bias against a specific race. Of course some people are racist, including many Australians but it doesn't mean they are going out and targeting Indians because of their race. Have any media reported on other aspects of racism against Indians such as trouble finding accommodation, social isolation, etc? I have seen reports and read comments indicating that life for Indian students in Australia is good. If anything what is happening is more like a series of opportunistic muggings and drunk thuggery. Only if similar activity continued with evidence of racial intent and a broader movement in other cities, would it be worth mentioning. Also the reason the helpline was setup was to allay fears and appease Indians back at home who now might not study in Australia because of racism concerns. Again it doesn't prove racism is the cause of the violence. Others might disagree of course and it would be good to hear from them. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So my friend, you agree that there is a concern about the issue. The attacks are labeled as "racists" hence the article should be extended with the incident and the topic should remain. Any edits that do not remove the topic but in turn help in making it better are welcome.Bmayuresh (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge of Racial Violence In Australia[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge into Racism in Australia . -- DarkCrowCaw 20:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a newly created article appears to be of a very similar vain and has a similar structure. The difference is that it includes some older incidents that arent in this article, these are the Sydney rapes in 2000, Broome pearler riots and riot in the NSW goldfields. Gnangarra 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Although racism is a little blurry around the edges I can't think of any racially motivated violence that isn't based on racist thoughts. For race to not be the main factor in Australian violent conflicts it would have to be caused by something else, for example, scarce resources, economic hardship or a grave misunderstanding. It seems that in all the cases presented in that article that racial divisions are the main element. Instead of having that article any new content should be placed in history, crime or racism articles that already exist. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - very similar topic. The same contents almost. Wikipedia should consolidate more and focus more on quality and not quantity. --Merbabu (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the historic stuff especially should be merged into Racism in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Merbabu. --GenericBob (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge - These articles cover different subjects - while racial violence is necessarily racist, racism does not have to include violence. There seems to be enough content here for two articles, with the other one as a sub-article to this one. Robofish (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If one were to take out the common content between the two articles, there is very little left here. Certainly nothing that can’t be better incorporated into the other article. Wikipedia needs to start focussing on quality not quantity. And, if there really is a time in the future where there is enough quality material specifically on racial violence in the Racism article that makes that article too long, etc, then the issue can be revisited. But as it stands now, there is no point to two articles. --Merbabu (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Robofish. -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge', even though racial violence obviously and often stems from racism, believe it or not the causes are not always the same. That said, it's still clear that they're two different things.(Marinesuper (talk) 09:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose the merge Racial violence and racism in Australia even though they're related, they from different originating points as you'll see whe you delve into them more.
Thanks(Jimmy Heat (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 11:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Oppose. Both articles need to be stubbed and rewritten ex nihilo. Ottre 12:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Institutional Racism[edit]

The citations only talk about institutional racism in hospitals, not the wide range of university and government institutional racism that the article tries to talk about. Perhaps original research? Dont want to change it myself cause people get angry on these kinds of articles.TommrtnTalk 02:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Racism?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a pretty large section on anti racism like there is for a few other pages like this, i just did a google search and found heaps of anti racism stuff but none covered in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke193 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What well sourced, notable material do you have in mind? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added section Alleviation, with further information to articles about Anti-Racism and Critical Race Theory. AverageFraud (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "multiethnic" even a word?[edit]

The lead says "Australia today is a multiethnic society". It caught my eye because "multiethnic" is a "word" I made up myself to sound a bit smartypants in discussions on these topics. Obviously somebody else made it up too. (It's OK. I'm not offended.) My spellchecker doesn't believe it's a word.

What about "Australian society today is the result of more than two centuries of immigration from many different cultures"? HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess hardly anybody ever looks here. May boldly correct it myself. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
multiethnic is in my dictionary and, I would say, commonly used and clearly understood.Ozhistory (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Racism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Racism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Racism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Racism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

Usage of particular words should be deemed offensive. Perhaps appropriate terminology endorsed by academic institutes should be used?

·Indigenous Terminology ·Inclusive Language Guidelines Vajaybm2025 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created template as this seems to be problem site-wide, Template:First Nations Australians AverageFraud (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racism toward Southern Europeans.[edit]

Despite mentioning anti Irish racism in Australia and racism toward other immigrant groups, there is no section dealing with widespread anti italian and anti Greek racism in Australia, or hatred toward Maltese immigrants. 96.66.62.245 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added section about European Australians, you can possibly add subsections if necessary. AverageFraud (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Racism in Australia 41.144.86.29 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Hanson and One Nation[edit]

I'm unsure of where this section fits in the article, as contemporary issues for me would be something similar to hate crimes and hate speech? Not really a specific politician/party?

The background of how she got in government seems a bit much on an article about racism.

I think that this be possibly removed and added to their own articles. Just seems strange to me. AverageFraud (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes, forgot to sign in. AverageFraud (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internment of Japanese Australians[edit]

In the section Asian Australians we probably need to add information about the forced relocation and incarceration of Australians with Japanese ancestry that happened during WW2. AverageFraud (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim sentiment[edit]

Need to add anti-Muslim sentiment, and how the Christchurch mosque attack in New Zealand in 2019 exacerbated fears. AverageFraud (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky area. Islam isn't a race; it's a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology White/Black[edit]

Wanted to hear about what you guys think about the use of White Australians and Black Australians, To me this categorization is too broad, as it refers to just skin colour. For example when referring to Black Australians are we talking about Indigenous Australians or African Australians? I think we should go with the standard: European Australians, Indigenous Australians, and African Australians. As this is based on geography rather than skin colour. Now this does not mean we don't use the terms; White Supremacy, or the White Australia Policy, Black Lives Matter, etc. as these to me, are already established. Now this is a complex topic and I could be wrong so, any thoughts? AverageFraud (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most Australians avoid using white and black as labels. Those that do use them tend to be the racists. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After some reading, I believe that there is an answer to this at least for First Nations Australians.
Australian Government Style Guide suggests using 'First Nations Australians', 'First Australians', 'Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples'. This is the most recently updated September 2021.
UNSW suggests 'Indigenous Australian people/s', 'Aboriginal people/s', 'Aboriginal person', 'Torres Strait Islander people/s', 'Torres Strait Islander person'. Last updated August 2019.
AIATSIS suggests that the words Indigenous, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander are capitalised, as would be the name of any other group of people.
I believe that we should use the Australian Government Style Guide as it is the most recent.
This does not mean calling Government programs or departments First Nations as that would be confusing, for example the 'Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation' would still be 'Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation'.
Now, some interesting reading.
Blak has been used in Australia instead of Black. SMH and SBS have articles about it's correct usage.
The National Museum of Australia has used Blak to refer to First Nations Australians.
Monash University also had a panel discussing Blak design.
There is also Sydney Festival’s Blak Out.
Just some thoughts. AverageFraud (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Terminology[edit]

Hi, after my edits were reversed I decided to create a template with some guidelines on appropriate terminology when writing about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Template:First Nations Australians. The template links to the sources used in its creation. Any discussion can be had on its talkpage. Thanks,

AverageFraud (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Racism between Australia and Britain's practiced by Britain white foreigner over Black Originals of Australia 41.114.161.20 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Citation[edit]

Citation #79 ("Factbox, the 'Stronger Futures' Legislation") has been deleted, here is the most recent Wayback Machine archive before its deletion. (i am new around here someone else put it in for me thanks) Tiddly5 (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archive URL added. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lede specifically note that racism is still present in Australia today?[edit]

There's a current minor disagreement over whether the lede should specifically note that racism still exists in Australia today. Details in these two edits by @Gmt2403: [6] [7], proposing these changes:

  • that racism still exists in Australia today; and
  • that racism in modern Australia is perpetrated by Anglo-Saxons.

On point one, my personal view is that the existence of racism today is already spelled out in detail in the article text, notably in the Indigenous Australians section and by implication in sections such as the one on the Cronulla Riots. It's a truism that it exists today and I'm not sure we need to say it any more explicitly than we already do. However, as views can vary it's worth discussing in case a clearer expression of this reality would be of benefit to readers. On point two, I don't believe racism is only perpetrated by Anglo-Saxons and don't think we can assert that in Wikipedia's voice, absent some pretty solid sourcing. But opinions may vary.

Any and all views welcome to help reach a consensus, including of course from GMT2403 as the proposer of these changes. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We worked a lot to get the wording correct without offending people.
Racism still happens today, there is an entire section on "Contemporary issues" already. This does not need to be mentioned in the lede. It is completely unnecessary.
Second point, we can't just make untrue statements that racism is perpetrated by Anglo-Saxons. It'd be more accurate to say that racism is perpetrated by white supremacists and neo-nazis, etc. but again this is already in the article so it'll be completely unnecessary.
AverageFraud (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"F*** off, we're full"[edit]

The infamous slogan, "F*** off, we're full" is known to have originated in Australia, and gained further notoriety when an American version was sold on Amazon. Where best to put this info? There's already a Wiktionary entry for it.

Deepred6502 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Di Sanh Duong case should be corrected or deleted[edit]

The section recently added concerning the Di Sanh Duong case is misleading, not written from a neutral point of view, and not properly sourced (e.g., a Twitter post). It should be rewritten or deleted. He was not arrested merely for donating money to a charity, but for acting as a foreign agent of the Chinese government. He had frequents contacts with CCP intelligence officials. He persecuted other Chinese Australians by ratting them out to Chinse officials. It's questionable whether his case belongs in this article at all, but if it remains it should be described neutrally and accurately. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Australia&oldid=1214296562"