Talk:Anti-Australian sentiment

message: 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)
thread_title: Excised text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other stuff

message: 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)
thread_title: New intro needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Pointless Article DELETE IT

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ties to the United States 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revived 

message: 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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Why is this article so controversial?