Talk:Australia–New Zealand relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Underarm Bowling

The article says that New Zealanders have never forgiven Australia for the underarm bowling incident. I think we have. It's a good natured joke these days, surely. It also says we define our national identity as distinct to Australia, in an Anti-Australian way. What???? I reckon we just are who we are, and Australia has nothing to do with our identity. Kahuroa 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. We are close enough to joke - and I think the bowling incident is a great example (fiery at the time, but a reason to poke good-natured fun now), yet we don't define ourselves by the other. Here, NZ is a place of sheep shaggers, who are fun to get along with even though they speak strangely and say 'sex' too much. I guess the NZers have their own jokes about us, but certainly don't need to define themselves by us - they have a distinct culture which, although not unlike our own, is still its own. katie 12:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. What does New Zealand have to do with Australia?--Matt von Furrie 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Australians have never forgiven other Australians for that incident (me included)! I hope though it would not define the relationship between the two countries but is surely significant.--A Y Arktos 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO the bowling incident as become part of the " National mood" of NZ, where the NZ mood has not forgiven aussie for it. Brian | (Talk) 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

After living in nz for 3 months, I really enjoyed the people and the country but the media is what I found disturbing. I suppose when about 50% of their news seems to be Australian or Australian related the media does get quite anti Australian at times and not in a joking way. With a show called Ugly Aussies and with a recent sports presenter featuring an item about how funny it was that a NZ female sprinter caused a fight between two Aussie females sprinters so no wonder that the bad attiude gets around. Most people I have met have been great but there still comes across this better than Australia hippie attiude. It does seem similar to the US, Canada relationship. In Aus it seems like we really don't factor NZ into out thinking very much at all other than the odd joke but in NZ, Aus seems to feature so much people feel compeled to fall the tall poppy as they say. An ref the underarm incident, it certainly stings some people still in NZ, while I would never condone it its hardly something to kick up such a fuss so much thats its still apart of NZ culture today and not in Australia.

Australian's are apart of the odd joke, but in my opinion that is about it. Australia is a great exporter to New Zealand and that is about it. Two seperate countries, two seperate people - nothing to do with either.--Matt von Furrie 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody should make a section mentioning some jokes that Aussies and Kiwis make about each other. For example, you might have to put it fairly "nicely" but the sheep shagger stereotype MUST be mentioned. 09:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That's really all i know NZ for anyway! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.20.146 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Australia-New Zealand relations speedy delete reasons

Added to WP:SD

This page was tagged ((delete)) which was changed to ((db|This page is nonsense. Wikipedia is not about supplying "jokes" (minor jokes between two insignificant countries), it's about supplying facts to people who need them. If someone wants to know about Australia's obviouslly jealous view of New Zealand, then they would goto that country)) to which I added ((Addition by User:Stollery: db-Original research-no references-POV )) which is essentially the guts of the matter. It's some guys opinion of Aus-NZ relations - by definition the content must be POV - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 10:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Tag removed - a large number of editors have worked on this article for over a year (since January 2005). Not a speedy delete - it is not some guy's opinion but a number of editor's opinions. If you wish to delete it had better go to AfD. Note while I would support improvement, I would not support deletion.--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:SD tag - accidently added and reverted

Apologies for the 2nd speedy tag, I'm not sure what happened but the software I'm using VandalProof added the tag to this page instead of the page I intended. I reverted immediately. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 10:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Treatments of native peoples?

I'm surprised there isn't some kind of comparison... Like the Treaty of Waitangi and the Stolen Generation. I really don't know enough to write anything, though. - 220.237.30.150 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Reading the article, I currently agree with the tag at the top of the article, refering to a lack or no references. However, some of the article, to me atleast, reads very POV, with weasel wording -

• "Consequently, ‘Kiwis’ in Australia are accused of taking local jobs or living on Australian social welfare benefits". Who is accusing them?
• "However, there are complaints in New Zealand that Australia is poaching the country's best and brightest, with police forces, schools and hospitals in Australia headhunting or recruiting aggressively across the Tasman" - Who is complaining?
• "although some New Zealanders are almost horrified at the idea that they have anything in common with Australians" - More Weasles.
• "A comparison could be drawn with American views of Canada." - With no reference, I would take that as somebodies point of view on the relations.

The points above are a quick overview. I am tagging {{NPOV}}--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree completely. After reading the introduction, I didn't even have to read any more to see what you ment. "One example of this was Australia's anger over the Air New Zealand/Ansett Airlines fiasco, a reaction that was sharper than could be easily explained by the mere facts." I really have no clue how to rewrite sentences like this but they clearly are not Netural in their Point of View. I feel that I can say that they are not netural since I am not from either country, but I sence a bias in the writing. That last sentence is biased against Australia. This could be fixed by quoting notable people with these opinions but still seems quite biased. Andrew D White 02:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could we please have a review of this tag. The difference are substantial:
  • since 13 September 2006 and
  • since 15 June 2007

I don't think any of the points raised above still apply. The Ansett/Air NZ fiasco has been referenced and rewritten slightly. I believe the examples raised by Hamedog have all been edited out --Matilda ^talk 03:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Helenalex (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete article

There is nothing here about economic, military, legal, social security etc. ties between the two countries, just a list of "what X people probably think about Y people" factoids. Kransky 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I definately think this is biased; not to either side, but it seems to perceive that we don't like each other - I think both countries have a fairly good-natured approach to the other. We make jokes - here in Aus there's the sheep shagger jokes (I've never heard much reference to the mother land in poking fun), and they have their jokes about us. Everyone I've ever met who has made or been the subject of these jokes (NZ or Aussie) has found them humourous. In my time in NZ, I found everyone pretty much as friendly as Aus - not old fashioned, although a little more quaint in places like Christchurch merely because of the conditions of settlement.

The treaty compared with aborigine treatment isn't, I believe, a highly important point - I can see the paralell, but I think it needs to be detailed the separate circumstances - NZ and Aus aren't the same country (obviously) - it wasn't as if 'Australia' chose to treat their indigenous people badly and 'NZ' didn't - British rule was still about, different situations arose on each continent (convict or not), and from what I *believe*, maoris are more 'bound' than aborigines - they had a much smaller, much more inhabitable area to share, whereas aborigines formed many smaller tribes. (this is something I may recall correctly or not).

Generally, Iquite like NZers and their attitudes are fine - we have a competetive streak, and like to beat each other in sport, but unlike situations like the Cronulla Riots, I can't really recall any major tensions (if any at all).

Bilateral graphic and info box added

I've added a bilateral graphic and info box to the page to help illustrate the countries involved, using the same template as the Canada-United States relations page. In keeping with the title of the page and the alphabetical order I listed the countries as Australia, New Zealand not vica versa... the decision had nothing to do with my Australian birth ;).

It's freaky how similar our flags look. We need new ones!

Let me know if you think it's a bad idea and I'll take it off.

Cheers -- rubenerd 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

History

This page needs a history section, if only so that the Anzacs can be mentioned. I think 'cultural and historical attributes' should be annexed for this purpose. I will do this over the next week or so if no-one else wants to. --Helenalex 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The ANZACs are the greatest national heratige that both countries share. Despite hard feeling for each other sometimes, I think many Australians, myself included, would rush to help New Zealand, and I like to belive the feeling is vice versa. The ANZACs has to be a really important part of this page.

Unsourced statements

Apologies to the many people who have worked on this page, but it struck me that there are a large number of unsourced statements of fact in this article. As a consequence I've added a whole bunch of {{fact}} to the sentences that it seemed to me needed citations. BigBadaboom0 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed some of the unsourced statements in the Stereotype views, until whoever wants to work on this article can find citations referencing the relevant claims. On another note if you go ahead and remove the statements regarding the HDI (which are referenced) then remove the information on the New Zealand side regarding media corruption (which is also referenced). 121.50.202.71 15:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ansett

I can't find any justification for the statement Relations between the two countries have worsened at times over relatively minor matters - so changing to Relations between the two countries have been tense at times over relatively minor matters. Similarly the assertion re Ansett that a reaction that was sharper than could be easily explained by the mere facts does not seem to be able to be sourced to any reliable source and is therefore POV. I think the mere facts do indeed explain the anger. --Matilda ^talk 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference section

I notice down in the ref' section that some have quite long quotes in them. I was wondering if this is necessary as it detracts from the appearance of that section in my opinion. Also the "UKUSA" info box is hanging down into the reference section (on my browser at least) and squashing up the reference columns and as such also detracting from the appearance. Is there a fix for this? Also with the references I was wondering if some of them might need linking to an archive service such as WebCite offers? It's just that I've noticed with a couple of links I added ages ago to a different article, that they have now gone dead. With archiving this is no longer a problem. Others thoughts on this please.--Sting au Buzz Me... 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Response (I added those refs with quotes). I do not think appearance should be a matter of deciding whether or not the quotes stay rather whether it helps to understand and support the assertion referenced. I think it is important to have comprehensive references and to be explicit as to how those refs are being used. My approach has been governed in part by a deletion request (see discussion above) where it was noted It's some guys opinion of Aus-NZ relations - by definition the content must be POV . In my view it is very important with a topic such as this to ensure it is not original research and it complies with a neutral point of view. Additional work in demonstrating how the references have been used helps to demonstrate it is not original research.--Matilda ^talk 04:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's better to err on the side of including too much, and content should take priority over appearance. -- Avenue (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relations with the US

At present the article requests a cite for Australia has continued to be much more committed to the American alliance than New Zealand... but this is immediately followed by although both countries felt considerable unease about American military policy in the 1980s, New Zealand angered America by refusing port access to nuclear ships and was effectively suspended from the alliance, while Australia continued on with ANZUS. Australia has made a significant contribution to the Iraq War, which New Zealand has not participated. I would have thought that the banning of nuclear ships and the lack of contribution to the Iraq War were adequate arguments in support for the view. I thus propose to remove the request for cite. i would like to check no objections first. If necessary the port access and Iraq war contribution and lack could be referenced. Thanks Matilda ^talk 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should cite the specific facts if anyone thinks that's needed, but the summary is adequately justified.-gadfium 22:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, but the statement New Zealand never had an equivalent to the Eureka Stockade, could you include the 1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute in that, as it seems on the same magnitude, but theyre not specifically related. Taifarious1 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how an industrial dispute is the same as an armed rebellion against the government - I don't see anything to link them particularly. Labour disputes are categorised at Category:Labour disputes in Australia and Category:Labour disputes in New Zealand. It may be that there is something that could be developed about the history of labour relations in both countries, experiences in strikes, any cross-Tasman movement of officials or other measures of solidarity between workers, ... --Matilda ^talk 05:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explaination i see how theyre different, so thanks. Taifarious1 06:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1