Talk:White Australia policy

"Fill with whites, lest we be filled with yellows"

It is difficult from the context to determine whether this statement is the writers interpretation or an actual slogan. Could someone check this (202.7.183.130 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

The end of the WAP

It would be nice to see a bit of expansion on how Whitlam and Dunstan lobbied the Labor federal executive in to passing various motions to change the party's position on different aspects of the issue. Timeshift (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The commonly held belief is that Whitlam ended the WAP. Despite that, there are some who will debate it on and on. Fraser also likes to claim credit for ending the WAP. But did it end? Even recently, government Ministers were trying to limit immigration from African countries. What is that, if it is not a white Australia policy? Lester 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia is now a melting pot. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia is a country not an instrument for making chocolate, etc. OzWoden (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance???

In the latter section of the article there exists the following paragraph:

In 2007, the Howard Government introduced a citizenship test to include a tougher English language test, and a test on "Australian" values. The actual questions of such citizenship test have not been publicly released, and its future is in question given the ALP victory in the 2007 election.

Pray tell, what is the relevance of a language test or of a 'values' test (which even I agree is silly, but thats not the point) with the supposed "White Australia policy"? Before the lefties respond, consider this, non-white people speaka the English too.

If a sufficient reason is not given and/or if the paragraph is not amended to make it relevant to the article I will delete it. OzWoden (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to challenge the relevance of the statement "Though the White Australia policy, which had segregated Aborigines, no longer exists, their poor socio-economic conditions typically leave them segregated". This implies that a major contribution to - or indeed the main reason for - the poor socio-economic conditions of aboriginal Australians is the WAP. This is very dubious at best and profoundly misleading at worst. Unless I see a strong argument in favour I propose to delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.134.1 (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

1975 or 1985?

The opening sentence says that the policy (or series of policies) ran until 1985, but the "closing date" is taken in the rest of the article (and generally elsewhere) as the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. I believe 1985 is just a (very misleading) typo, so if I don't hear back from anyone who thinks otherwise I will correct it. paxman (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ko4

ko4 ko4 tinkle tot ko4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.90.202 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Prasad

Why is there no mention of this girl? My understanding is that her case and the publicity surrounding it were significant in the demise of the WAP. But I can find no mention of her here. Do I misunderstand her significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why put "non-white" in inverted commas?

Take an example - Southern Italians and Greeks were "whites" (albeit second rate ones in some people's eyes) - but Turks and Iranians were "non whites" - even if their skins were on the the whole just as fair if not fairer. "Non White" , especially in this context, is a silly, nasty, petty little concept that is not even consistent or unambiguous by its own twisted lights. It needs to be in "scare" quotes - if only to indicate that we are reporting its use but not endorsing it. OK? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor reference for Gold Rush section/ Unsubstantiated arguments

The reference cited for the second paragraph of the gold rush section does not support the assertions made in that paragraph. The article by Lockwood argues, as the title suggests, that the development of the White Australia politics in the lead up to federation resulted from the needs of British imperialism---i.e. that it was consciously developed by leading figures in the British imperial ruling class in order to develop a state that would play a role that served the interests of the British empire. The argument of the paragraph is that tensions on the gold fields led to the development of White Australia politics. But the article is largely concerned with the period before the gold rush, and its central focus is not tension between miners of different backgrounds, but rather of the development of racist colonial policy amongst the colonial and metropolitan elite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slmiller6 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible perceived bias

In the article specifically addressing Australia's "White Australia Policy" there would seem to be two visual errors - or possible confusions - or merely leanings.

1. A photograph - which it is acknowledged is headed "Part of a Series" - shows a sign:

- Black and White photograph of a sign identifying a "colored waiting room" -

Apart from spelling "colored" incorrectly for Australia it represents the cultural environment of the U.S. and not the subject of the article - Australia.

This represents Australia less than accurately.

2. The photograph of the badge at the top of the page is not placed in any context:

- bronze medallion depicting a map of Australia with "White Australia" embossed -

There is no source for the badge - it is unknown if this badge was issued by the Government, a political party, a private citizen or was bestowed for certain activities. Is it an official emblem, something Government sanctioned or not?

For 1908 I would expect to be told who issued the badge, who it was designed for and if it had any official status in Australia and if it was widely worn at the time - numbers minted would be a bonus. As it stands it is a marginally relevant piece of ephemera.

---

Gordon Evans ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordondouglas1 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

as for the American photo, it's says this article is part of an international series. For the badge: I added some context: thumb|200px This badge from 1910 was produced by the Australian Natives' Association, comprising Australian-born whites. Prime Minister Alfred Deakin was a member. It shows the use of the slogan "White Australia" at that time. See (http://museumvictoria.com.au/learning-federation/white-australia/medal---australia-for-australians/ Museum Victoria description)]] Rjensen (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wut?

Australian government policy from earlier years has been claimed[who?] to be the original impetus for the apartheid system in South Africa.

The Afrikanner people had always been racially aware since before Australia had been settled. Australia's policy had nothing in common with apartheid, least of all because it's name wasn't a giant contradiction. Remove this stupid, biased claim.Winston S Smith (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on White Australia policy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120407171857/http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/monographs/kendall/chapterone.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/monographs/kendall/chapterone.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

this is all wrong