Talk:Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand

I find this one difficult to believe

Australians commonly use colloquialisms in their speech. For example, one may say "I hear your grandmother carked it the other day" as opposed to a more gentle "passed away". This is a part of the very direct Australian dialect.

I think practically anyone would deem this as incredibly insensitive and rude. Format 00:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised by some of these etiquette requirements like "When paying a cashier, always place the money in their hand. Placing the money on a surface is considered rude. When paying at a restaurant, however, it is acceptable to leave the money in the tray on the table, if one is provided." I live in New Zealand and I don't get the impression that this is an important thing. Peter 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's any unsourced material that you think is wrong, you can remove it. You should note in your edit summary the reason for the removal. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 08:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed/changed a bit saying that "unlike in America" Australians and New Zealanders handshakes are not required to be firm. This is soooo not true. If whoever wrote this happens to be from Australia/NZ then you are the kind of person that I have heard many many complaints about. Its called "giving someone a dead fish" to grasp instead of a hand and for most people it is offensive. See how you go out in the country with your "dead fish".

Absolutely. Needs to at least be firm. And strong is good too. Format 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, speaking as a kiwi the NZ handshake has taken a turn for the worse - too many people have a limp handshake these days. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.138.230 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What about when Australia will refer to NZ celebrity as an "Australian celebrity". It happens all the time, such as the case for Crowded House (Split Enz), who were clearly NZ musicians but are now considered famous Australian artists - when they are actually NZ. What do others think about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.125.195 (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. How can "Australia" refer to a celebrity? I think you mean "the media"? Well the media like to repeat the same old lines. Like UK articles always describe Peter Andre as being "Australian". Actually he was only raised there. But that is how the media work. Format (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, two members (out of three) were Australian, and they were formed in Australia. And you can have Russell Crowe back. Please take him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In Emily Post's Etiquette (17th edition, 2004) in its Travel etiquette section, the countries are referred as less formal, more open towards strangers and shown warmth or friendliness, due to its warm climate. Australia and New Zealand may be portrayed to not have the regular formality or traditionally ethos like the Northeast USA or England, then again the article shown otherwise the Australian/New Zealander code of conduct doesn't vary as much from the US or UK. + Mike D 26 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

International Road Etiquette

I removed the following paragraph because I believe it is international etiquette and not particular to AU/NZ --gekkonaut:

• A common experience while travelling on state highways is being 'flashed' by oncoming vehicles. This is when an oncoming vehicle flicks its high beam headlights quickly but noticeably, and serves to warn drivers they are approaching - most commonly - a speed camera, a Police vehicle, or a motor vehicle accident. Many drivers acknowledge this with a return wave or a brief reply 'flash' of their high beam headlights.

Bars and restaurants

"It is very rude to try to get someone's attention in a public place by saying "Oi!" or "Hey you!" especially in bars/pubs and restaurants."

Is this true? I wouldn't say it is "very rude" in Queensland at least, certainly no more than yelling out in public ever is. "Oi Mate" is a pretty common way to alert people and I wouldn't imagine anyone being terrible upset by it.

King DeaN 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Waiters are people not dogs. It's no different to whistling at a waiter. Rude to the person and the people around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.12.175 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, re tipping in Hospitality I've always felt that it's actually pretty common & expected. Not sure if this is a personal thing, or perhaps more common in Sydney being a large city? I never considered it to be "Not usually expected". Thoughts? Manachi (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Where it mentions "Common restaurant manners include using the knife and fork properly", should it be noted that the way Australians & New Zealanders use the knife and fork is the "European" way where the fork remains in the left hand, not the "American" way where the fork is held in the left hand while cutting with a knife & then switched to the right when eating? Swampy 2001:8003:2081:B600:24AF:8910:BCAE:C12 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Tone

This section seems to be written from the perspective of someone visiting Australia and New Zealand, rather than a person actually familiar with the etiquette. I don't think it should have such a touristy tone. "Requesting a fanny pack...". Who would request a fanny pack? All those specific references to what are essentially language differences between US and AUS seem like they should be in a different article. This is not the kind of writing one would see in Encyclopedia Britannica or World Book. Melissa1001 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I read it as being strongly written from the perspective of an American visting either OZ or NZ. It should either be appropriately renamed, or rewritten to reflect what the title says.HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty silly article. Fanny is hardly "obscene" - The Nanny has been screening for more than a decade with the word in the title song and no one had ever batted an eyelid. In any event, it is a standard, albeit uncommon, girl's name. As if any Australian would be upset by any language differences with the US? After all the years of US film and television, we know what all the differences are already and would hardly be offended. The bit about non-removal of hats and Returned and Services League of Australia clubs seems archiac. Here in Melbourne RSLs are not a big deal, and it is not like the general person routinely visits them. I know with skin cancer hats are recommended, but something tells me that old piece of etiqueete is connected to a time when a hat was a generally accepted part of a man's suit. Format (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Driving and walking

In Australia, on escalators, we stand on the left and walk on right. agree? MrTwig (talk) 04:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And It's an important convention in busy places like city railway stations. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In Australia, Regarding the point "if you are passed by a vehicle that is towing it is customary to signal to the passing vehicle that they are far enough ahead to move back into the left lane by 'flashing' your headlights". I've actually never heard of this one at all - curious to know how commonly known this is? Anyone else familiar with it? Manachi (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Aborigine is not polite

The term "Aborigine" is not appropriate terminology due to its historical use as a derogatory term and though it is still in common use in a (non-derogatory manner) one should never use it when talking with an indigenous person. "Aboriginal" is the more acceptable term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.53.155 (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

what?

It may be impolite to remark on Australia's history as a penal colony.

Aside from thew ambiguous nature of the word "may", I've never heard of that being impolite. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

When I was younger (1950s & 1960s) most Australians I knew were quite assertive about the fact that they had no convict ancestry. To even hint at the possibility was quite insulting. That started to change in the 1970s when people started to actually look for such a background and boast about it. Some of those who felt the offence back then may still be around. And I can assure you that when English cricket fans make reference to the country's convict past, it's definitely meant as an insult. That most Australians don't see it that way hasn't yet reached their consciousness. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well with political correctness what it is today where any reference to race/nationality is likely to erupt in an international media/youtube controvercy, I'm not so sure anyone would publically be making too many claims about "convicts" as an insult - but this has nothing to do with Australian "etiquette". (Personally I think it is pretty juvenile... I am Australian and do not think any one has ever actually said it to me, so it probabably isn't that common.) Format (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

NZ Language Revisions\Changes

I added a couple of points that seem to have been reverted. Instead of starting an edit war I'll list the proposed changes here, note sources, give it a day or two, see if there's any radical disagreement then repost\not post as appropriate.

• Avoid use of the term pakeha (see discussion in link above) as it's a highly contentious term. Perceptions range from proud self identity to far worse than America's nigger.
• Use of the term West Island for Australia is acceptable.

The first could be rephrased but is quite valid. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81keh%C4%81#Attitudes_to_the_term and the discussions if evidence is required. The short version though is never use the term pakeha unless given permission to.

The latter's off a post card sold in NZ. Probably touristy but it pokes fun at the NZ-AU relationship. As a Kiwi it definitely amuses me! I'm prepared to accept that a postcard may not really be considered a valid source.

Oh, given this entire section\page is common knowledge\unsourced can I ask that replies be limited to locals\natives. It's pointless having Americans and others critiquing lack of sources for this.  :) 203.25.1.208 (talk)

I am not American, nor am I arguing whether you are right or wrong. I'm simply trying to improve the article according to Wikipedia's rules. Yes, unfortunately, and against the rules, there is a lot of unsourced material in the article. But adding more unsourced material will never help. You MUST find sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If it really is "common knowledge", it's probably been recorded in a reliable source somewhere. I'm vaguely surprised the article has lasted this long without a deletion nomination, given the amount of unsourced content, and anybody - regardless of nationality - is within their rights to ask for sources. --GenericBob (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Since "West Island" is clearly a harmless (and juvenile) joke, it hardly needs to be examined in a WP etiquette article. I doubt it would ever be used in any formal way by New Zealanders, and certainly would not be used there very frequently, and no Australian is likely to really care much about it. Format (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see some quick replies. I'm comfortable dropping the West Island reference. It's a joke\spoof reference but I'd consider it friendly inter-country rivalry rather than juvenile. What of the original point about pakeha being contentious?

HiLo48. I've no problem with proofing, in fact I'm in favour of it. Besides, the bit you reverted wasn't mine. My post was reverted by an American hence this thread to discuss and the request that it be locals\natives that critique.

Is Wikipedia an acceptable source? There's an article, and discussion, on pakeha which should function as an acceptable source. Given the contentiousness of the term I think it inappropriate in the extreme to directly link pakeha and people of European descent as given under the general heading, at least not without a note in the language field as I was attempting. For a comparison, and as raised on occasion in the pakeha discussion thread (probably archived now) it's loosely comparable to the American nigger\nigga which, and I quote the Wikipedia article "Some African-Americans express considerable offense when referred to as a nigga by Caucasian people, but not if they are called the same by other African-Americans, or by some other minority, as a term of endearment.[9] In this case, the term may be seen either as a symbol of brotherhood,[13] similar to the usage of the words dude and bro, and its use outside a defined social group an unwelcome cultural appropriation." In short pakeha is a culturally sensitive word and outsiders shouldn't use it without knowing who they're dealing with. Some folk embrace the term some take great umbrage, and the point of an article on etiquette is to warn\guide people after all.

Things clearer now? Does the logic seem reasonable to others? 203.25.1.208 (talk)

Wikipedia articles are not generally acceptable as sources, per se. But in practice, if you're just providing a brief summary of the relevant bits of Pakeha and linking back to the article (e.g. with the 'main article' template) it's unlikely to be a problem. If you're providing a long discussion here it would be a good idea to copy the appropriate sources.

The issue you're describing is a big part of why I'd like to see more sourcing in this article. It's easy for a well-meaning editor to come along and describe the rules of etiquette that they've experienced in their social circle, without realising that their experience is not universal. Things like "it is customary for people to take turns buying rounds of drinks" - I'm certainly aware of this as an Australian tradition, but in my thirty-something years here I can't recall ever being involved in it. The people I hang out with tend to buy their own; if they do buy for others, it's a gift without expectation of reciprocation. --GenericBob (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that means someone can go ahead and make the referenced change. 118.208.92.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

SO Ozzies never make Kiwi jokes unless a kiwi is present?

"However, it is frowned upon and considered cowardly to make jokes in the absence of the subject. Contrary to many other countries, Australian's will generally wait until the subject is present before making derogatory jokes. For example, when an Australian meets a New Zealander on holiday,..."

On which planet is this? Greglocock (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it time to remove all the unsourced dross from this article?

Since December 2007 (almost five years ago!) this article has had an Original research tag at the top, warning that "Statements consisting only of original research may be removed". Most of the article is of that nature, completely unsourced. It's clearly got worse in the past five years rather than better. It's an appalling Wikipedia article. So, cleanup now? HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to tackle this with a few strategically placed "cn" tags. Will return in a few weeks and get brutal with unsourced material if necessary. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The C-word

I'm willing to accept that there are quite a few people out there who would use 'cunt' in casual speech among their friends, but I would think the majority of people would rarely if ever do so. Certainly in public, while hearing a stranger say 'fuck' would probably be pretty unremarkable these days, 'cunt' is still likely to cause offence. What's more, I doubt any of this is particular to Australia (where I'm from) or New Zealand, so I don't see how it belongs in this article. Anyway, the point was unsourced, so I removed it. — chromatica (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand. 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/20140725202232/http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=97401&p=1234857 to http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=97401&p=1234857

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} 17:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415074055/http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf to http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Since when was Aboriginal only used as an adjective?

Some of the Australian ones seem to be related to specific areas, for example most people I'm only young and I still use Aboriginal to talk about indigenous Australians, and so does everyone I have ever met, nor do I consider Abo offensive. Australia is a big place, and I think some Aussies are conflating their specific area with the whole country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.72.114 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

My experience.... I agree that "Aboriginal" is still acceptable as a noun in most places I've been. Dunno about "Abo" though. I feel it's offensive in most situations. Perhaps between a bunch of mates it might work, but never in formal conversation. My experience with Aboriginal people is throughout Victoria and all the way up the centre of the country to the Top End. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)