Talk:Bart vs. Australia

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 180.181.52.253 in topic Bad Idea
Good articleBart vs. Australia has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starBart vs. Australia is part of the The Simpsons (season 6) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 9, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 13, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Australian fauna references edit

I added two references found in this episode: the cane toad pest and the dingo that eat babies (the Azaria Chamberlain disappearance). I think it's important mention these references and I hope you keep them there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.105.81 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they may be important, but they lack references and therefore we can not keep them. --TheLeftorium 10:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Countries edit

I don't know if it counts but The Simpsons had previously "visited" another foreign country, Morocco, in Treehouse of Horror II.

Bart also went to France in The Crepes of Wrath but I suppose that doesnt count either because its not the whole family -- Astrokey44|talk 07:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Treehouse of Horror is considered non cannon

Inaccuracies edit

The quote attributed to Mick Dundee, "That's not a knife. This is a knife" is inaccurate, and should be "That's not a knife. That's a knife", as listed on http://imdb.com/title/tt0090555/quotes
RogrWilco 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bad Idea edit

Remember - Wikipedia is not a Battleground - opinions expressed by the episode in question don't justify a flame war.

-I believe the inaccuracies section to this article is a bad idea. The Simpsons routinly potray things in a manner that is far from reality. Should we go through every episode and list inaccuracies with its potrayal of the United States or any other country? Hey...Aussies also don't have four fingers! Hey Aussies also are not Yellow!

The section should be renamed to trivia and re-written to have a less serious tone. I think some people are taking this espisode WAY too seriously. If you disagree, I invite you to go back to the first episode of the simpsons and start to meticously document every instance where there has been an 'inaccuracy' in the series.


It might be interesting to provide a comprehensive list of innaccuracies in this episode. Just sayin' is all. Sumthingweird 02:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • People didn't much like this episode in Australia, yet this seems to be because they can recognise the inaccuracies and stereotypes about themsleves, but accept the many stereotypical portrayals of others in other Simpsons episodes, not recognising that this is exactly the same. Of course what you see in that episode is nothing like the real Australia, but I imagine what you see in other episodes, where other countries are depicted, is nothing like how those countries are really like either, it's just that Australians don't notice it not being residents of those countries - just as American's don't notice it, not being resident in any of those countries either (or resident in Australia).
That's a fair comment. I know how overly patriotic we Australians can be, and it can get very annoying sometimes. Still, I would thing Groening was very deliberate in his exaggerations here. Surely Americans don't consider Australia to be the same as it was in the 19th century, or that we can shout over the hill to call the Prime Minister :P. Anyway, I'll see if I can do that list, but it's right down on my list of priorities. Maybe someone else can do it. Sumthingweird 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

1stly, you should not blame Groening, as he didn't write the episode. 2ndly, this page is not chat forum --123.51.8.33 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC).Reply

We can be patriotic but not as much as Americans are notorious have a better sense of humour about these sorts of things. I believe the episode was well received by Australians. Especially the bit about the prime minister living just down the street even though it is incredibly inaccurate, "Mr. Prime minister! ANDYYYY" and "I'm takin this to me member of parliament....oi GUS!" are great lines that seem to be quoted alot by Australians. Compared to the other episodes, except maybe the Brittish one (I'm not too sure about it) like the Brazil one, Japan, Canada etc. it was very well received, especially since our country was depicted as a desert land, our capital city was depicted as the outback and heaps of inaccuracies. The only mistruth I was unhappy about was the accent, it was a distorted mix of New Zealand and South African tongue. "This sussion is noew een orda" was very NZ-accent like. Jabso 05:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't until recently that Australians have become so patriotic, Australia was actually known for being a less impassioned nation. When this episode came out, most Australian took it for what it was. I don't think this page needs anything about inaccuracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.29.176 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's innacurate to say that this episode was poorly received by Australians because it was innacurate. Australians routinely self deprecate. It was generally poorly received because apart from a few of the jokes, it was generally a pretty poor attempt. If you are going to make fun of a nation that prides itself on making fun of itself, you have to do a pretty bloody good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.47.61 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I added a section about the biggest inaccuracy in this episode, about the drain problem, but feel free to add anything about inaccuracies portraying Australia if you want
It's not the inaccuracies that piss Aussies off, it's the attitude towards Australia. I don't know about anyone else, but I took the whole "Don't tread on me" thing very personally. The rest of the episode was funny "I'd have called 'em chazzwazza's!" But the animosity shown to Australia as a stereotype was unnecessary and way over the top, kicking them when they're down. Whenever this episode is reshown, I usually watch the first half and turn it off before the whole boot-thing, or I get too angry. Orichalcon 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Aww, it's just for laughs. We're a pretty proud country but it's good to have a go at ourselves every now and then. So I never got around to that inaccuracy thing, but one of these decades I'll do it! --Sumthingweird 08:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just for laughs MY FOOT! Australia is a good country - RE-E-E-E-E-A-A-A-A-A-L-L-L-L-L-L-LY good, and this episode is SOOOOO offensive that I will personally complain to Matt Groening next time I see this!
What really annoys me though about this episode is the whole portrial of Australia as a country that practices barbaric forms of punishment, when in reality, we don't even practice capital punishment. 60.242.64.202 12:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Exactly, that's what bugged me - that it was a bit hypocritical for Americans to be accusing us of using corporal punishment when they're the only Western nation (I think) that still practices capital punishment. That was a bit rich.
The article should point out that corporal punishment is not employed in Australia. I was annoyed by that bit of American hypocrisy and I'm not even an Aussie. (I'm Scottish and have never once been offended by Groundkeeper Willie, the Loch Ness episode etc. That would be oversensitivity: the Aussies frankly have a point objecting to this.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.18.21 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
As pointed out in "Cultural References", the episode was actually written to satirise the Michael Fay incident, but you couldn't set it in Singapore without the whole thing coming off as way racist. They had to pick a compliant/friendly target. The inaccuracies and exaggerations are very deliberate both for humour and in order to indicate that it's not a serious take on Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.181.52.253 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, at least the episode where they portrayed Britain wasn't AWFULLY offensive--86.136.179.94 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)(Centurion Ry, too lazy to log in)Reply
  • I'm an Australian and I thought the episode was so stupid it was funny. But a flaw I want to point out is with the ending. When they fly off with a Koala hanging onto the helicopter, it won't work as Koalas can only have one child every twelve years.

But is it a koala, or a drop bear? - Malkinann 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply


"No inscription appears above the entry of Parliament House in Canberra, as seen in the episode with a typo." Whoever wrote that apparently didn't realize that the building presented was meant to be the AUSTRIAN parliament, transported to Australia and slightly edited. I removed it. - Al Agorical 07:43, 24 December 2006

  • I'm English, and I have noticed the crazy amount of inaccuracies in this episode, and I have never been to Australia. I think its important to list as many as possible, because Wikipedia is meant to be educational isn't it? And by the way, the whole booting thing makes absolutely no sense at all to people who havent heard of that caining incident. Also, (and this is a general thing) why can't the Simpsons do even a half decent Australian accent? lolThom32 22:27, 14th of March 2007

I don't see any merit to an innacuraccies section, it was a joke about going to foreign countries and being in extremely unfamiliar surroundings, could've been any country and presented in such a ridiculous manner. Also, I am Australian and find this one of the funniest episodes of The Simpsons,it's a funny episode, get over it people.Madslocodemente 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hitler scene edit

When Bart's calling around and calls Hitler in Brazil, I was wondering what they do about that in the German version. I know that in Germany it's illegal to give the Nazi-salute so I woudn't think they could show it on tv. If you have any information on this, please post it under trivia or here in discussion.JW 02:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is shown on TV here in Germany including this scene. 134.76.62.65 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I've seen it repeatedly. And I don't think it is illegal. Yes, it is illegal to use the Hitler-Salute in real life in Germany, but it is not forbidden to air films where the salute is used. It is often shown in documentaries. My Young People's Dictionary had a picture of Hitler giving the salute. --Prorokini 20:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC) BTW I am sure it was Buenos Aires.--85.164.222.55 (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Chazwuzzers now chazwazzers edit

So it matches with the word 'chazwazzers' used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeaky_Voiced_Teen :)

Fox Studios Australia version edit

In the last 90s/early 2000s, the Fox Studios Backlot in Sydney used to show a different version of this episode as part of their Simpsons attraction. It was shorter but basically everything the Simpsons got up to in Australia was new. This doesn't appear to have been included on any DVD box sets yet and may be lost? I can provide a plot summary but is it appropriate as a subsection of this page or better placed somewhere else? AnotherPaul 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

American Embassy edit

While the US has several diplomatic facilities in Australia, the only "American Embassy" in all of Australia is in Canberra. The fact that the Prime Minister is there is further indication it is the capital of the country.

We're dealing witha wikilink - it just seems better to wikilink "American Embassy" to the actual US Embassy in Australia and not to the generic Wikipedia article on Embassy. -- Mikebar (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was only one embassy. --Simpsons fan 66 12:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Credit question edit

The episode was written by Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein and Wes Archer directed it

Needs a comma in here -- was it written by Bill and Josh, and Wes directed...or was it written by Bill, and Josh and Wes directed it? --EEMIV (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    Remove the [examples] in the article. Also, put the DON'T TREAD ON ME in lowercase. Finally, be careful for the run on sentences in the production section.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Overall, it only needs minor fixing. If the above is answered, I'll pass it. Good luck.--LAAFansign review 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reviewing, I have made some edits now. --TheLeftorium 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations to the editors of this article. I last saw this article about a month or so ago, and in that time it's had a major overhaul. Great job =D Iciac (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Coriolis effect edit

The article states, per the DVD commentary, that the writers researched the Coriolis effect before writing the episode. Just out of interest, does the commentary state that they were aware that the toilet/sinks "effect" is an urban myth? I'm asking out of curiosity but if anybody can provide this information it might be able to be incorporated into the article somehow. --Sumthingweird (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't think they mentioned that. --TheLeftorium 14:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another Dundee Reference? edit

When the Australian guy is talking to his kid, he asks "There's nothing wrong with the bidet, is there?" I think this might be reference to the scene in Crocodile Dundee when Mick asks what a bidet is. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.216.53 (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jim Schembri reference edit

I think it's hardly accurate to use Jim Schembri as a reference for Australians viewing this episode positively, as he has on many occasions stated he considers himself more Italian than Australian, and thus would love any satirisation of Aussie culture.124.176.226.45 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bad Enough edit

if you think its bad enough then fine Gabriel Easteron 13:13, 19 February 2011

Did the Australian Parliament actually condemn the episode? edit

In an interview, Mike Reiss, says that the Austalian Parliament condemned the episode. Some anomynous user has changed this to be a claim. I think we should try and find the truth. I have this source supporting the claim. I don't know if that is enough. --Maitch (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bart vs. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Missed Cultural Reference edit

The koala stowing away at the end of the episode is a reference to the movie Cape Fear. I don’t know if it warrants inclusions so I’m posting here first. 2603:7000:DC3F:E135:802A:6EF6:DD59:83BD (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply