Talk:Asian Australians

Asian Australian demographics

OK. Here I am. Now, what was the issue with the information I added again?

Firstly, this is the place where you need to tell us all about the change you want to make, especially if it's a major one. (And yours was.) Tells us what it is, why, and what sourcing you have. Then await others' responses. Allow a discussion to occur.

Secondly, let's get some better Wikipedia etiquette going here. Can you please electronically sign all your posts on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end. That's what I'm about to do here. See my signature...-> ? HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to extreme i just wanted a source more dependable than some vague BBC article. Journalists aren't known to do deep research, so i wanted to hear from an expert in the field. Bernard Salt wrote multiple books on Australian demographics, so his work does seem to have more authenticity. You can check out some of his work on youtube. Szekszter (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But it WAS extreme. Your edit reduced the number of Asian Australians by almost a half. That's a big change tp the article. Obviously some definitional aspect was involved. Is it about Indians not being Asians? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It is what it is. 10% of the population have full or partial Asian ancestry. That's just 2% less, than the previous. I didn't view that as extreme. Szekszter (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the edits I reverted that first got you arguing are shown here. That shows a reduction from 2.4 million to 1.228 million, or 12% to 6%. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the number of FOREIGN BORN asians. On the other hand, 10% is the total number of foreign Born + asians born to parent(s) that immigrated to Australia after the White Australia policy was repelled. That is why I added(including partial asian ancestry)Szekszter (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But can you explain why the number halved? HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The numbers didn't halve. They were never that high to begin with. 10% is like 2.1 million including Aussie and foreign born. 6% is only the foreign born. Szekszter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you have extensively restructured the text. I am beginning to see. And you claimed it was a minor edit. LOL. That's why it needed to be discussed here FIRST. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your definition of 'extensive' is different to mine. It's not like I added a whole new paragraph. I just corrected the existing data with the newest information available. Szekszter (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asian Australians. 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/20050615004252/http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/wiki/index.php/Centre_for_Asian_Societies_and_Histories to http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/wiki/index.php/Centre_for_Asian_Societies_and_Histories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Classification under Australian law

Thsi edit, a reversion, caught my eye. What particularly caught my eye was the edit summary: Restored original version. It would make sense to include West Asians here is they were categorised as "Asian" under Australian law but they aren't so it doesn't make sense to include them here. Only East, South and Southeast Asians are classified as "Asian" under Australian law so it makes sense to point out the difference between the official definition and the colloquial definition by using South Asian examples.

I'm curious what particular bit of Australian law is being referred to here. I see that the article says: "Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) has grouped certain ancestries into certain categories, including [...], citing [1] in support. I also see in that cited source: "The classification is not intended to classify people, but rather to classify all claims of association or identification with a cultural or ethnic group".

Color me confused. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too. I saw that edit and also wondered how to respond. Thank you for bringing it here. The only formal measure of ancestry in Australia is the five yearly national census. A detailed discussion from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of the ancestry question in the most recent census, including an image of the question itself, is here. Respondents could choose up to two options from a list of seven common ancestries, or had the option to write in answers. None of the seven listed options uses the word "Asian". Obviously people could write that in, but there is no restriction on how they might qualify it. I do wonder what Australian law that editor was referring to, and what they really meant by that Edit summary. Unfortunately, it was the only edit ever from an IP address. I have put a message there asking them to respond here, but don't hold high hopes for a response.

Hello, I'm the editor that made that edit. I should have not used "Australian law" because that doesn't make sense. I was referring to the Australian Bureau of Statistics which is part of the Government of Australia. What I'm trying to say is that the inclusion of West Asians in the sentence does not make sense in this context because West Asians are not considered "Asian" as per the ABS and this article does not discuss West Asians who are classified separately. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:FC0C:8BD5:9CAF:4E7 (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for joining the discussion. Can you provide a link to something that says "West Asians are not considered Asian as per the ABS"? I went looking, and couldn't find anything myself.HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here's a source from the Parliament of Australia website. Under the section "Source Countries And Migration Streams Source Countries", it explains the way the official definition of the term has evolved in Australia and says, "Since 1990, arrivals from the Middle East (including Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Iraq) have not been counted as 'Asian". (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:FC0C:8BD5:9CAF:4E7 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC))

Ah, so our government has decided that a lot of people who come from Asia aren't Asians. Well, that IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently so. The source mentioned above says so, and cites this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll ever get my head around that idea. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, it's simply that the Australian bureau of statistics, where the censuses and official demographic statistics coming from, have middle eastern as a SEPARATE category - not included under Asian or European ethnic groups. They simply have their own category. See Australian Classification of Ethic Groups, the relevant ABS standard.StormcrowMithrandir 09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But it's quite illogical to say that some people who come from Asian aren't Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah definitely no one is saying they're not Asian, just for the purposes of the ABS's ASCSEG statistical classification people from the continent of Asia are split into 2 categories (Asian ethnicities and Middle Eastern ethnicities) and the within those categories further subcategories. This is also reflected quite well in day to day parlance in that the middle east is very distinctly its own region and countries there are generally referred to as "a middle eastern country" rather than "an Asian country", "middle eastern food", etc. In fact Asia is so much larger than the other continents that it's amazing you have regions much more populous than a Europe for instance and much more different from each other than many of the other continents such as South Asia, northeast Asia, southeast Asia all within the one region. I wouldn't overthink the classifications as the lines/subcategories etc will always need to be demarcated somewhere and there will be certain subgroups that think they should have their own distinct subgroup etc but at the end of the day it's just a statistical matrix to assist in presenting and analysing statistics.StormcrowMithrandir 12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I recall when "Asian" first came into use as a descriptor of people. It was after the Vietnam war, when we realised that we had to stop using nasty names like Chinks, Slopes and Gooks for people with slanty eyes. It was politically correct, but never a precise term. Now, in trying to make a politically correct term have a precise meaning, it's becoming even sillier. Racism so often leads to illogical conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Asian Australians WikiProject

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians. Let me know if you are interested.

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asian Australians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 06:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Looks good. Also, I like the notes in their own section.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   See source review below.

   c. (OR):

   Primary sources are fine for straight facts and data. Several sections are using only primary sources and going beyond that.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I checked 10 sources and did not notice close paraphrasing. The highest ranking matches on earwig are two properly cited quotations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Normal editing and healthy discussion.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Look good:

   File:Sharma RG19 (11) (48199055287).jpg [CC licensed public photo]

   File:20180601 FIFA Friendly Match Czech Republic vs. Australia Massimo Luongo 850 0218.jpg [CC licensed public photo]

   File:Secretary Blinken Meets with Foreign Minister Wong (52095791921).jpg [public domain photo]

   File:Asian Australian map.svg [CC licensed original work]

   File:"Afghan" cameleers with visitors, Australia, c 1891.jpeg [public domain, published before 1928]

   File:(공식영상) C-CLOWN 데뷔 100일 축하영상 44s (cropped).jpg [screenshot of video; original video is CC by creators]

   File:Natalie Tran at Australia Paper Towns Premiere.jpg [public photo; original from Flickr by photographer]

   Questions:

   File:Chinese Encampment Guildford.jpg ["The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain", from 1861? this should be public domain but the rationale given cannot be true]

   File:Num Pon Soon Melbourne.jpg [The copyright info is fine but the caption needs a reference.]

   File:Podgy the Indian Hawker, Goulburn Valley, Victoria.jpg [this also should be public domain, but the rationale looks wrong]

   File:Lao family reunited at Melbourne Airport.jpg [private photo of a family; unknown author; no justification for CC license or permission to use]

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Many captions are abstract and not entirely clear how they relate to the topic without reading the whole article, especially the name-only captions and "Cameleers with visitors, c.1891". The Chinatown caption either needs a source, or the material should be discussed in the body text with the caption offered a shorter summary

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Source review

• Information relating to the racial composition of the population was collected for the first time at the Census of 1911. The following were classified as "Asiatic": The reference for this in the article is a primary source from 1911.
• At censuses prior to 1966 the instructions relating to race were insufficient to enable respondents to classify themselves according to the degree of racial mixture. This is cited to a primary source from 1966/1971. Primary sources are great for statements of fact. Wikipedia policy prohibits using them for analysis on Wikipedia. See: WP:PRIMARY
• The Terminology section is quite large and cited only to primary sources.
• Chinese immigration to Australia increased significantly during the Victorian gold rush in the 1850s and 1860s. While some Chinese arrived in Australia as early as 1818, Chinese immigration increased dramatically during the gold rush. Conflict arose between Chinese and Australian communities due to prejudice and misunderstanding, leading to riots at Lambing Flat and Buckland. Anti-Chinese laws enacted by Australian colonies were the precursor to the White Australia policy in 1901-1973. No in-line citations for this section of general citations for the article. The next citation does not discuss China
• The union movement was critical of Asian workers, especially Chinese workers, who did not join unions and were willing to work for lower wages and conditions. I could plausibly read this sentence in two ways. One is that Asian workers "were willing to work for lower wages" and the other is that Chinese workers "were willing to work for lower wages". I don't really see either reading being supported by the article. The article talks in terms of "exploitation". It also doesn't use the framework of willingness to joine a union. On page 346 it says, For [the working class], racial exclusion was an extension of exclusionist policies that maintained high wages and favorable working conditions by restricting etnry to the rade or calling. And if it is about the Chinese immigrants in particular, on page 350 it says Chinese wages were on a par with Europenas'. Early on in the article there are a couple sentences that I think really summarize it's position: e. Wherever white and nonwhite labor jointly participated in the labor force, they rarely directly competed for the same jobs in the market. Whites usually occupied positions of higher status and skill, with which higher rewards were associated.
• The Repatriation after WWII section is all sourced to lovedayproject.com self-published by Christine Piper. Self-published secondary sources are acceptable if they come from experts in the field. If Piper is an expert, you might consider working in a solid quote from her somewhere into the article's body text or mention of her project. If she's not considered an expert, she's made this really great bibliography available so that you could follow the rabbit hole down to her source: https://lovedayproject.com/resources/
• This bit has four sources: There are social and economic disparities among Asian Australians. While Asian Australians are over-represented in high-performing schools and university courses, some ethnic groups face challenges. The Daily Telegraph can't be used as a secondary source on Wikipedia. (Citing the quote in the other Telegraph reference should be fine.) I would recommend clipping the Telegraph reference. The other three sources appear high quality.
• moderndiplomacy.eu is not accepted on Wikipedia as a secondary source because they don't exercise editorial oversight ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_389#Modern_Diplomacy_.eu ). According to their about us page, they "provide shared experiences, honestly told opinions, and unique takes" which falls more onto the side of editorials. The statements in the Wikipedia article seem like hard facts that could be cited from elsewhere though. Maybe Dr. Nguyen Anh Tuan has published something on this in a peer reviewed journal, or in a newspaper?
• The production on the series began in November 2009 in her home town of Adelaide. The source is from prior to November 2009, so it can't verify something in the future. Some things near production and fall apart.
• The series was aired from 10 February 2010. This sentence construction is bizarre. Maybe began airing, started airing, or aired from x to y? Also does the source give the date? I didn't see it, but the source is from 11 February so I'm thinking there must be something like "last night" or "yesterday" that I overlooked.

Due to issues in the sources that I checked, I can't pass this. Let me know if you have any questions or want me to look over anything in particular. You are welcome to renominate the article at any time. I hope these comments will aid you in your future editing. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Asian Australians in K-pop

Hi, I understand that NewJeans and Stray Kids have Asian Australian members. I would like to include them as well, does anyone know more about reputable news websites and sources that state these outright. I keep finding fan blogs when doing a cursory Google search, not really reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also members should probably have their own articles, rather than just linking to the K-pop group. Also you can't just add photos to the article without writing a bit about who features in the photo in the article. AverageFraud (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)