Talk:Immigration history of Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

whats up with this quote

"There are also growing concern in the Australian population about increased crime, especially violent crime, and the disproportionate amount of ethnic gangs involved in this. Tim Priest is one of the few police detectives to speak out against the taboo of not addressing this controversial subject related to race and culture." there are no australian criminals? Isnt this just mass media propaganda. And since when isthere a taboo on this? Middle eastern ppl and vietnamese, chinese are always getting talked about in media.

Copyedit

Added the copyedit message. Most of this is just spelling and capitalization problems. Mrmcgibby 22:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Migratory or Immigration history of Australia?

To me "Migratory" refers to birds and animals and infers annual movement to or from a place. Why isn't this article called Immigration history of Australia?--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Migratory history of Australia rename of 31 March by Cyberjunkie was not discussed here.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• a definition of migratory is firstly used of animals that move seasonally and secondly int eh context of people "habitually moving from place to place especially in search of seasonal work". We are not talking in this article about seasonal movements. There are such movements in Australia, for example the "grey nomads" and the fruit picking trail followed by backpackers. Please rethink the article naming.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to change it. I was bringing the naming into line with other Australian history articles. However, I don't see a problem - migratory does mean "of or relating to migration".--cj | talk 03:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer Migration history of Australia rather than "Migratory...". Is this article intended to cover migration within and from Australia, or only to it? If the latter, perhaps it should move to Immigration history of Australia or back to History of immigration to Australia. I'd have to accept cj's argument that the common form for articles in Category:History of Australia is "<adjective> history of Australia" though.

We also have the article Immigration to Australia which refers to this as the main article for the History section, but this article only refers back in See also. I'm not sure there's presently a clear distinction between the topics/content of the two articles. Are they too big to merge and see if we can make a GA or FA out of it? Else let's try to work out a clear separation between the topics. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think pauline hanson doesnt deserve to have her own section alone, it should be shared with other conservative politicians that have had similar views during the 1980's such as john howards anti asian immigration stance. (Paulscf 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

i think the merge makes sense. then POV and unreferenced stuff can also be challenged properly. Paki.tv 03:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A reputation as a tolerant nation????

Thats an unreferenced statement that you have re-inserted! My statement is referenced - and it's not original research but John Howards assertion about intelectual opinion!!! Paki.tv 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any reference. What was the publication? when was it published? Who was it published by? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Howzat? Paki.tv 04:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty damn funny actually. There is not a single mention a "racist and oppresive immigration history" or "exclusionary immigration policies", in that whole piece. Even if there were it is not acceptable as Howard is bemoaning the attitudes of Australia's "chattering classes", he is not defining Australia as racist and oppresive as fact. It is a extremely gross misrepresentation and will eventually be deleted under the policy of WP:SYNTH. In the meantime you can address the 3RR report I filed against you. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll get back to these pages once I have dealt with your lies. Paki.tv 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Both versions refer to "past government policies", however I think Australia's racial reputation extends through all Australian governments, including the present Howard government. We can't just attribute it to past governments. Paki's expanded intro makes some valid points, but I think those points require better referencing. --Lester 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted it and added a link to the white Australia policy Paki.tv 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard to find references about Australia's reputation being affected by the treatment of asylum-seekers in the past decade. There are UN reports and commentary on them. However, I think both versions in this dispute could do with a rewrite.--Lester 04:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aboriginal Arrival

I note someone has changed the text of the article to move the beginning of immigration to Australia down from 50,000 years to 40,000, as has recently been done on other Australian wiki articles. I also note The Sydney Morning Herald reference has been removed, and replaced with a reference from a site that sells Aboriginal artworks.--Lester 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)