Talk:Anglo-Celtic Australians

People say Anglo-Saxon, not Anglo-Celtic

Since when have the two terms ever been mixed, Celtic sentiments have always geared towards less colonial Anglo-Saxon kinda thing, this article is inaccurate, strongly.

Not really, it's only inaccurate in the political sense. Most people, myself included, are anglo-celtic simply because we all realise that we are one ethnic group. My family for instance originated in Kent, England, but lived in 3 groups, England, Wales-853yrs, and Munster, Ireland 642yrs. It had been commonly accepted that we were Saxon in origin, but DNA testing 12 years ago actually showed we are Celtic. To prove the point, the researches opened 4 tombs dating back to AD1482 to test previous males, and found we are celtic family, DNA wise, of south England celtics.

A similar thing was done with another family, the Hardings. They where found to be anglised celtics as well. As opposed to the perception that they were an angle family.

DNA testing in 5 groupings has actually showen that Saxon DNA is very small in the British iles DNA make up, though Angles make up a larger position. Also possibly because of the viking era. The largest DNA grouping of England is actually Celtic. So proves the original research that was shunned in favour of individual idenities of Anglo-Saxon-ness. Which historical research has proven to be a misnomer.

Of note on the website Anglo-celtic, Dutch and Germans are most certainly not included in the concept of Anglo-celtic. They are called Saxons. Righly or Wrongly. To be an anglo-celtic, your family must have originated from the british Iles on your patriarchial line.

John 122.149.41.136 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Should this not be merged with Anglo-Celtic as a subcategory? Enzedbrit 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It could be slotted in easily.139.230.245.20 03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

nerd 2604:6600:1C6:2000:8331:32A5:FD3F:F347 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No, and why would you want to? Grant | Talk 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

erroneous

i'm going to change this paragraph:

"Unlike the American term Scots-Irish, "Anglo-Celtic Australian" does not carry any specific religious connotations. Sectarian divisions played much less of a role in Australia than the USA, perhaps due to the convict, as opposed to pilgrim roots of early settlement. An "Anglo-Celtic Australian" is equally likely to be Catholic, Protestant or Atheist."

While the first and last sentences are correct, the middle part plays down alot of important history without a source. Sectarian divisions were EXTREMELY important in Australian history, as many of the convicts were Irish. Many of these were convicted for rebelling against the English. There is no source for the article. Instead I've changed it to:

"Unlike the American term Scots-Irish, "Anglo-Celtic Australian" does not carry any specific religious connotations. An "Anglo-Celtic Australian" is equally likely to be Catholic, Protestant or Atheist." This is because the term "is of recent coinage and only started to have meaning after the sectarian conflicts between Irish Catholics and British Protestants lost salience - perhaps partly in the face of large scale non-British immigration, which produced another outgroup of “New Australians”."

With a source for the quote. IMO the "Anglo-Saxon" page should be deleted. 150.203.223.155 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this what they really call them?

If so, seems like a sort of strange name.--Filll 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is somewhat odd. Anglo-Celtic Australians once viewed themselves as simply "Australians". However, the introduction of multiculturalism and the resultant emphasis on ethnicity over nationality has led to an absurd situation where "Australians" now must be defined in ethnic terms. ZwickauDeluxe 17:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Skip"

I am aware of Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, but I could swear the use of "skip" as a term for Anglo-Celtic Australians originated with Skip the cook on Acropolis Now. Am I completely wrong? Thor Rudebeck (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do not find the term "derogatory". Source: I am a Skip. I have known others to self-identify as such too.

 In Acropolis Now the line was 'They call me Wog, i call them Skippy the bush Kangarrouthes". Ill search for the episode for a citation.
 I was in high school when the show aired but the definitions were in use while I was in primary school. Neither had any particular racists 
 connotations and were self-referential, Micks was also used in self-reference. Of course Aussie was also used in reference to the Micks/Skips. Some of my 
 Wog mates 
 call me Aussie Jim but I always preferred Skip as Aussie implies something a bit more Bogan, but i suppose I'm a Bogan too. I definitely don't like being 
 refereed to as Anglo-Saxon. 
 The term skip isn't contentious in the way other culturally self-referential terms like Wog or Leb are, which have been used in a 
 derogatory manner. There is a Wikipedia page that makes some reference to this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozijim (talk • contribs) 14:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 

mick australians are ashamed: i hate being called an anglo because i like to eat and rest and dont have a proddie work ethic!!! got no issue with working hard! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.64.233 (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous

According to ABS stats, 80 per cent of the Australian population speaks a language other than English at home. You have to therefore wonder about stats that say 85 or 90 per cent of the the population is Anglo-Celtic. There are two assumptions I'm making here: a) that only a tiny handful of the Anglo-Celtic population would actually speak Celtic languages at home. b) that many families of non-Anglo heritage are likely to speak English at home (Malaysians, Singaporeans, Maori etc). I'm reluctant to guess what percentage of the population is actually Anglo-Celtic as the "Australian" ancestry is as ambiguous as the "American" ancestry category in the US census. If you just take the English, Irish and Scottish, the the proportion is around 50 per cent. 203.4.189.121 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, which ABS stats say "80 per cent of the Australian population speaks a language other than English at home"? That has never been the case in Australian history. The proportion of NESB people is higher now than ever before but nowhere near that high. Grant | Talk 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, talk about ridiculous. Yes, that should be 80 per cent of the Australian population speaks ONLY English at home (the stats are at the ABS's labrynthine website). Notwithstanding that silly error, I maintain my position: a conservative estimate would have the NESB population at 15 per cent if you were to measure it only by language spoken at home (about 4.8 per cent are "not stated"). But we know that the number of people of non-British heritage who speak English only is also very high. Most estimates I've heard (and they vary) for the proportion of non-Anglo Australian are between 20 to 25 per cent NESB, which makes that 90 per cent figure look as dodgy as my original 80 per cent gaff.

211.30.67.244 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have now revised that figure for Anglo-Celts in the text to "at least 75%" which is the figure for "Australians" + "English" + "Irish" ancestries claimed in the 2001 Census. The figures claimed for "Scottish", "Welsh" etc are so small as to be insignificant.

Personally I found it odd that the ABS will only allow people to claim two ancestries, when so many people claim three or more different ethnicities. Grant | Talk 12:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A combination of "Australian", "English", "Irish" and "Scottish" (four of the ten most common Australian ancestries) equals approx. 82.9% of the population. ZwickauDeluxe 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I get 80.05% for those (15.54 million/2001 pop of 19.413 million). They don't provide an exact figure for "Welsh", which was 150-499,999 people. Even if Welsh was 499,999 (16.04 million Anglo Celts), that is 82.6%. Whereas if there were 150,000 Welsh we don't even get 81%. I think the current figure of 80% is reasonable. Grant | Talk 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"85 or 90 per cent of the the population is Anglo-Celtic" Where the hell did you pull this number from? More like 60%< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.172.142 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

White Australia POV

Anglo Celtic covers people with British and Irish ancestors who ticked the correct box on the census form. A broader definition can also include other parts of the United Kingdom, Scots, Welsh etc. However, these ancestries are claimed by only a tiny minority of the Australian population. The ABS survey says this about British and Irish (Anglo-Celt) ancestry:

"From the beginning of the colonial period until after the Second World War, people from the United Kingdom and Ireland made up a large majority of people coming to Australia. They continue to make up a substantial proportion of immigrants (for example 10% of those arriving between 1986 and 2001 came from England, the second largest group after New Zealanders). Therefore, many Australian-born people can trace their origins to these countries. In 1986, 8.2 million people (57% of the population) reported at least one British or Irish ancestry. Despite continued immigration from the United Kingdom and Ireland, in 2001 the total number stating a British or Irish ancestry decreased to 7.7 million, or 44% of the population. However, different trends were observed for the two ancestry groups.[1]"

This is quite clear - the proportion of the Australian population who claimed Anglo-Celtic ancestry in the last census was 44%. This combined ethnic grouping is no longer the majority. Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to a diverse and multicultural Australia.

I will give this a day or so for comments, then I'm updating the article (and Anglo-Celtic) to accurately reflect the ABS figures. Paxse 07:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A few years ago I had a conversation with a woman who was a recent immigrant. She asked what nationality I was. When I said "Australian", she said "yes, so am I, but what nationality are you?" She had no conception of an Australian-ness other than citizenship, and would have been flummoxed by the Census responses, if she heard about them. Anyway, when given as an ancestry/ethnicity, "Australian" means "Anglo-Celtic", because most people don't make a distinction between the two. In fact, I doubt if most people have even heard the term Anglo-Celtic. But it's no exaggeration to say that 80% of the population are Anglo-Celtic. It's a truism. Grant | Talk 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

G'day Grant howzitgoin? Mate, I'm from Sydney while you're from WA - how can we ever agree on anything :D

Still, let's give it a go. We're talking about Ancestry here, not Nationality. The census doesn't contain 'Anglo-Celtic' as an answer (Wot the hell does that mean!) but British, Irish, etc are all possible answers - just not as common as they used to be :->

Oh, and the interesting thing about truisms if you read down the article carefully is that: "Often the word is used to disguise the fact that a proposition is really just a half-truth or an opinion, especially in rhetoric." C'mon, let's put some facts and sources in this article - not opinions. Paxse 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the census doesn't have "Anglo-Celtic" as such, but the term does mean an "Australian" of the majority ethnic grouping, i.e. someone of predominantly "British" &/ "Irish" descent/culture. It seems you don't accept that "Australian", given as an ancestry in the census means "Anglo-Celtic". Nevertheless, it is a term that has been around for a long time (please trust me on this) to describe the majority ethnic grouping in Australia. Since I have studied immigration history a bit, I can agree that the proportion of Anglo-Celts has declined significantly, but only in the sense that it has gone from over 90% of the population in 1945 to just over 80% now. There would not be many countries where the majority ethnic group has declined by 10%, relative to the rest of the population, in that time frame. If any. But it looks like we may need more references to satisfy you on these points. Grant | Talk 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"White Australia" POV? Paxse, please dispense with the politically correct nonsense. It's akin to claiming a "Viet" or "Kinh" POV exists simply because they comprise the majority ethnic group in Vietnam. The reality is that the majority of Australians still trace their ancestral origins to to the British Isles. Australia was, after all, founded and build by British and Irish settlers. In terms of ethnic and cultural composition, Sydney is largely a demographic aberration compared to the rest of Australia due to its large Asian population. ZwickauDeluxe 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

British and/or Irish

The usage "British and/or Irish" is jarring and does not make for a good encyclopaedic article. The terminology seems to have been introduced by an editor with a grudge against the term "British Isles". That particular term is a geographic label that is well suited to the current article, embodying as it does, all the countries of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I suggest we re-introduce it. 86.27.191.225 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hide behind an anonymous tag when name-calling. I made the change, but I have no grudge against the term "British Isles". I do find that the term "British Isles" is not used accurately in most articles, and where I find it to be so, I change it. There is a minority of mischievous editors that seem to delight in using the term where-ever possible - many times inaccurately. I removed the term "British Isles" from this page because the term "British and/or Irish" is used in the opening of the "Usage" paragraph (not penned by me), and agrees with the article Anglo-Celtic. If you actually took the time to research the topic rather than name-calling and conclusion-jumping, and read the statistics produced by the Australian government, you would see that they also describe Anglo-Celtic in terms of "British and/or Irish". (I'm probably a bit sensitive still to the recent unjustified knee-jerk attack (see my talk page), so please excuse me, but I find your comments offensive and trolling.) Bardcom (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous - and you are who, precisely? I came upon your work here after having read the comments about you at the British Isles article, which seem, by and large to be accurate. I stand by the comment that "British and/or Irish" is jarring. In fact, it's plain bad writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.191.225 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've got an login for start, so it's easy to see what edits I've made. You on the other hand are just an IP address for Virgin. You *could* be anybody, and I can't check to see what your edit history is, whether you like starting arguments, have a history of trolling, etc. The accusation of my systematic removal of the "British Isles" from wikipedia has now been shown to be a baseless accusation, which has largely been implicitly retracted - although an explicit retraction would be nice, and an apology would be miraculous (although due). Still, leopards, spots, change, can't....

You point about the phrase being jarring ... actually I agree. It doesn't read well. But I didn't create that phrase, although I am guilty of replicating it - partly because my earlier choice of phrase - which I think was better - was reverted by Waggers as part of the knee-jerk reaction to the baseless accusation. The phrase "British Isles" is not accurate though, because it also include other crown dependencies which are not recognized as part of "Anglo-Celtic". And I didn't make that up either... Bardcom (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion to replace British and/or Irish?. I'll read the article in more detail, but British Isles may be relevant in some cases. Silas Stoat (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to phrase it a little better - perhaps something like "from Britain and Ireland". Bardcom (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

[Moved from my Talk Page]

Anglo-Celtic Australian statistics

Hi Bardcom. The 17.6 million (or 85%) figure of the number of "Anglo-Celtic Australians" could not have been derived from the cited website, or for that matter from the Australian Bureau of Statistics at all. Persons can nominate up to two ancestries, so if you used those stats you could necessarily be double-counting English-Irish for example. Furthermore a large number of respondants simply identified themselves as "Australian", and it is impossible to garner any more ancestral information from this figure, although one would expect the majority would be Anglo-Celtic. In other articles on different ethnic groups we use other statistics like country of birth. Kransky (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest revert because your replacement statistics were incorrect as you stated that you counted people born in the UK (and ignored Ireland?). The article also discusses ancestry, not just place of birth.

They are not incorrect; I just merely did not include Irish born since they are already in Irish Australian. This article is the most logical place to put the number of British born. Would replicating the number of Irish born in this article make you happy?

eh? This article is called Anglo-Celtic Australian, not Anglo Australian. Bardcom (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But I agree that the current number is in all probability equally as incorrect. I agree with the assertion that you can't infer ancestry from the people who don't identify their origins, and I agree that it's probable that the original article editor either inferred ancestry from those that stated "Australian", or double-counted those that nominated two ancestries. I calculate from the opening paragraph and from the statsReference for Stats that the correct number (adding up the stats in the opening paragraph) should be around 9,707,519. What do you think? Bardcom (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how you arrived at the figure of 9,707,519 (which implies less than half the Australian people have an ancestral tie to the UK or Ireland). We are in agreement that we cannot determine how many part British or Irish exist amongst te 6.7 million persons who declared their ancestry as Australian. If you cannot find reliable data, it is best not to include it! Kransky (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for earlier tone - I misread one of your comments. For both our benefit, here are the stats:

At the 2006 Census of Australia website where citizens could self-select their ancestry, 6,283,647 (31.6%) Australians selected English ancestry, 1,803,740 (9.1%) selected Irish ancestry, 1,501,204 (7.6%) selected Scottish, 113,242 (0.7%) selected Welsh, and 5,686 (0.3%) selected British ancestry (respondants could nominate up to two ancestries).

Also, the census reports that For those who reported Australian ancestry, the second ancestries reported were mainly English (17% of the total Australian ancestry group), Scottish (4%) and Irish (3%), so this would probably additionally calculate an extra 3,375,401 English, 294,872 Scottish, and 221,154 Irish. Adding up all of these numbers gives a total of 13,598,946 - 68.5%. What do you think? Bardcom (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

68% sounds more realistic, but it is still an approximation (it double-count persons who say they are (for example) English-Irish). Note also the Census includes Permanent Residents, not just "Australians". I do not think we should make our own estimates, but rather we should use a reliable source. Can we agree not to include ancestry data as an aggregation of English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh/etc groups? Kransky (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The stats used here are from a table that still adds up to 100%, indicating only single counting. Since this article is on Anglo-Celtic Australians, I don't see the problem with including permanent residents, although if you can suggest a mechanism for removing those that are not citizens, I'd welcome it for accuracy. I do not understand your reasoning for not aggregating the data - your original edit only included English people, to the exclusion of everyone else. This is patently wrong. Can you suggest a more reliable source that the official census information as compiled by the government? Can you suggest an alternative method for calculating the numbers? Bardcom (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(1)The stats add up to 119.8%, not 100% (I assume you are referring to chart 14.42, the only chart with ancestry data in your link). This is because some people give more that one response for ancestry (as footnote (c) explains, and what I have said on more than a few occasions in this thread).

(2)My original writing/stats were not exclusively about English people

(3)The Census stats use citizens and permanent residents - it might be possible to get some stats for citizens only, but it may be tricky. It depends on what data has been released.

(4) The ABS is the most reliable source of data. I think you are trying to ask me if there is another government source that has the data we want. The answer is no - other agencies get their raw data from the ABS rather than make their own statistics (cf Single version of the truth)

(5)It would be rash to think one could count the exact number of Australians with an ancestral tie to the British Isles given the limitations of the data. Instead I suggest we summarise some of the data at the top of this fact sheet. Kransky (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdented] (1) Well spotted - now your earlier comment makes sense too - apologies for being slow. I assumed that table was totaled to 100% (seeing as it says 100%) at the bottom. The only problem with using summaries that split out the totals is that the article is on Anglo-Celt, so the population number should represent this. But in the absence of a single number, then I agree that the only remaining alternative is to list the numbers as they are presented. Go ahead with the edits you were planning - I understand and agree with your reasons. Bardcom (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the article only counts where only Irish and English were born. We should include the other countries in the British Isles too, and the people who registered these countries as their ancestral countries. Bardcom (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Saxony??

Why does this article reference Saxony in Germany? The Saxon in Anglo Saxon doesn't mean the modern German regions which include that name. Ozdaren (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

-Yeah it kinda does actually, Saxon from Germany...

Australians and bad original research

Firstly I'll explain the situation and it's a bit complicated.

Anglo-celtic is a multicultural term to describe the dominant mainstream of Australia and that is british/irish descended people who were born in Australia. Basically it's to avoid calling some citizens "Australian" while calling others Macedonians, or Chinese etc. Anglo-celtic is an awkward substitution for Australian mainstream.

All Australian based editors know that anglo celtic australian is not used in day to day situations. Instead "Aussie", or "Australian" will be used to mean basically "native born person of British/Irish descent but of Australian culture".

Italian/Greek descended Australians (wogs) will call these native born anglo celts "Aussies" in contrast to themselves who they would either describe as "wogs" or Italians etc. This is true even for wogs who'se parents were born in Australia.

This may lead you to believe that "anglo-celtic" is a racial classification, but the flip side of this is that an immigrant from, for example, England with an English accent will be called a "pom" for their whole life in Australia. Even if they live here 50 years people will call them a pom, or a mick etc.

//my original research that may be hard to verify There is one further complication however, and that's that other Northern Europeans (non-british) who have Australian accents and culture become part of the Australian mainstream completely. So it leads to the slightly contradictory situation of calling people of Dutch/French/german/scandinavian/polish etc descent Anglo-celtic. HOwever, the situation is familar to Americans where white people who speak English and look northern european are described as "Anglos" despite the fact they may have no english ancestors.

As a final side note, and this is thinking deeper than most Australians would ever bother to about this issue, religion appears to play a larger role in who is an "Aussie" than most Australians would admit to. Looking at the example countries I selected that become completely part of the Australian mainstream they are Protestant and Catholic nations rather than Orthodox.

This last fact about Northern Europeans being consdiered part of the Australian mainstream won't affect census data because these people will likely still nominate their exceptional ie non-British/Irish on census forms.

---

I wrote so much about Anglo-celtic/Australian that I need to start a new section to critisize the article. There is some bad original research in this article that misses the point of the term anglo celtic entirely.

People have attempted to list "British and Irish" ancestries and then list them for readers to mentally add up in order to determine the proportion of anglo-celtic Australians in Australia. The ancestry of "Australian" was excluded from calculations presumably because editors took the term "Anglo Celtic" literally rather than understood its definition as "mainstream Australian".

Australian ancestry is the largest "anglo celtic" group on the census. If you wish to embark in original research and list and British and Irish ancestries you must also include Australian. What is preferable to this, is listing a total of "anglo celtic Australians" from a verifiable source. I have found that in 1995 74.8% of Australians were considered Anglo Celtic, if you can find a more recent citiation good. Otherwise don't remove the largest "anglo celtic" group from the census. Goramon (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Anglo-Celtic according to the article is simple and clear, but it isn't the same as your interpretation above. Also, the article only counts those people who in the census marked themselves as having an English and/or Irish ancestry. Your inclusion of those who selected "Australian" ancestry is incorrect according to the definitions in the article. The appropriate way for you to proceed is to provide references to support your claims of the definition of Anglo Celtic, and to connect that reference with those you selected "Australian" in the census. Until then, let's leave the article as it is and let's not make assumptions about the definition, and about how people select their ancestry. --HighKing (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I checked the reference for the definition of the article and found this "This attempt to get Australians to nominate their ancestry showed that over 46 per cent classed themselves as 'Anglo-Celtic', including a considerable number of English, Irish and Scottish mix. To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'. This gives an 'Anglo-Australian' total of about two-thirds of the population. One mystery in the figures is the low percentage prepared to call themselves Irish or Scottish. It is probable that many of these preferred to be Australian" from the ABS.

2. Listing the British ancestries from the censusand not adding them up was original research, and the exclusion of Australian ethnicity made it incredibably inaccurate.

3. Another source that won't confuse you as much as the census is a study like this http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf that states that 69.88% of Australia's ethnic origins were "anglo-celtic" in 1999 and if trends continue this share will drop to 62.5% in 2025 and is down from 90% is 1947.

4. As a final note "Anglo-Celtic Australian" is basically meaningless, as one of the references (an opinion piece) states. It's a multicultral word that someone made up as a synonym for "mainstream Australian" because they didn't want to call us "Aussies" and not other citizens. However, in common usuage we are called Aussies, and very rarely anglo-celtic (only in politically correct settings).Goramon (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD.

1. Of the people who nominated their ancestry as "Australian", it is impossible to determine what proportion of these people are of Anglo-Celtic origin. For this reason, while it is mentioned in the article itself, the number is left out of the infobox. The previous discussion above on the statistics used also touches on this topic, and the consensus was to not artificially calculate an inaccurate number. Other previous discussions pointed out that Anglo-Australian is not the same thing as Anglo-Celtic. If you can produce a reliable reference that shows the proportion of Anglo-Celtics within the "Australian" ancestry, then we can include it.
2. I don't understand your point about Listing the British ancestries and not adding them up. Please explain.
3. The source you provide quotes figures for 1999. This article uses more recent figures - perhaps it is you that is confused?
4. Again, try providing references as per WP:VS and follow the guidelines in WP:NOR. Otherwise your edits will probably continue to be questioned and reverted until the appropriate standards are met. --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The ABS the initial reference to define the term assumes 100% of people with "Australian" ancestry are anglo-celtic and I quote "This attempt to get Australians to nominate their ancestry showed that over 46 per cent classed themselves as 'Anglo-Celtic', including a considerable number of English, Irish and Scottish mix. To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'. This gives an 'Anglo-Australian' total of about two-thirds of the population.". The ABS is a reliable source.

Now you're trying to be cute about what Anglo-Australian means? Well in this instance it clearly means Angloceltic because if only 46% of Australians nominated British Isles ancestry, but when "Australians" were added the total of Anglo-Australians reached 2/3rds (67% or so) we must conclude that Anglo-Australian means Anglo-celtic Australian. That's pretty obvious. Anglo-Australian might not always be a synonym for "Anglo-Celtic Australian" but in this case it is.

2. The sources of ancestry aren't added up to give a total of Australia's anglo-celtic population (even though it is possible to do it without doublecounting from the data), leaving the reader with an inaccurate picture of how many Australians are of anglo-celtic origins.

3.The source I provides calculates the proportion of Australians who are anglo-celtic over time. The 2005 census provides lists of Australians by ancestry that this article is misinterpreting to give an idea of Australia's anglo-celtic origins by simply adding up British and Irish ancestral groups (where's Manx?). This original research would be harmless enough if it included "Australian" but by not including the largest group the original research is extremely misleading (and the reason that original research isn't used in wikipedia).

4. lol, You (and other editors) have been involved in clueless original research which grossly perverts the census data and you are talking to me about that? Look, one more revert from and I'll delete all of your census data(which is been misused as original research) and just include the 1999 study which actually calculated the proportion of "Anglo-celtic" Australians in the population. 10 years old is far better than very inaccurate original research which is the current case.

I've made the point abundantly clear.Goramon (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please follow appropriate guidelines and policies for articles including WP:BRD, WP:VS, WP:AGF, WP:OR. As per WP:BRD I've reverted your changes. Please discuss here before making this change again - continuing to edit in the face of being asked to provide references may (and I say may) result in an administrator doling out a short temporary block for edit warring. Now let's figure out what it is you are trying to say, and if we can find references to back it up. I'm not against what it is you are trying to achieve - so long as there are reliable sources, etc. The article as it stands without your editing was reached by consensus among a number of editors - see above for discussions. In order for you to change the article, you'll have to produce referencs and ensure that a consensus exists for the changes.

The basis of your editing is that you are including all those that listed their ancestry as simply "Australian" to being of Anglo-Celtic ancestry. If I understand correctly, the basis for your edits is a single line stating "To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'. The statement does not state this as fact, and uses the word might and uses the word most. Clearly this, on it's own, cannot be used as the basis for including all as fact.

Anglo-Australian, as a term, is a superset of Anglo-Celtic - it is incorrect to assume they mean the same thing.

Please provide an example of how to add up the totals without double-counting. From a previous discussion (above), I believe it is not possible.

You state that the source you provide calculates the proportion of Australians who are anglo-celtic over time. This appears to be a good source but I'm concerned that it is an extrapolation from 1999 figures. It is (probably?) good enough to appear in the article in some form, but it is not fact, and it can't be taken as fact. Perhaps the author has updated the article with more up-to-date figures? That would be good.

You state that the 2005 numbers are being misrepresented. If so, why haven't you attempted to fix the article? Kindly explain how they are wrong.

Your last point, I'll largely ignore (including the threats). The article as it stands tries to rely on good sources and facts. Let's try to keep it that way. --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The basis of my editing is that this article lists "Total Population" of anglo-celtic Australians and then proceeds to list supposedly Anglo and Celtic origins that have been double counted, while excluding the largest group "Australian". This original research is hopeless.

How is "Anglo-Australian" a superset of Anglo-Celtic? Firstly I'm sure that you will incorrectly presume that Anglo-Australians are only people who live in Australia and nominated English as their ancestry. And you are trying to say that this group of people includes all people who have English or Celtic ancestry from around the world. All I can say is that this would be consistent with the quality of this article.

Your belief is incorrect, you can look up which two ancestries people nominated on the ABS site.

I have attempted to fix the article, which claims to show the "total population" while excluding the largest anglo-celtic ancestral group.

Sigh, no it doesn't. It uses good sources incorrectly in original research. Also it doesn't represent a consensus view atm. It's just me arguing with you. And I have facts and references.Goramon (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot make much sense of your editing and arguments above - so I'll point out that your continued efforts to edit the article in without explaining your point is disruptive. Please stop.

Your point about the heading of "Total Population" is what exactly? It lists the %ages of respondents out of the last census.

Your point about Anglo-Australians being more than those that live in Australia is fine, but this article is about anglo-celtic. You continue to indulge in Original Research in trying to make both mean the same thing.

You say above that "Your belief is incorrect" - What belief is incorrect? If you are referring to being unable to add the populations together, I've asked for an example previously. Please provide this rather than edit-warring.

I'll reiterate - make your arguments here before editing the article. Read WP:BRD. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with HighKing. The topic is difficult to define. Goramon, I think you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting the data the ABS provides. x% of respondents in the census said they had "Australian" ancestry either alone or in combination with one other ancestry. The ABS does not speculate what ancestral ties they have, nor is it our business to do this second guessing. Kransky (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Goramon has full thought through what he's trying to say. He doesn't accept that Anglo-Celtic is different to Anglo-Australian - this may be true, but it needs a citation or reference that states that this is the case. He also doesn't seem to "get" that the numbers don't add up to 100% because of double counting. Finally, he doesn't seem to "get" that his edits will continue to be reverted while he pushes Original Research and POV into an article - the policies are there for a reason - I suggest he familiarizes himself with the relevant ones. --HighKing (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How this number of 19 million Anglo-Celtic Australians came about? If it is inaccurate due to double counting then it is...inaccurate. Kransky (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The 19 million number is the total population of Australia according the 2006 census NOT the total anglo-celtic population - HighKing did make it seem like it was the Total anglo-celtic population. It was one of the many problems with HighKing's edit.

Listing what you consider to be "Anglo-celtic" ancestries from the census, which have been double counted and listing them under the heading of "Total Population" is Original Research and just plain wrong. Why is it original research? Because the ABS didn't include it's own catergory for Anglo-Celtic Australian. Instead you decided which ancestries meant a person was "Anglo-Celtic". To highlight another difference (Manx i've already mentioned), some peer reviewed research have classified Bretons as being Anglo-celtic aswell.

High King, you claim that including "Australian" in the anglo-celtic population is original research even though the ABS said that most people who nominate "Australian" are angloceltic. Can't you see what you've done? You've claimed to list the "total population" while excluding a set of people who are(according to the ABS) mostly anglo-celtic. Simple logic would tell you that your original research was in error. You can list "total population" while excluding members of the population - and you can't do original research at all.

ABS data should be used appropriately saying "such and such percentage of Australians nominated such and such ancestry" while not attempting to interpret this data yourself. Then it should be mentioned that "x percentage of Australians" nominated "Australian" as an ancestry, of which the ABS believes the majority are anglo-celtic.

Totalling the Anglo-celtic population of Australia (from ABS data), or the percentage it makes up of the population is Original research. To avoid OR, we must cite references which total the population itself. I have found the best reference in the article, if you can find a better one then I would be happy to include it.Goramon (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

British, Irish, UK, Ireland

There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency in this article. We talk of "British and Irish" and "UK and Ireland" as though they are the same thing. It needs sorting out. The census uses UK and Ireland as a grouping and it is referenced more than once. Don't we really need to clarify what we mean by "British" and "Irish". As mentioned before, there are anomalies regarding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. What about Northern Ireland - are descendants of Northern Ireland people British or Irish? What is the fundamental difference between British and Irish, or English and Welsh for that matter? WizOfOz (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an admittedly messy process, just as the histories of most peoples of the world are undefinable. This is why I am opposed to Wikipedia fruitlessly attempting to organise people into neat and objective templates. Wherever possible, and when necessary, I recommend the use of terminology used by statistical agencies who are perhaps in the best position to make judgements on sorting people out into discrete categories.

Suffice to say, Irish and English culture are distinct. Kransky (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What changes, if any, should he made to the presentation of the statistics

User:Goramon above argues that the current presentation of statistics is inaccurate. While I disagree with his tendentious editing while the content is being disputed, he nonetheless has made a number of points that should be addressed.

• Definition - User:Goramon makes some points that go against the definition used in the article - for example, he claims (with no reference yet) that new peer reviewed research have classified Bretons as being Anglo-celtic. This disagrees with the Anglo-Celtic article that states The term does not include the Celtic peoples of mainland or continental Europe, such as the Bretons..
• He states the ABS said that most people who nominate "Australian" are angloceltic. Not true. What they actually stated is To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'.. But unless we get a number or percentage figure of what proportion, it's impossible to know what they mean by most. But it's most definitely wrong to do as Goramon is doing, and including all of them. It's also based on an article published in 1995, and therefore questionable how relevant the conclusion are today. Trying to interpret conclusions based on 1995 data to 2006 data would be deemed original research.
• He is removing the latest census numbers. No idea why. Perhaps related to the point above?

Comments from other editors are welcome. What changes, if any, should he made to the presentation of the statistics. --HighKing (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Three points -

1. Definition the paper "Australian Population : Ethnic Origins" from the journal People and Place, vol 7, no 4 has a table totalling Australia's Anglo-Celtic population including Bretons who number only 1000 according to the papers estimates. It's on the top left corner of page 2 http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf

2. The ABS did state that most people who nominate Australian ancestry are anglo-celtic. Highking even admitted it in his contradictary post above i.e. " But unless we get a number or percentage figure of what proportion, it's impossible to know what they mean by most. " they being the ABS. I've given HighKing a quote and reference above, and have included it in my editing of the maint article, so take it as a fact that the ABS did say that most people who nominate Australian as an ancestral group are infact anglo-celtic (particularly they account for the lower than expected number of people who nominate Irish or Scottish ancestry since many people of these ancestries nominate Australian). It's not original research to quote the ABS comments on a recent previous census.

3.I am not removing the latest census numbers, all of my edits have included them in the body of the article. I am however deleting a table which claims to show the "Total Population" of Anglo-Celtic Australians which uses data that can be double counted and excludes a group which the ABS states has Anglo-Celtic Australians in the majority. Attempting calculate the "total population" of anglo-celtic Australians using ABS data which is not designed for that purpose is original research and synthesis. That's why I have included a study which states the "ethnic strength" of anglo-celtic Australia and provides projections overtime.

My edits have been balanced, and I have stopped trying to add "Australian" to the "Total Population" of Anglo-celtic Australians due to the fact a minority of people who nominate that ancestry aren't Anglo-Celtic. I was actually doing this as a compromise so the "total population" of anglo-celtic australians shown in this article would be more accurate, even though it is original research. But after this edit war I have decided that we should not attempt to calculate the population ourselves (original research) and instead use reliable references.Goramon (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to your 3 points:

1. This article already has a definition. If you wish to rewrite the article to put forward a new definiton, then I suggest you discuss it here on the Talk page first. Otherwise your edits are simple POV pushing.

2. Please produce the ABS statement. And please point out the contradictory nature of the post. I've replicated your reference - please take note of the term "might" in the quote - hardly convincing is it. I note that you failed to address the point of the more-than-decade-old nature of your sources. You also failed to address the concerns of accuracy - unless you can define a percentage around "most", how do you suggest we incorporate a number? I've no problem with incorporating the comments btw, so long as they are quoted in context (i.e., they're more than a decade old, and we can include the quote in the article)

3. You *are* removing the latest census figures from the infobox, based on *your* definition of anglo-celtic australian. I note you failed to address the point I raised on the definition of anglo-celtic exluding Bretons. The table should not be deleted as it is from the latest census figures, and inclusion of the stats does not suggest a calculation of "total population" as per the note.

4. You are engaging in tendentious editing, against consensus, by inserting original research into a topic. I suggest you familiarize yourself with relevant policies such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:BRD. Continuing in this manner is disruptive. Please discuss before editing. --HighKing (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1. What are replying to? I'm simply stating that a peer reviewed papper included Bretons. Wikipedia can handle ambiguity (i.e. several similar definitions for the same term). I'm not trying to change the definition of Anglo-Celtic. Bretons are of British origins anyway, just 1400 years removed - this paper chose to include them. You don't know much about Celtic issues, are you really Irish?

2. You have seen the ABS statement here it is again "This attempt to get Australians to nominate their ancestry showed that over 46 per cent classed themselves as 'Anglo-Celtic', including a considerable number of English, Irish and Scottish mix. To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'. This gives an 'Anglo-Australian' total of about two-thirds of the population. One mystery in the figures is the low percentage prepared to call themselves Irish or Scottish. It is probable that many of these preferred to be Australian" from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/49f609c83cf34d69ca2569de0025c182!OpenDocument

3. I am removing the latest census numbers from the infobox, where they incorrectly claim to represent the "Total Population" of Australian anglo-celts, in a way that is misleading, factually inaccurate and constitutes original research. I am however, leaving these figures in the body of the article where no such inaccurage claims are made about them.

4. Which original research am I inserting in the page, please be specific?

I've identified and refuted your original research (claiming to represent the Total Population of Anglo-Celtic Australians by selecting ancestries you consider anglo celtic and ommiting a group that the ABS describes as being mostly anglo-celtic). I've refuted this by finding verifiable sources which provide different figures. I've refuted this on logical grounds (that if the ABS assumes MOST or even ANY of the people who call themselves are Australian are Anglo-Celtic then you have NOT captured the total Australian Anglo-Celtic population). I have refuted it by pointing out the statistics involve double counting, and I have identified it as original research.

In short, I have comprehensively refuted it, but yet your persis in edit warring.

If you want to revert my "Original Research" i.e. statements I have inserted without suitable references then by all means do so. Don't simply revert my edits, but delete the unreferenced statements which are original research and provide an explanation. Are you seriously telling me my whole edit is original research?Goramon (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a knowledgeable third party has a look at this before the dispute gets really out of hand. The dispute detail is not a specialist area of mine. Would any other regular contributors to this article care to have a look? WizOfOz (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will take a good look at this in the next few days Kransky (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad that Kransky has taken a look. I also ask that other members of the community look at this. For my own part, I'd like other voices on this so that it doesn't seem like a 2 person dispute and disruptive editing can be tackled by this article's community rather than one editor. --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Claiming to list the total population of Anglo-Celtic Australians by interpreting census figures is Original Research, not to mention blatantly incorrect. The study I provided calculates the Ethnic Strength (which is the percentage of ancestry, or genetic contribution) of Anglo-Celtic peoples to Australia. This study though 7 years older than the 2006 census, is far more accurate and provides future projections.

The comments from the ABS report about the Australian ethnicity and Anglo-Celtic Australians are also noteworthy. The version of this page as it stands is wrong, contains original research and excludes better sources.Goramon (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My observations

I am assuing Goramon is seeking to use Charles Price's estimates in this article. I know his family and his work, and as one of Australia's leading demographers (although he has long since retired) he does still hold some sway in this area. I would in no way consider that the quality of his research does not meet Wikipedia's standards.

However since the report was written (1999), based on 1996 Census results, Australia's immigration intake has continually changed in terms of the size and make-up of the intake. In my judgement his estimates about what the composition of Australia's ethnic make-up is today, or will be in the future, are now invalid.

We could add a short precis about his work in the article, on the lines that in 1999 Dr Price estimated persons of English ancestry comprised of 43.61% of the Australian population (as per the table on page three). However I think that the infobox should contain ABS estimates, including the caveat I wrote that warns of an under-count. Kransky (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur - it's pretty much what I was suggesting. Thank you. Goramon - is this OK? --HighKing (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kransky, you are correct in your assumption that I want to use Charles Price's estimates. I have no idea why it was deleted in the first place tbh - because it's older? It's still noteworthy.

I never deleted the ABS 2006 figures, i just didn't include them in an infobox titled "total population" because they don't show the total anglo-celtic population. Actually, people have been having trouble understanding my arguments but in reality Census data about ancestry isn't a reliable source (let alone double counted data with "Australian" excluded from Anglo-celtic said to calculate a total popluation). There are studies to show this is the case, and anecdotal evidence such as the number of Germans in Australia apparently doubling in a decade etc. This data has to be interpreted by a professional in a peer-reviewed study to be meaningful.

HighKing's edit showing total population means that he thinks 1. all anglo-celtic Australians filled out the forms, 2. all people who nominate Australian ancestry are not anglo celtic. Also what about the people with New Zealander, Canadian, South African ancestry? In short this method is hopeless and I've proven it wrong many times in many ways. An edit war is not a justification, not a single sound argument has been presented in defence of this method nor to rebutt my criticisms of it. HighKing you are struggling.

In my case I would say I have English and Australian ancestry. My father is English and my mother is Australian. I don't want to get out a calculator and figure out which proportion English, Scottish, Irish I am on my Australian side, in fact it's not possible to include that data in the census form.

There should also be a mention, and discussion of "Anglo-celtic" being a replacement for an Australian ethnicity, and the fact that anglo-celtic people make up the majority of Australian residents and citizens.Goramon (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple response. You are deliberately trying to bait this argument. Nowhere have I suggested any of the things you have said I did. I've simply pointed out that your editing is against consensus, is disruptive, and the prefered way to proceed is to discuss your points here first. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kransky, you are correct in your assumption that I want to use Charles Price's estimates. I have no idea why it was deleted in the first place tbh - because it's older? It's still noteworthy Glad we agree.

I never deleted the ABS 2006 figures, i just didn't include them in an infobox titled "total population" because they don't show the total anglo-celtic population. You could have just simply said "Hey Kransky, we better not use those ABS figures because they don't show the total anglo-celtic population", of which my response would be "The best statistics we have are the ABS statistics, with the caveats as I have included that identify exactly the same problems with the data you are identifying".

Regarding your calculator example, or South African born Australians of British ancestry, you are illustrating quite well the difficulties of conducting this survey. The most reliable way of dealing with this problem is to ask respondants to nominate what they consider to be the ancestries that define them, and to include caveats that do not make readers assume we are 100% accurate.

There should also be a mention, and discussion of "Anglo-celtic" being a replacement for an Australian ethnicity People of Australian ethnicity like Cathy Freeman? There is no official definition of what is either terms are, and it is not our role to define them.

Finally, Goramon, HighKing and anybody else, please realise I have a job, a girlfriend, hobbies and mates, and I do not have an infinite amount of time and patience to wade through arguments over semantics, or what means what. Kransky (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kransky, congratulations on having a life, but nobody asked you to martyr yourself. I'm grateful that somebody else looked objectively at what was going on, as with just two editors involved it looked like a slow burning edit war. But if you're not doing it for the sake of the quality of the article, please don't bother. --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The ABS statistics aren't the best ethnicity statistics we have, because they are inaccurate in regards to ethnicity, Price's study is the best we have. It's simply an appeal to authority to say ABS figures are the best. They double count, you have decided (while the ABS has done the opposite) that "Australians" aren't anglo-celtic. Given these difficulties it's better to use a study that has actually sought to clearly answer the question and provide a total number in clear catergories.

Aborigines aren't of Australian ethnicity, they have a large number of tribes and languages etc and trace their ethnicities to these groups. Not a nation called Australia that has only existed since federation and which didn't count them in the census untill the 60s etc.

The ABS data cannot be included in an infobox called total population of anglo-celtic australians because it does not calculate this. I'm going to revert this original research (the ABS doesn't calculate the total anglo-celtic population exactly, therefore you can't use it as a source to do so). If you want to delete my edits, delete them one by one with justifications.Goramon (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please reread, and please preserve the accuracy of what has been stated. It reflects poorly on your arguments if you can't. For the record, I have never said that "Australians" aren't anglo-celtic - I have pointed out that you have failed to provide a reference that states that *all* Australians are anglo-celtic, and therefore your inclusion of the total number of Australians is inaccurate. The infobox is a standard template and can very easily be changed to remove the heading of "Total Population" is you so wish, although I believe the note added to the infobox explains this already. You continue to edit war - I think it's time a report is filed. See here for the filing. --HighKing (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You may not have said that "all" Australians aren't anglo-celtic but by having a heading of "Total Population" and not including them you have inferred that NO person who listed only Autralian on the census is anglo-celtic. That's basic logic. I have provided a reference saying the ABS believes that MOST people who list Australian as their ancestry are anglo-celtic and that they should be added to the anglo-celtic total. I've completely refuted your original research calculations of total population.

I am also wondering what unsourced statements you believe I have inserted in the article, since you are consistently accusing me of original research. I can't see any statements that my revert has reinserted, correct me if I'm wrong (I corrected you afterall).Goramon (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Celtic is not just Welsh, Irish and Scots; it is Cornish (England) and Breton (France) too

The article at present seems to assume that Celtic nations include only those within the British Isles and excludes the whole of England. This assumption is wrong. It may be worthwhile for editors to note that:

• Cornwall, today a county in the south-west of England, is a Celtic nation with its own variant of Gaelic. British citizens from this county may consider themselves both or either English and/or Celtic.
• There is a large region in north-west France called Brittany which has its own variant of Gaelic and is a Celtic nation derived from migration via Cornwall. French citizens from this region rightly and correctly consider themselves Celtic. Please see the article Celtic nations. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• England was formed from a number of tribal kingdoms, many of which were ruled by Celtic tribes before the migrations/invasions of the Romans, Angles, Saxons and Normans.

Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But the definition here follows the definition of Anglo-Celtic (not just Australian), so that explains why the lede defines it as such (consistency I suppose). This article *does* list all of the Celtic and Anglo ethnicities reports by the ABS though, including Manx. I suggest this discussion would be better taking place on Anglo-Celtic though. --HighKing (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Breton and Cornish are not Gaelic languages, they're Brythonic, like Welsh. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In Australia the term pretty much refers to anybody whose ancestral origins lie in the British Isles. This is the wrong article to add more details about ethnography.

You would have to show some citation for that bold statement, its not my experience. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is inevitable that most Australians with ancestral ties to the British Isles have ties to a mixture of regions, and thus these ancestries. In fact, I would expect most British in Britain have admixtures of Anglo, Picts, Scots, Welsh, Irish etc (hence HighKing's wise idea to discuss this on Anglo-Celtic).

It is admittedly a clumsy, inaccurate term, but I do not hear the term "British Australian" being bandied about. Kransky (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)]

Or Anglo-celtic Australian for that matter!--Snowded TALK 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Make a page for white Australian

Not all white Australians are British-Irish. I also fail to see why when we look up in other countries is says white American, white British etc, but for Australia its always Aglo celtic or European Australians. Australians have as much right not to think of themselves as British as the Americans do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.3.243 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Census Data

@220.233.29.226 - Please stop removing the census data. If you have a reference or a citation that shows that census data is not accurate, please produce it here or discuss on the Talk page. If you can show this to be true, then in all likelyhood the census data will be removed. If you continue to revert on this article, it may be considered edit-warring and you may get blocked. I've no idea whether or not you're the smartest person on Wikipedia, although I doubt it. Ans while Wikipedia is not a democracy, the census data has already been discussed at length at the article Talk page (see above), and nobody raised the issue of it not being reliable. --HighKing (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The "I'm intelligent" theme occurs in other postings. Don't get sucked into an edit war though HighKing ... --Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a slow burner - I've asked Rock to take a look once I realized the IP has no intention of discussing. Not sure if 3RR applies for slow burners so looking for guidance. --HighKing (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi HighKing. I've asked the editor to engage here on the first instance, and to seek dispute resolution if a that is not sufficient. If the editor continues to revert, then please let me know and I'll take it further. Rockpocket 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Australain" is omitted from HighKing's synthesis, even though it's a synonym for "anglo-celtic" not that it would make Synthesis and using an unreliable source permisable, but it does make the logic even poorer.

One of many sources that say census ancestry data is unreliable. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v30225143x313363/ "It looks at the collection of ancestry statistics as a bold attempt at an impossible task which has yielded results that are often inaccurate, sometimes misleading and liable to abuse in their interpretation." This is pertaining to ABS collection of ancestry statistics.

If you look into the issue at all you'll see that census ancestry data is considered unreliable globally consider "German" being the largest white ancestry group in the USA for instance. Census ancestry shouldn't be in wikipedia at all without scholarly analysis, but the synthesis omitting the largest anglo-celtic group makes this by far the worst abuse of unreliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We can only report on the data and criteria as gathered by the census. The census data does not have an ancestry entry for "Australain" or "Australian", nor does it state that it is a synonym for "Anglo-Celtic". Rather than removing the census data, what about qualifying the accuracy of the data, using sources. For example, the SpringerLink source can be cited to assert the potential unreliability and validity of census data. --HighKing (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't synthesize an unreliable source and then provide another link to say it's unreliable, if it's unreliable it shouldn't be in there as a primary source. We already have a source saying fewer people are listing British and Irish ancestries and many of them are preferring to call themselves Australian in the census. There are also calculations of the ethnic strength of "anglo-celtic" people in Australia. Census data not needed, decision to omit Australian from statistics shows your head/heart isn't even in the right place, but either way it's wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Census data is census and it reports people's perceptions of their ancestry. If you think the text should be added to or amended please propose changes. Simply making a statement here then editing the article is not acceptable. --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Census data is census" - thanks for clearing that up, have you demonstrated that this perception is reliable? Why is "Australian" not included as anglo-celtic when sources say "to this group could be added those who select Australian?". Why is synthesis (picking English or Celtic (what about low land scots?) ) acceptable?

Very very weak logic, are you here to improve the project? You really ought to be ashamed.

Sign your comments, don't add failures of WP:AGF to add to your edit warring. Whether their perception is reliable or not does not matter, ethnicity (101 anthropology here) is mostly perception anyway in a modern context. Otherwise you need to make your comments clearer --Snowded ^TALK 13:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnicity is mostly perception"? and for that you got anthropology 101. Well congratulations on passing your course, but one could just as easily say "reality is mostly perception" and not have any sources for anything. Even if we accepted that assertion, which a thinking person would not, we are still left with synthesis. ~LowlyLogician

If, as it seems, some sort of consensus cannot be reached (and thowing insults around is hardly conducive to that), I would suggest some outside opinions be sought. To be honest, I'm struggling to understand what the actual issue is here, so I'm not really qualified to offer any informed comment. In the meantime, if the editwarring continues I will protect the page from editing. Rockpocket 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection to the material is either. We either seem to have a slow edit war, or the sort of throw away remarks above. --Snowded ^TALK 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question Rockpocket honestly implied "What's the objection to the material?" I'll re-explain it.

1. Experts in demographics/history consider self reported ancestry from census reports very unreliable. IF experts in the field consider a source unreliable then wikipedia policy is not to include it as a reliable source.
2. Cherry picking supposed Anglo and Celtic ancestries from the census (they aren't classified as such) is synthesis, so shouldn't be in the article.
3. The ancestry group "Australian" which is a synonym for Anglo-Celtic Australian isn't included in HighKing's synthesis, even though it's the largest Anglo-Celtic ancestry group. Look at this earlier objection : "This attempt to get Australians to nominate their ancestry showed that over 46 per cent classed themselves as 'Anglo-Celtic', including a considerable number of English, Irish and Scottish mix. To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'. This gives an 'Anglo-Australian' total of about two-thirds of the population. One mystery in the figures is the low percentage prepared to call themselves Irish or Scottish. It is probable that many of these preferred to be Australian" From ABS
4. Scholarly sources have provided estimates of Australia's anglo-celtic population, and these are included in the article already. They don't suffer from double counting, or excluding "Australian ancestry". 220.233.29.226 (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Lowly Logician

OK lets deal with those points:

• Self reported ancestry may or may not be accurate in terms of actual lineage, but that does not make it false data. As I have pointed out before ethnicity is a patter of self-perception or self identity, something that has greater significance in mixed origin societies. Ethnicity is culture as much as it is genetics. How people report their origins is thus valid and significant.
• If the words here need to be more directly reflective of the census categories then propose wording accordingly. Its not synthesis to simply add numbers together provided no additional meaning or interpretation is created in the process.
• If someone identifies as Australian, then it would not be permissible to categorise them as Anglo-celtic or anglo unless there was a reliable third party source which said that people who so classify are generally fro that background.
• I don't see any problem with including both the census reports and scholarly sources, in fact a difference between the two provides interesting data about Australian identity.

--Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. If it's not accurate it's not reliable therefore can't be used as a primary source.

2. The additional interpretation is in the decision of who to call Anglo-Celtic.

3. I just provided one, from the ABS when discussing Australia's Anglo-Celtic ancestry.

4. The problem is the census data is grossly inaccurate, for instance far more than 31.6% of Australians have English ancestry. The "interesting data" is clumsy OR. "Anglo-Celtic" really best describes people with long term Australian ancestry where British and Irish ancestries have blended into an Australian identity. The census data isn't a reliable source and greatly detracts from the article. It's uses are synthesis and OR. Must be removed.220.233.29.226 (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)LowlyLogician

It is an accurate report of how people regard their ancestry and its sources so we can use that. Anglo-Celtic is pretty clear: English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish identification, or British Isles. As to the rest you should propose wording using your source which can compliment or modify what is there. You have a strong view as to what is accurate or not in respect of identity issues. You are more than welcome to hold those views, but you cannot impose them. --Snowded ^TALK 09:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. There are no sources that state it is not accurate. There are sources that *question* its accuracy. And sources that question relying on this data. To provide a balanced view, removing the census data is not the answer - rather, include the "other viewpoint".
2. Without a reference, the "additional interpretation" could be challenged as simply your own opinion. The motto here is "Verifiability, not truth".
3. The link lists the most commonly used ancestries in 1986, and lists "English, Irish, Scottish, British, English-Irish, Australian-English and English Scottish" as Anglo-Celtic, and goes on to state "To these might be added most who called themselves simply 'Australian'" - that also can be stated in the article, but it doesn't mean that we can simply count all self-identified Australian's as Anglo-Celtic.
4. I agree with Snowded's response. Feel free to hold strong opinions, but articles must be sourced and content must be verifiable. --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1.Wrong : but it may be true to say there are no sources that say the census data is reliable. WP:BURDEN is on the editors who wish to keep the census data.

2. Taking people's ancestry and calling them Anglo-Celtic or not, deciding to omit Australian, is additional interpretation. A more accurate interpretation would be to include Australian, since most people who call themselves Australian are anglo-celtic, but in any case it would be Synthesis.

3. IT also doesn't mean we should count "none" of them. It means we should count the vast majority, but that's original research.

4. Verifiable? I've shown a link (and there are many more) showing ABS self reported ancestry is unreliable. I've provided a quote from the ABS that supposes we should count Australian as Anglo-Celtic (if we were going to do original research). I've proven my point and WP:Burden is not even on me.

If you want to re-include you will have to prove that census data is considered reliable by experts AND that what you are doing is not original research, so you'll have to find a study or article tabulating these ancestries into anglo-celtic.

And that really is that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is your position. Census data is extensively used in wikipedia and there is no need to provide additional evidence. You are failing to respond to the simple fact that the census shows how people regard their ancestry. You clearly do not have agreement to deleting the material. If you want to propose amendments please do do --Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right about one thing, that is my position. Census data may be accurate for some purposes (I don't know), counting people, age structures etc so not all usage is problematic. However, it's not a reliable source for ancestry data, and is not regarded as such by experts. That's not just my position that's a fact I've provided a link to justify. Clearly you have not cleared the standard of WP:Burden. You must provide evidence, not your opinion about the data being useful because it's "census" or "anthropology 101" or "shows people's perception". 220.233.29.226 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You have provided a link that would allow you to propose an amendment to question ancestry data but not to remove it. That's all. --Snowded ^TALK 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1. If experts in a field do not consider a source reliable it can't be used in wikipedia.

2. Experts do not consider Census data reliable for recording ancestries.

3. Therefore census data cannot be used for reporting of ancestries in Wikipedia.

(a). The burden of proof is on editors who wish to add or re-add material to an article.

(b). Zero evidence has been provided to justify accuracy of census self reported ancestries.

(c). Therefore editors must not add or re-insert self reported census Ancestries.

Anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know that is your opinion but so far others do not agree with you. So there is little point in your continuing to say the same things. You either modify your behaviour and compromise in some way, withdraw or use the various processes in wikipedia to gain additional opinions. You don't edit war, or cast aspersions on other people's intelligence or motivation. --Snowded ^TALK 16:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection should someone wish to question the inclusion/reliability of census data at WP:RS/N. Equally, I've no objection to making it clear in the paragraph that the census data is self-reported, that some experts question it's accuracy, and that many of those that identify as Australian may also have an anglo-celtic ancestry. --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter opinion arguments have been presented which clearly show this data doesn't meet reliability standards. Snowded if you are unable to present a single argument - and dismissing arguments and evidence as opinion is not an argument then you are purely detrimental.

High King - the data isn't reliable. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources - not unreliable primary sources. I have shown ancestry data to be unreliable. You are also looking at the issue of "Australian" backwards. Nearly all "Australians" as an ancestry group are Anglo-Celtic, since Anglo-Celtic and Australian are synonyms, a very small number of people who identify as Australian may not be part of that group. Your synthesis as a primary source seems to infer less than 40% of Australians (if you take into account people select multiple ancestries) are anglo-celtic when in reality it's more than 60% as reliable secondary sources show. AND WP:BURDEN is on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You really need to come down of your high horse. Add additional material from reliable sources as you have just done and you are a valuable editor. Continue to insult other editors and assert your own opinion against wikipedia practice (using census data) and you will end up with a block. Anglo-celtic and Australia may possibly have been synonyms at one stage but they have not been since the 60s or earlier. --Snowded ^TALK 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, WP:Burden is on editors who wish to keep census data, and not a single referenced argument has been presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we know that is your position. Either way there is nothing new to say. For the avoidance of doubt you do not have agreement to delete the material --Snowded ^TALK 07:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion is : data is unreliable, WP:Burden not met, no consensus to keep material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so. The census data is referenced, and all interpretations are referenced. That meets the obligations of BURDEN. The consensus is to *not* delete the census data, and there are suggestions above on how to provide for a balanced view. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Where have you demonstrated that census data on self reported ancestry is considered reliable? Until such time WP:Burden not met. 220.233.29.226 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to demonstrate that it's reliable, only that it is referenced in a reliable source. If you wish to question whether it is reliable, take it up with WP:RS/N. I think we've already discussed this enough and we're now going round in circles. --HighKing (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do "The [b]burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[/b]" Bold from wp:burden. I've demonstrated that Australian census data for ancestry " are(is) often inaccurate, sometimes misleading and liable to abuse in their interpretation.". There's also peer reviewed secondary sources in article so there's no niche for this unreliable data to fill. Until there's a consensus that this data is reliable it cannot be reinserted. 220.233.29.226 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. Please read WP:BURDEN carefully. It states very clearly Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Note: "Reliable Source". Now, how that data is interpreted is another matter, and it is not up to you to simply remove the data because you disagree with it. To present a balanced article, if there's another reliable source questioning the data, then the answer isn't to delete the data, but to present the opposing view. Your mistake is in trying to bulldoze this discussion and hide the data. That sort of behaviour won't be tolerated though and you may end up with a block if you refuse to accept core policies and continue to push your own POV regardless. --HighKing (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not for you to determine process here. Other editors disagree with you. You have been warned against edit warring. If you are unhappy with the position here then raise an RfC or similar STOP edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 07:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have protected this page due to the continued revert-warring. If it continues when the protection expires, editor sanctions will be sought. The solution to this content dispute is obvious: seek dispute resolution. Rockpocket 09:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Rockpock : why did you protect the version which violates wp:burden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.29.226 (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I protected the version that was present when I became aware the revert-warring was continuing. Protection should not be confused with endorsement. Please take this timeout to seek dispute resolution measures. Rockpocket 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There should be another article named "British Australian"

In my humble opinion, this article is good, but it is about Australians of British and Irish ancestry combined. I think there should be another one talking about Australians of British ancestry only (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish and why not Manx...) and make a difference between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I'd like someone to tell me if this is a good idea. Delotrooladoo (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Historically speaking, I don't think this would be required, as at the time of most immigration from the British Isles, what is now the Republic of Ireland was also part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

My possible concern with the naming and scope of this article was on the other side: Does it (or is it intended to) cover immigration by people of Norman ancestry from the British Isles, which I believe were a distinct people from the Anglo-Saxons and Celts. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Yes, I see your point. There's a marked absence of any other articles on UK/British Australians. The article appears to have been renamed at some point, proscribing the content per WP:TITLE. Given the lack of discussion on this talk page, it's probably worth going through the move log to see who renamed it, and why they moved it. Possibly a unilateral decision? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL - The only page move in the log for this article is "15:13, 3 December 2015‎ @Iryna Harpy: moved page Anglo-Celtic Australian to Anglo-Celtic Australians over redirect: In keeping with recent consensus over plural term use for diasporic ethnic groups residing in/citizens of another country (Village pump rfcid=67A353C)" [2] I don't think that is the move you are looking for. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a nong. Let's see whether I can't jack up my "duh" moment score for the week any further... Just a quick check back the dark ages of the article reveals that it started life as using 'Anglo-Celtic' despite the fact that it actually was intended to encompass more than it does. It seems that someone was erring on the side of caution of being politically correct. If the scope isn't broadened in this article, there will need to be a corresponding article for those who consider themselves to be Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavian Scots and Irish, plus another for Norman Brits... Anyone prepared with a DNA testing kit? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the Normans in Britain are not talked about very often in polite company. I see you were half-right earlier, as British Australians redirects to this article. Perhaps the article should be moved to that title to reduce racial and cultural distinctions that have not survived to the modern age? I stumbled across this article looking for interesting articles that might relate to my own ancestors. So far, I have tracked my father's ancestors to Somerset, South Wales, and Islington, although the parents of the ancestor born there were married at St George in the East in London and the father appears to have been from Scotland. I have no idea whether any of these people were Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Normans, or anything else. My mother's ancestors were not British subjects until they moved to Australia. My wife's British ancestors were more widely spread across the British Isles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, your family history puts an interesting slant on the concept of 'British' as being a retrospective descriptor, but (per WP:COMMONSENSE) moving it to "British Australians" would be my !vote. Retaining the redirects is more than adequate so long as no Monty Python fans invoke the opening of "The Holy Grail"... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglo-Celtic 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/20110719124226/http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf to http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529194052/http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf to http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf

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

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) 02:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

"Anglo Australian" redirects to this article, but "Anglo-Australians" redirects to English Australians. Do we even need both articles? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The articles refer to different topics. English Australians refers to Australians with ancestry from England. Anglo-Celtic Australians refer to Australians with their ancestry from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales or some combination thereof.--StormcrowMithrandir 22:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do realise that, StormcrowMithrandir - but the problem with the redirects remains, and as the English Australians article is not extensive, it could perhaps be accommodated as a section of the other. Either way, the redirects problem needs fixing. Another solution would be to create a DAB for Anglo(-)Australian(s). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Anglo Australian should redirect and Anglo-Australians should probably both redirect to this article as 'Anglo' is often used as a shorthand for 'Anglo-Celtic' - that is, British Isles origin. I would not be in favour or merging the English Australians article into this article as it relates to a distinct subject. That would be akin to deleting the article for Chinese Australians and merging it into Asian Australians. I have it on my list to expand the English Australians article so that it will become more extensive.--StormcrowMithrandir 23:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

StormcrowMithrandir - okay, fine with me. It might be an idea to to add the other related (subtopic) articles to the lead, rather than just as See alsos, something like "The term includes English Australians, Cornish Australians...[etc.]"? (To nitpick - Asian peoples and cultures are somewhat more diverse than those of the British Isles, but I get your point, and know that there are some fierce nationalists in each group!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)