Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of Australia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Ethnic Groups

"In 2020, Australia is expected to have 91% of the population as White, 10% as Asian, and Aborigines may very well reach 2%."

91% White, 10% Asian, and 2% Aborigine. Clearly these figures are from Pauline Hanson because they don't add up to 100. If you're going to make up percentages then at least make them add up to 100.

The ABS does not collect statistics on ethnic groups. The quote above seemed to have no sources.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.87.46 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The ABS collects data on places of birth, ancestry and language, from which broad assessments on ethnic composition can be and are derivced. Samh 78 01:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ethnic Groups section with the 2006 stats is probably missing some info - while 5.1 per cent of the population appears to of "Asian" heritage (mainly Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipino) based on the ABS's ancestry stats, this data only lists the major ancestry groups. Missing from this list are Japanese, Korean, Cambodian, Indonesian, Malay, Thai and others. Granted these are smaller ethnic groups, but together they would be a sizeable addition to the "Asian" profile. Might be worth looking at the language stats to see what groups have been missed. Samh 78 10:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of graph

The initial image in the article is a graph (Image:Australia-demography.png) showing population growth from 1961 to 2003. While the data might be impeccable, what is the significance of the dates? How is the image linked to the text? I don't think it adds anything. The graph should cover a broader timespan, for example census data since Federation is available (and I am happy to prepare such a graph to replace the existing graph if it is agreed to be appropriate). The graphic was added in February but without accompanying commentary and there seems to have been no commentary added since, nor has that editor otherwise contributed to the article.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the cutoff dates on the graph are rather arbitrary, presumably based upon only the dataset which was to hand at the time. One, or several, graphs charting demographic data from their first availability would be a more useful replacement.--cjllw | TALK 05:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion

For specific reference, the reverted addition was copied from this ABS page.--cj | talk 09:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Population density map

I came here looking for a population density map...that would be quite informative. -- Beland 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Google images finds maps of population density and population change, but I'm not sure what the copyright statuses of those images are. At least these are useful leads for data finding. -- Beland 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Homogeneity

Contrary to the intro, Australian is definately not "largely homogenous". In the 2001 census, only 34% of respondants identified their ancestry as 'Australian' (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6982D300E1715F1FCA256E9200011F3D?Open). Similarly to the US, Australia is multicultural and has experienced many waves of immigrants from around the world. For example, Melbourne has the largest Greek population outside of Greece! Furthermore, the heading "ethnicity" does this diversity no justice when 92% percent of the population is claimed to be "caucasian". Theres another census in August 2006: maybe when this data gets released then this section can be corrected.

Word! the caucasian population should not be witten as 92%, the percentage of the other ethicities is more or less akrite. Australia also has a large Pacific Islander population (eg. Marois, Samoans, Papua New Guinineans and Fijians) and like other countries demographics it should have an other ethnicities section. There has also been migrants from African and coutries in the Americas too. Unknown User 21:23, 6 October 2006

What? The population is over 70% Australian born, and over 90% white. Sounds pretty homogenous to me. Also, this sentence makes no sence," In 2020, Australia is expected to have 91% of the population as White, 10% as Asian, and Aborigines may very well reach 2%." as the aboriginal population is already over 2%, and 91 + 10 + 2 = 103%. Could find a source and fix this up?I like Radiohead 15:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The word "white" is really too subjective to use in an encyclopaedic article, especially as noone can agree on what it means. The presentation in the above makes it sound like that percentage are of Anglo-Celtic ancestry, which is patently untrue. The figures to me overall look dubious. 10% Asian sounds about right (it was 7-8 in the 2001 census) and the population of Aboriginals was *already* over 2% in the 2001 census (2.18, in fact). I'm not sure where the 2005 and 2006 figures came from, as they are unsourced. Orderinchaos78 11:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
At less than 80%, the proportion of native-born people in Australia is one of the lowest in the world, even compared with countries such as Canada and the US, which would not considered "homogenous" by any stretch. Therefore "The population is over 70% Australian born, and over 90% white. Sounds pretty homogenous to me." makes no sense at all. Additionally, having a population that is over 90 per cent white is no more an indication of homogeneity than is Papua New Guinea's predominantly Melanesian population, with its 800+ languages groups. This "white" group encompasses many cultures. One in four people in Australia claim no British heritage, surely an indication that Australia is not a "homogenous" society.203.4.189.121 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the homogenous reference in the intro. I think this description finds its origins in a Britannica entry that is at least 35 years old now. If Britain's population is considered ethnically diverse, then I think Australia's needs the same attribution if you compare the stats. At the very least, the place of birth stats back up the claim to a diverse population.

Samh 78 13:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying your "Australian" has nothing to do with race. A person who is white or black or asian is Australian if he or she becomes a citizen. "Australian" is not a race.--President Elect 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

"Due to the large population of European ancestry in Australia, the kangaroo route generates high yield for airlines." I removed this coment because it is largely irrelevant to demography. Furthermore, what is the source of Australia's ethnic composition? Kransky 09:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Australian social classes

Section removed. It contained links to articles that don't exist, and a single sentence that doesn't really give much information: "Australia has a class structure that is at least on the surface simiar to Canada's social class strucutre, but regionally it may resemble the class struture of NZ." Kransky 09:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


LEBANESE

Lebanon is on the Asian continent. They are included as `white' according to this article, along with Iranians, Turks and Arabs. These statistics are based on The `CIA' fact book. In the U.S., Middle Easterners and North Africans are classed as `white in the census. Australia is about 80-85% Europeans and even less white if you exclude the darker Mediterraneans. According to the Eurasisan section, there are approx 300,000 Eurasians in Australia, all included as white in the Aus census! Please FIND MORE ACCURATE STATISTICS!!!

Arabs and other Middle-Eastern 'Asians' are genetically/racially Caucasian, although not white in the adapted-for-the-very-low-sunlight-levels-in-Northern-Europe sense. Real Asians are still the biggest minority. I assume you object to being 'classed' with darker-skinned Caucasians because you find them distasteful, an attitude I find distasteful. --Kelly holden 07:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Indo-Aryans, Pakistanis and Afghans are mostly Caucasian but classed as `Asian' in the census. Are they `Real Asians' in your opinion? They would have more closer DNA markers to Europeans than Arabs, many of whom have Negro blood in them (e.g., Saudis, Yemenites.).

Furthermore, many people in Australian society do not consider dark Soutrhern Europeans as `white'. Like I said FIND ACCURATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!

Agreed. The CIA data is useless unless it defines what is in each category, and three categories makes the data lack granularity. The ABS has much better data. I hope the CIA are more accurate when they compile maps for bomber pilots. Kransky (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Projection as estimate

In this article, a population projection based on a population clock is given, yet it is presented as an actual population estimate. Aren't there any post-census estimates that ABS does? This projection is based on past growth rates and not on any count whatsoever. If a population estimate is given, it should be based on a count, not on growth rates. Ufwuct 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment is made that increasingly Africans are found in Australia. I think that these mainly are white South Africans. The comment is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.84.232 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct 2005 population?

I am figuring it is not supposed to be the same as 2000. Nomadtales 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Move

Should this article be moved to Demography of Australia ? See the third paragraph of the demography article. Ehjort 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Population craziness...

Did Australia's population really drop by over 200,000 people during 2002, and then increase by over 400,000 during 2005? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.89.194 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Worse - does Australia really have "849,468,000,352,167,473 (26 January 2007 - ABS)" people? Seems a bit of a stretch for it to have roughly 141,578,000 times the world population... --Q


Rename from demographics to demography

Please see Talk:Demography/Archives/2012#Demographics_vs_demography_confusion and comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Urban figures

"91% of Australia's population lives in urban areas" - according to ABS 'Where do Australians live?', slightly over 10% still live in rural areas, so that 91% seems a bit high.

"Australians however live on just 1 percent of the country, leaving most of the country uninhabited" - not really clear what this is meant to mean. If you just count up the area that people are physically standing on at any given moment, it's a lot less than 1%. If you count areas with low but non-nil population density, it's a lot more. I'm guessing this was meant to be something along the lines of "90% of Australians live in just 1% of the land area", but can't really tell. In any case, it needs a source.--144.53.226.17 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpreted Indigenous statistics

"although, at the 2006 census only 115,280 persons (0.45%) identified as being Aboriginal." This is a misunderstanding of the reference cited, an ABS report on ancestry by place of birth.

Question 7 of the Census asks if the person is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin (multiple-choice). But 'ancestry' is a separate question (Q18), multi-choice/write-in where 'Aboriginal' is not explicitly listed as an option but 'Australian' is. No surprise that plenty of people who identify as 'Aboriginal' on Q7 don't go on to list 'Aboriginal' in Q18. The above ref is based on the 'ancestry' question. (Also, the footnote makes it clear that the figures given don't equate to persons, because 'ancestry' allows more than one response.)

More relevant data: ABS: Census shows increase in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population - "In the 2006 Census of Population and Housing, 455,026 people (or 2.3% of the total Australian population) reported they were of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin." (Non-response and undercoverage issues mean that this is probably an underestimate.) --144.53.226.17 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the ABS report that you mentioned has been misinterpreted. Admittedly, the link has been acting strangely. At the end of December it was linking to 20680-c100-Australia (Australia).xls but on 29 January it was linking to 20680-c117-Australia (Australia).xls. Now it's linking to 20680-c100-Australia (Australia).xls again but both documents show exactly the same data for Australian and Australian Aboriginal ancestries. The c117 document includes "Other Australian Peoples" as well:
Responses Both parents born overseas Father only born overseas Mother only born overseas Both parents born in Australia Country of birth of either/both parent(s) not stated Total
Australian 138,313 705,564 500,017 5,846,743 181,187 7,371,824
Australian Aboriginal 1,045 2,654 1,049 107,031 3,501 115,280
Other Australian Peoples 706 856 445 15,322 600 17,929
Of course these are not the only responses. They are simply those applicable to people claiming some form of Australian ancestry. According to the table there were 25,431,072 responses in total, representing a total population of 19,855,292. If this population is correct and "plenty of people who identify as 'Aboriginal' on Q7 don't go on to list 'Aboriginal' in Q18" is true then what you are saying is that at least 339,746 people must have chosen some other form of ancestry in Q18 or have been captured under the "Inadequately described" or "Not stated" groups. However, this represents 74.7% of the 455,026, which seems a bit high. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
That 75% is surprisingly high, but it is nevertheless what's happened. For another source, see Census Community Profiles ('Indigenous Profile - Australia'). That document indicates a total of 455,030 respondents who identified as Indigenous on question 7 for 2006. (ABS' best estimates of the true figures are somewhat higher for reasons noted above.)
It makes more sense if you look at the way in which the questions are asked. Consider e.g. somebody who's got one Aboriginal grandparent, one English grandparent, and two who are fifth-generation Australians whose earlier ancestry isn't known. When he gets to Q7, which specifically asks if he has Aboriginal origins, he will very likely tick 'yes'. But when he gets to Q18, he has a couple of reasons to pick 'English' and/or 'Australian' in preference to 'Aboriginal'. One is that he's already acknowledged the Aboriginal side of the family. The other is that for a lot of people, Indigenous and otherwise, the Census is an annoyance to be dealt with as quickly as possible; why take the time to write in 'Aboriginal' when you can just tick a box for 'English' and/or 'Australian'? Modal issues of this sort can have surprisingly powerful effects on how people respond. (Sequencing is also an issue - the later the question is in the form, the less attention it gets from respondents.) --144.53.226.17 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Former Yugoslav Repbulics of Macedonia??

Anyone checked the table of "countries of birth"? 41.245.189.22 (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I checked the source and the lower number appears to be the correct value, so I've deleted the other. --GenericBob (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Growth rates graph

I removed this graph from the article because the figures shown are unbelievably high (e.g. it shows greater than 80% annual growth for 1817, 1818, and 1819). Looking at the image page, the graphic doesn't match the underlying numbers - maybe something went wrong with the axis labelling? --GenericBob (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia is not 'dryest continent'

This article states under 'current population trends' that Australia is 'the dryest continent on Earth'. This is not true, as Antarctica is the dryest continent on Earth. Australia is the dryest contiennt that has a permanent human population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireblue (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Political Freedom

It says that Australia ranks as nr 1 in political freedom. How is this possible when it is still de facto a colony and Australians never get the chance to elect democratically their head of state? Is the rest of the article also so 'true'??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.42.252 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you check the link offered for that figure, you can see the criteria used. If you disagree with those criteria, you're very welcome to take the issue up with the people who created them (not WP).
That said, since there are a LOT of countries sharing the top rating with Australia, it's probably appropriate to indicate that this is an 'equal first' ranking (which I've now done). --GenericBob (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

questions

Where is this country located? What does the countries flag look like? What is the capital city? What is the native language? What is the native relion? What is the climate like there? Are there any famous landmarks? 

                  GREETING

How do they say MERRY CRISTMAS or HAPPY HOLIDAYS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.173.120 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Polynesians?

Was there ever a time in Australia's history when the Polynesian peoples ever settled or migrated along the coast of Australia, particularly the Eastern side? I'm just curious because the Polynesians populated so many scarce islands scattered thousands of miles apart in the Pacific from Samoa and Hawaii to New Zealand and Easter Island, yet based on most books and articles I've come across there is no history of them touching the Australian mainland. Is there a simple explanation to this? --71.177.199.163 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Achievements

The sub-heading "Cultural Achivements" is really out of place here. While it is interesting, this is afterall, an article on the Demographics of Australia.

It should be transferred into another article.... like "Culture of Australia".

P-Chan, March 8th 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Chan (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Country of Birth and Indigenous Population data added

I've added the Country of Birth and Indigenous Populations data, which pretty much covers ethnicity.

The CIA stats appear both vague and inaccurate (I suspect the 7% Asian population is based on an older ABS definition which lumped North Africa with Asia; also the indigenous population is 2%, not 1%, and that could also be undercounted)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.2.142 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

An anonymous editor/s has made several attempts to introduce incorrect data to this article, in particular on Macedonian-related stats. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Requested semi-protection but this was refused - other editors, please keep an eye on changes here... --GenericBob (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this myself, and not just here. It's happened at a few articles. The changes are always uncited and are always contradicted by the existing citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet again.[19] --AussieLegend (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is the word used in Australia to describe someone who is part Australian Aborigine and part white? Keraunos (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the old days "half-caste" was often used but these days there is no general term. For the most part, Australians don't pigeon-hole people that way. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of the 517,000 people in Australia that are Australian Aborigines, what percentage would you estimate is full blooded Aborigines and what percentage mixed Aborigine and white? Keraunos (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an answer can be provided for that question. Any response would be probably be pure OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. ABS doesn't collect that data, and I doubt anybody else is in a position to do so. (BTW, that figure of 517,000 is for Indigenous Australians; most are Aboriginals, but it also includes Torres Strait Islanders and people who are in both those groups.) --GenericBob (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

General> List of most common surnames#Australia

There's a link in the General section, "List of most common surnames#Australia", which doesn't lead where it should. I think it needs to go to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_most_common_surnames_in_Oceania . I don't know much about editing Wikipedia pages, so I didn't feel confident fixing it myself :) 114.76.99.58 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)conpanbear

Fixed. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about Taiwan.

Yes the source says Taiwan is a province of China, but even the hyperlink is to a page about the Republic of China. Since Taiwan is not governed by the PRC, why should the article read "Taiwan (Province of China)"? I was going to edit it, but the last person put in a note in red.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teflon2425 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

We have to reflect what the source says, and not make our own interpretations, which is original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_Australia&action=historysubmit&diff=445798936&oldid=445685136 - the do not change note is not WP:NPOV surely ? SatuSuro 09:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The "Please do not change" note is there to explain why the content shouldn't be removed and has largely been successful in preventing the removal. It's there for editors who don't bother reading policy, not for readers, so I don't see that WP:NPOV is relevant, since it's not visible. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Taiwan is not a province of China, so why keep a fiction? SatuSuro 11:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The source specifically says "Taiwan (Province of China)" so that's what we have to use. We can't misrepresent the source, which has to directly support the material as presented. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume 'Taiwan' and 'Taiwan (Province of China)' refer to the same geographic entities; political differences are driving the name issue. I would not consider referring to one term over another as misrepresentation. We do not need this debate on Wikipedia to distract our time and efforts - just use the term that is most widely used. Kransky (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Urban/non-urban population

I'm still not convinced that 89% of Australia is urbanised. The World Bank says 88% of Australia was urbanised in 2004,[20] while the ABS says that the urban population was only 75%.[21] A discrepancy of 13%, roughly 2.6 million people, is significant and I think the ABS is the more accurate figure, given that it is the only agency that actually measures this stuff. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. (here are the ABS definitions: "Sections of State categories comprise Major Urban (population clusters of 100,000 or more), Other Urban (population clusters of 1,000 to 99,999), Bounded Locality (200 to 999), Rural Balance (remainder of state/territory) and Migratory, and in aggregate cover the whole of Australia. ") the 75% refers to MAJOR URBAN and the 89% refers to MAJOR URBAN plus OTHER URBAN. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Note the "for the purpose of this article" qualifier on that particular article - it's a departure from the ABS' usual standard definitions. There are several different geographical standards available, some very technical; Yearbook is written to be accessible, which inevitably means being less pedantic about terminology.
I would guess that the World Bank's figure ultimately comes from ABS to begin with; there are a lot of sources around that use ABS-derived stats for rural/urban breakdowns but the ABS itself mostly publishes by a different standard (remoteness index) that doesn't have a rural/urban split per se.
I'm not terribly fussed which source we use as long as it's represented accurately - I'd be quite happy to use the Yearbook figure of 75% as long as we make clear how they've defined "urban" for that article. --GenericBob (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

2008-2009

According to OECD/World Bank statistics the population of Australia increased 7.8 % in one year 2008-2009 ref. IEA Energy Statistics 2011 October 2011 and IEA 2010 Page: Country specific indicator numbers from page 48 . Can you explain the high growth? Watti Renew (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the population figures in the first document - content might not be displaying properly on my computer. But an increase of 7.8% in one year is definitely not right. I would guess that either the reference period for one of those numbers is wrong, or that they're looking at different measures of population (e.g. comparing 'residents' to 'citizens' or something like that). --GenericBob (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A search through the history of Australia shows that the population growth estimates according to the official population clock, which is provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, between 2007 and 2011 (as of June/July each year) were as follows:
  • 2007-08 1.64%
  • 2008-09 2.04%
  • 2009-10 2.66%
  • 2010-11 1.22%
A 7.8% increase clearly is not correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed my error in Energy in Australia. Now I calculated a 9.3 % population growth in five years (2004-2009). Can we agree? Isn’t this population growth also huge? I wonder if the OECD/World Bank -value is a year end or annual average? You may have interest in Template:World population 1990-2025. According to UN World population hit 7 billion people in October 2011. Now:
Australian population (by OECD/World Bank)
* 2004 - 20.21 million
* 2007 - 21.14 million
* 2008 - 21.51 million
* 2009 - 22.10 million
and Population growth:
* 2007-2008: +1.7 %
* 2008-2009: +2.7 %
* 2004- 2009: +9.3 %
Watti Renew (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Those figures seem plausible, although I would recommend using ABS as the definitive source on Australian population. (I suspect the World Bank numbers are based on ABS year-end figures anyway.)
The growth rates are high compared to many countries, due partly to a high rate of net migration. Population policy and carrying capacity are the subject of some public debate in Australia, and it might be appropriate to mention that debate in the article (with cites to notable sources). I have my own views on the issue, but Wikipedia's not the place for me to post them :-) --GenericBob (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Source fulfils WP:Cite sources and WP:Verifiability. If you find critics in the population numbers, please tell us. It is interesting, since these population numbers are used in the IEA energy calculations. In the world wide comparson it is beneficial to use one source for the population. All statistics are not identical. e.g. US counts the human population growth slower than UN. Watti Renew (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I support to include the Australian immigration policy and the Australian policy on the world population. “Demographics of Australia” does not need to limit the scope in Australia but can include the Australian government politics to population growth of the world. Does the government see population growth as a problem? What are the Australian position and statements in the international meetings of the subject? Does Australia act internationally to mitigate the growth? How? The public discussion on subject in Australia is also in my opinion significant. Watti Renew (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO issues such as immigration policy should be mentioned here where relevant to demographics (e.g. a lot of population growth is due to immigration rates) but the article shouldn't go into too much detail. There are probably other articles that would be more appropriate for that content. Discussion about population growth outside Australia doesn't really fit into the scope of this article, which is about the population of Australia. --GenericBob (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Current population

Formula for showing current population gives wrong result and needs correcting. 118.208.4.186 (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The population changes by ~919 people per day. The count is updated at 00:00Z every day and, at the moment, is only 30 people out, which is an acceptable error, especially given that it is only an estimate anyway. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does it say 23 million under the section "General Demographic statistics", but then everywhere else it's 22 million? Ashton 29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

The formula used for calculating the current population in the "General Demographic statistics" section was out of date but has now been corrected. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity Demographics Missing

Not sure if i'm just being blind... but where are the ethnicity breakdowns. They are approximately something like 90% European, 7% Asian and 3% Aboriginal... Is this information available anywhere and is it not included for a reason? I'd like to see a further breakdown, ie. 70% British Isles (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales)- 10% Northern European etc. etc. Any ideas?118.209.24.221 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Census does not collect 'ethnicity' data per se. It collects indigenous status (~2.6% Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander), 'country of birth' and 'ancestry' data, and those three are in the article. But 'ancestry' doesn't mean quite the same thing as 'ethnicity' to all respondents. (Note also that each person can indicate two different ancestries if they want.)
From memory, I think the CIA World Factbook might have published figures similar to the ones you give above, but I'm not sure how credible they are - since there's no general collection of 'ethnicity' data it would be an educated guess at best. --GenericBob (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Population growth rate graph

I removed from the article because it doesn't look right. The growth rates look excessively high (~4%/year for the last couple of decades, which is much higher than the true rates, and over 40%/year for large chunks of the 1800s - at this rate the population would've been doubling every three years!)

The file for the graph includes source data; the percentages in that data look much more credible but they do not match the numbers on the graph. --GenericBob (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Math

"More than 92 percent of all Australians descend from Europeans.[35] Anglo-Celtic Australians (English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish or Irish ancestral origin) make up 74 percent of the Australian population.[36] 12 percent of the Australian population have an Asian ancestral origin.[37]"

100 - 12 definitely is definitely less than 92. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.32.247 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The maths might seem confusing if you forget that a person doesn't have to have two parents with the same ancestry. It's entirely possible for somebody with one Asian parent to also have a parent with European ancestry. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Immigration demographics

Given that immigrants make up a significant proportion of the Australian population, it is a bit odd that this article does not include a year by year breakdown of immigration numbers.

If you are going to include a detailed chart on the total number of births/deaths since 1900, wouldn't it make sense to also include a chart on the annual immigration figures?. The birth and death figures present a misleading picture without taking into account immigration numbers...for example, the record high birthrate in Australia since 2008 is largely down to a substantial rise in the number of immigrant arrivals over the past ten years.

Inchiquin (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Black population

Why aren't there any statistics on the percentage of black people (i.e. non-white people of African ancestry) living in Australia? Surely there most be some info on it. 2604:2000:7FC0:1:994C:E811:2B3A:3A95 (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You do realise that not all black people are from Africa? Statistics are not gathered based on the colour of skin, they're gathered on the basis of ancestry. Country of birth is detailed in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry statistics

The ancestry statistics showed in the article do not match although they are supposed to be from the same 2011 census. E.g. "English (33.7 per cent)" and then "English (36.1%)". Maybe those discrepancies are based on wether you calculate the percentage on the total of responses (people declaring two ancestries are counted twice, thus adding up to 100%, as stated here) or on the total Australian population. Whatever the reason, I think one set of percentages should be chosen so that the statistics don't show different answers only two lines apart.Skimel (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The percentages are described using different standards: "most commonly reported" and "most commonly nominated". Most commonly nominated is based on self-identification. I fail to see how stats reflecting a different criterion in each instance is confusing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked No archived captures of the XLS doc were saved. Added "cbignore" + additional ref as sub. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Population growth rate

What's up with this statistic? The article has:

As of the end of September 2012, the population growth rate was 1.7%.[22]

But the reference provided seems to be data to end of June 2015, and gives a national rate of 1.4%. I'll change this accordingly. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Thanks for keeping on top of these details, DIV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-1788 population

This page says 350,000, but the Australia page says 750,000-1,000,000. That page has a reference, this page doesn't. Would someone who knows how, care to copy the footnote and figure from the Australia page? Or give a reference here for this figure. Which is very different. Maybe the "Australia" one is the one that should be changed. Thanks. Yesenadam (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Also - I'm no expert in statistics whatsoever - but the 2004 paper that here is claimed to say weekly church attendance is 7.5% and on the Australia page (until I changed it today) 7% actually says/estimates 8.8% - they say they left some (non-mainstream xtian) groups out of that 1.5m total, and afterwards added in a figure assuming the others were unchanged from 1996 to 2001. (It says that on the next pages.) But at least this page didn't misread the '7% decline' as '7% total' like the Australia page writer(s) seem to have. Hopefully someone better qualified than I can confirm and change this. Thanks again. Yesenadam (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:CITELEAD it's not necessary to include citations in the lead, and there is one further down the article that supports 300,000-1,000,000. Really, nobody knows, or will ever know, as there were no accurate estimates until the 20th century. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demography of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY 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) 15:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Demography of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This section anchor is still broken

@AussieLegend: I added this section anchor because there are some incoming redirect pages that point to the section's old title. The section anchor is probably still necessary here. Jarble (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The anchor was pointed to by {{Ancestry of Australians}}, a navbox that is transcluded by 133 articles so there could be some still "apparently" pointing to it until the caches update. The database report said that Ethnic groups in Australia also pointed to it. Both of those have been fixed and this doesn't show any broken redirects pointing here. What redirects did you find? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we please replace "tribes" with "nations"?

'Tribe' is a bit of a colonial pejorative. It denies the sovereignty of the first nations people who were here for time immemorial. 2406:3400:31A:3590:94BD:9644:AC47:F09C (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Why Macedonians are not mentioned in the article and other ethnic groups with less total population than Macedonians are?!

Does Australia have any preferences between the ethnic groups where adjustment in the national demographic charts have been and it is influenced by third countries outside Australia which do determine the inner affairs' of Australia? Which interest is to hide Macedonians from the official Wikipedia demographic page?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.150.68 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of inhabitation

The article in the ancestry section :"The earliest accepted timeline for the first arrivals of indigenous Australians to the continent of Australia places this human migration to at least 65,000 years ago" yet further down, under Indigenous Population: "The earliest accepted timeline for the first arrivals of indigenous Australians to the continent of Australia places this human migration to at least 40,000 years ago"

ValDrip (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe a more accurate statement would include both the majority theory of 48'000-50'000 years ago as well as the minority theory ranging up to 65'000 years ago. "The earliest dates for human occupation of Australia come from sites in the Northern Territory. The Madjedbebe (previously called Malakunanja II) rock shelter in Arnhem Land has a widely accepted date of about 50,000 years old. Reports of a date close to around 65,000 years old (Nature, 2017), which was contentious at the time, have been rebutted by Allen & O'Connell in 2020. Molecular clock estimates, genetic studies and archaeological data all suggest the initial colonisation of Sahul and Australia by modern humans occurred around 48,000–50,000 years ago." Dorey, F 2021, When did modern humans get to Australia?, Australian Museum, accessed 30 January 2024, <https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-spread-of-people-to-australia/>. Oskar Suth (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=1263233677"