Jump to content

Talk:Indian Australians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Indian Australian)

2009 assults

[edit]

This section is beginning to dominate the article, understandably due to the sensitive issues involved. However we should keep in mind that this sordid episode hardly represents the totality of the experience of Indian Australians over several decades. Lets stick to the facts, keep things in perspective and give issues due weight.

Some items I have removed:

  • "Indian minorities in Australia experienced a spate of attacks and robberies against them" (grammatical - "against them" is redundant)
  • "Indian students in Australia have consistently complained of racist attacks against them, but the complaints have been ignored by the local police" (I would have thought an Australian or Indian source would have been a more reliable source than the World Socialist Web Site. Actually the website does not actually make this allegation of gross unprofessionalism, but instead states "Indian students have long complained of police not taking their complaints of racist attacks seriously. Reports have emerged of officers refusing to formally lodge reports of criminal incidents")
  • "A far-right Australian website run by white supremacists has declared racial holy war, or "rahowa", against Indian students" (this website is run by one guy, hardly a movement on the same scale as Shiv Sena which has robustly contributed to the debate; the vast majority of Australians are sympathic to the victims and it would be unjust to limit their commentry to the views of a fringe minority)

Kransky (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding point 3, political motivations etc are WP:NOR, and an attempt to try to blame the victim by trying to conflate with Shiv Sena (which isn't far-right in the western sense due to their fabian-socialist economic views) is rather disingenous. While these kinds of racist smear tactics are commonplace in white-supremacist Australia, they are undesirable in a scholarly encyclopedia. The Neo-Nazi screed is notable enough to be mentioned in mainstream press, so it belongs in this article. As for the allegations of the article being dominated by the 2009 racial attacks, if the section gets too large then it can be moved to a new article.70.112.199.223 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that Shiv Sena was a far right party; my point was that there is a serious misbalance in the representation of views. We do not list every view that makes it to the mainstream press. I recommend you check out Wikipedia guidelines on undue weight - and assuming good faith.
  • Agree, perhaps a new article would be appropriate. Kransky (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Assaults on Indian Students is not directly related to this page, since the students themselves were Indian Citizens who had come to Australia on a Student Visa. This article refers to the ethnic group amongst Australians, who are Australian, not Indian, in Nationality.Aussiaustral (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor trying to move page to "Indo-Australian"

[edit]

Please explain your reasons and attempt to build consensus here before executing such a huge change. Thank you. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the "Indian Australian" article to "Indo-Australian", since it is in line with other Indianised populations such as Indo-Fijian, Indo-Canadian. Indian refers to a citizen of the Republic of India. Australian refers to a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia. India does not recognise Dual Citizenship, therefore it is impossible to be Indian and Australian simultaneously. This page refers to Australians who have Indian background, origin, etc, therefore the "Indo-" prefix is much more suitable to demonstrate this.Aussiaustral (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, still, there are pages titled French Canadian, British Indian and Japanese American too. Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship either (much to my disappointment) but the adjective Japanese is still used, so I think your point isn't so important as to move the article to another title. Still, Indo-Australian is being redirected here, so there shouldn't be any confusion by people researching the topic. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a move would help. While in other parts of the world Indo is a clear designate of Indian, Australia is in close proximity to Indonesia and has a substantial Indonesian population, also often referred to as Indo. This move would only create unnecessary confusion. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Indian-Australian is the common terminology used when referring to people (including self references), Indo-Australian is used to refer to partnerships and techtonic plates (if you try a google seach) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Indo-Australian is used to refer to partnerships and techtonic plates" does that mean anything that is volatile? Heh heh...seriously though I am against the move. I cannot see how a country recognising or not recognising dual citizenship determines whether the term should or should not have a hyphen. Kransky (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Indo-" prefix is commonly used to refer to Indian populations, whereas with the "Japanese American" case, there is no common prefix used to denote Japanese ancestry. The same applies for Italian American, and other such terms. However, the "Indo-", and "Anglo-" prefix are quite common, and is not just used to refer to "partnerships and techtonic plates", see "Indo-European", "Indo-Iranian", "Indo-Canadian", "Indo-Fijian". Similarly there are articles "Anglo-Celtic Australian", "Anglo-Saxon", "Anglo-Indian", where according to the standardisation which is being promoted here, "British Australian", "English" and "Indian Eurasian" would be used predominantly. Also Indian Australian, implies that the person in question is Indian, while Indo-Australian, puts the emphasis firmly on the identity as "Australian", with "Indo-" prefix used as a subtle descriptor. It's worth discussing, and the practice of using "Indo-" has extensive precedence.Aussiaustral (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been editing now for three days and you are proposing a whole new way how to name articles? Hmmm.....Kransky (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's the article that should be judged, not my level of experience. What I'm proposing is "standard" and it's not "a whole new way", like I've mentioned already: "Anglo-Celtic Australian", "Indo-Canadian", "Anglo-Indian", if a suitable prefix already exists, then we should use it!Aussiaustral (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A suitable prefix does exist: "Indian". We are using it, for example, in the article "Indian Australian". Kittensandrainbows (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent Indian-Australians deleted?

[edit]

Can someone please provide a rational explanation of why the following Indian-Australians were deleted from this entry?

Latika Bourke - who is a former ABC TV Canberra correspondence, and now with The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, Jim Varghese - former Director-General in the Queensland Government, Dr Pradeep Philip - Secretary, Victorian Department of Health, Lloyd Rayney - prominent Perth barrister and former DPP prosecutor, Professor Arun Sharma - Deputy Vice-Chancellor, QUT.

These are big names and I'm sorry someone felt it fit that they not be listed. I concede, they aren't Bollywood stars and they don't bat and bowl, but they are prominent Indian-Australians in journalism, government, law and academia. Really, it's not like we're demanding that famous Aussie-Indian Puneet Puneet be listed, really. Let's not airbrush their names from their rightful place here.

to answer your question, check how many have articles. if they are notable, you simply need to WP:Write the article first. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Australians. 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 16:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Indian Australians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Booian Australian importance more than 1,000,000 Australian residents declared their place of birth on the 2009 Australian census as being India hence its rating as Demographics-importance = top --Matilda talk 21:38, 29 may 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

They are champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.157.9 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian 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:

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) 01:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaani Kapoor

[edit]

Vaani Kapoor, Bollywood actress, was born and brought up in Delhi,India[Wikipedia]. How is she related to Australia? 82.38.197.192 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Australians WikiProject

[edit]

Hi,

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

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why separate 'Notable Indian Australians'?

[edit]

Just wanted to check if there's any reason for the 'Notable Indian Australians' section to be separated into the "Indian ancestry" and "European–Indian ancestry" sub-sections, as it is currently? This is not common practice for other large diaspora groups in Australia, which are usually split up by the career/field the notable person works in, e.g. List of Chinese Australians, List of Lebanese Australians, Indonesian Australians#Notable people, etc.

I worry there might be an element of colourism in this distinction? For example, Guy Sebastian, Marc Fennell and Isha Sharvani — who are currently listed under "Indian ancestry" — seem to have some European ancestry as well. Astra Sharma is also currently in that section despite having a Chinese mother, so not Indian-European, but not only Indian... Is a third subsection needed? This could be complicated further by people like Ken Wyatt (not currently in the article) who has Indian, Aboriginal Australian, and European ancestry.

I'm also not sure about the inclusion of Christabel Chamarette, who was born in India, but does not have Indian ancestry (see this 2020 interview). Does "European-Indian ancestry" mean people with a mix of ethnically Indian and European ancestors, or does it include Anglo-Indian people whose European ancestors lived in India?

If the Indian Australian community wants to keep some similar distinction in this article, perhaps it could follow the lead of Filipino Australians#Notable people which distinguishes between Philippine-born people and people with Filipino ancestry? This would at least remove the lack of clarity around the meanings of the current subsections. Neegzistuoja (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Australians&oldid=1207709711"