Talk:Indian Australian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Demographics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Indian Australian is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Demographics of Australia (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject India (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
"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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)