Talk:Violence against Indians in Australia controversy

This article should be deleted.

This has got to be the most unnecessary entry on wikipedia. What are the reasons for the creation of this page? Are robberies against minorities in every country and on every minority group going to have articles created for them? --Bojach (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

There is little to suggest that these aren't just normal assaults and robberies with no racial motivation and thus it's not worthy of a separate page. Rsloch (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a special event. Though newsworthy due to disproportionate numbers, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. A history book, maybe, but not an encyclopedia. --scochran4 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or else the recent Air France Flight 447 crash in Atlantic Ocean wouldn't be featured in here at all. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to quote a Wiki policy that indicates why it should be deleted? I mean there are tons of rules, so surely you had one in mind. I freely admit, I just know how to edit, no clue on the policy Booster4324 (talk)

Strongly Disagree I think that this article has problems, and needs a name change and a more consistant source for figures, but deleting it is not the answer. WookMuff (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about a recent noticeable spate in attacks against minorities. It is NOT a description about a single instance of alleged attack. This may be reworded and improved but not deleted rams81 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article documents the rise of Indian nationalism, amongst students seeking Australian citizenship, who actively are seeking to trash Australia's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.114.211 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But is this a spate of attacks against minorities or have Indians just be disproportion victims of crime because of other factors, where they live, them being students, their use of public transport, what they carry on their person, etc?

Run through any crimes statistics and there will be years when one group or another happens by chance to disproportionally suffer from crime so unless a causal link between racism, and the increased attacks on Indians is established this article is pandering to politically motivated hysteria and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the claims are unsubstantiated, the fact that there's a big media controversy over them and the protests makes them worthy of an article, although I would support the article being retitled so that it is about the protests and media reaction, which are definitely real, rather than being about the underlying crime trend, for which we do not yet have compelling statistics, in my opinion. Gregory j (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having viewed the whole situation as best I can and wading through various media sources and formats, I can only say that it is a total surprise that anyone would suggest deletion of this article. If people want to have a better look then all they have to do is see how many other kinds of catagories where violence is directed towards a group and then subsitite Indian or Curry for that term. They may see things in perspective then. (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a lousy reason to argue for an article's retention here. –Moondyne 12:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• This article should not be deleted The reason why some people would want this article deleted is that some people do not want the truth exposed. Not everyone likes to admit that their back yard is dirty or overgrown with weeds and has snakes and other vermin hiding in it. But at the end of the day the trfuth is brutal and we all have to face up to it if we wish to continue as a society with morals. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

No one is* suggesting the article be deleted (* please read the dates above and note my use of the word is and not was). As for the your inflammatory tone of this comment and your others page, I advise caution. They seem to make no constructive contribution on how to improve the article, rather, in my opinion they border on rant. I am more than happy to seek administrator advise on your posts if you'd like. Please try to be specific, non-inflammatory, and constructive. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Education aspect

One of the most prominent results of these attacks so far have been the amount of regulatory changes and reviews happening right now in the International students sector. Should that be mentioned?

I remember reading this > http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/an-opportunity-to-learn-from-bitter-experience-20090602-bub5.html and I think that article shifted the course of the Indian Consul General's talk to the media and the government's reaction too.

Rooneyalex49 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Da amazerxl (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

View of long term Indian residents of Australia...

Info from this should be added for "balance" and fairness. Ie, views of long term Indian residents of Australia - ie, that the Indian press is being irresponsible and sensationalist. If no one does in the meantime, I will do it when I get a chance.--Merbabu (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr Singh, who heads a committee at the Indian consulate looking at Indian student issues, labelled the reporting "irresponsible". "There is a problem with Indian media and Indian leadership - they can't assess a situation in a rational way," he said. "It's the high competition in that industry. They all get on the bandwagon and say 'Oh racism', but it's not like that. "Something like this happens and they think: 'The whole world is against us.' I mean, burning effigies of Kevin Rudd ... come on. "This is not a racist country. Every country has one or two racists. --Merbabu (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of Australian denialism and victim blaming has been cited in this article. The self-loathing screeds of some affluent Indians in Australia (who, in all likelihood, have been paid by the white supremacist Australian media to tout some manufactured apologia) are hardly notable. There has been further testimony (cited in article) attesting to the clearly vicious levels of racist bias in Australian media.70.112.199.223 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol - well, that very clearly shows where your bias' lie. "Self-loathing" paid by "white supremicists" and "vicious racist bias" in Australian media - that's a very ugly thing to say IMO. At the very least, it shows you don't get wikipedia editing. Is it not racist to label Australia as a racist country? Everyone else gets their say (even New Zealanders looking to take advantage of the situation), yet Indians in AUstralia cannot?? --Merbabu (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the response of the white-supremacists to this is to pollute the article by commentary from "countercurrents.org" (which feature openly racist and antisemitic hate-speech by Neo-Nazis)?. Nice!70.112.199.223 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree all viewpoints should be included and that includes over-reaction by Indian media if it really did. But Australian media characterising Indian media response as over-reaction (in this case) can not entirely be impartial. I understand Arjun Ramachandran's fear in his article "He also feared there could be a backlash against other Australians of Indian heritage, many of whom had lived here for years". We could pretty much understand that there is one group of people mostly students directly affected by this attacks or at risk for potential attacks in the future reacting in one way and another group who didnt personally have to go through the ordeal but fearful of their future prospectives in a foreign country reacting in a different way. --Like I Care 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Australian media is not impartial but the Indian media cannot be? I'm not sure if that is what you are saying, but that would make for a very one-sided article. I will get around to including it sooner or later. --Merbabu (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Perceived partisanship is not grounds for exclusion from wikipedia. Lack of Reliability and Lack of Notability are. All the sources are from mainstream news outlets and represent the views of mainstream political forces/personalities.The Original Research claim being made by the white-supremacists and their ideological sympathizers among some upper-caste Indians in Australia concerning the racist attacks are similar to White Hispanics in America whitewashing racism against lower-casta Hispanic immigrants, and do not constitute mainstream opinion. As for perceived "one-sidedness" of the article, the Indian media is exponentially larger in size and girth than the Australian media, since it serves the needs of over 1 billion people. The fascist response of the white-supremacist Australian media is the fault of the Australian media, not wikipedia. The white supremacists and their ideological sympathizers merely wish to use that as a "straw man argument" in order to strong-arm white supremacist literature into this article, and it won't work.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "perceived partisanship" is not grounds for inclusion. But who specifically are the white supremacists? And what is their literature in your opinion? The Sydney Morning Herald? --Merbabu (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Australian media itself is charged with white-supremacist tenets. There are numerous reports by scholars as to the white supremacist sympathies in the Australian media, something that some upper-caste Indian immigrants in Australia and other western countries have internalized into their ethnic narrative since the time of Arthur de Gobineau (who first made the false claims that upper-caste Indians are white). The white supremacist denialism and negationism touted by this small and unrepresentative group of NRI's in Australia merely consists of their internalizing of anti-Indian racism into their own ideology.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

...and what specifically does this mean for this article? Does it mean we should remove the Australian media references?--Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. it means that the relative predominance of the Indian media sources in this article can be attributed to factors other than editorial partisanship, and is essentially unavoidable.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

IP, please stop your hypothetical racial accusations, it could just get you in trouble editing here. --Like I Care 01:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed?

My addition was removed. I'm not sure how this was reasoned. While there may not be as many notable Indians in Australia as there are in India - for the Australian Indian community, this figure seems reasonably notable. I'm not saying that his views are necessarily correct or more valid, only that they are notable enough for the article. However, I have modified the quotes to just this for now - ie, parts of the quote removed. I would like to know however, why it cannot be included. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

the Sydney Cardiologist's opinion of Indian media or Indian leadership as "irrational" is WP:UNDUE. --Like I Care 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If he was only a cardiologist then I'd say "no". But, he is himself an Indian and heads a committee at the Indian Consulate that assists Indian students in Australia. No, he is not a head of state or leader of a major Indian political party, but the Indian community in Australia is a minority and measured in the 100,000s and not in the billions as the Indian community in India is. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability and motivation. Yadu Singh is apparently not worried about the attacks. He is more worried about spoiling his and his relatives's chances of living peacefully in Australia because he seems concerned Indian media reports might jeopardise the current Indo-Australian relations. Just fear.

“ He also feared there could be a backlash against other Australians of Indian heritage, many of whom had lived here for years ”

The attacks against Indians are facts. I just wonder why we need denials and dismissals from non-notable people. Yadu Singh heading "a" commitee in Indian consulate. Not saying what commitee he heads seems to be an attempt to hype up his notability on the part of the newspaper. --Like I Care 03:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stop second guessing people's motivation. If we were to base it all on perceived motivations, i could turn around and say that any Indian Newspaper or politician is just trying to drum up sales or votes. It would be never ending. The Sydney Morning Herald is notable, as is the Indian Consulate. Hence this is notable. There's never going to be Indians in Australia as notable as Indians in India by sheer force of numbers and proportion of dominance in their respective countries. --Merbabu (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This obviously racist editing is what has been going on in this article by edit-warriors. Emphasizing a non-notable personality while deliberately misrepresenting a quote by a prominent personality like Amir Khan in order to pursue a fascist bias is really disappointing.24.28.76.193 (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are blocked. Now pay heed to that block. --Merbabu (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is a fascist being allowed to edit articles with racist whitewashing and deliberate WP:BLP violation?24.28.76.193 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I reported Khan's quote exactly as I found it in the smh. If you want to report me for BLP violation or for my fascist activities, please go ahead but consider first that as a blocked editor you are wasting other admin's time. I in the meantime will report you for breaching your block as a sockpuppet. --Merbabu (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no second guessing. just reading the whole article explains his motivation. In the same report where he criticised media of "irresponsibilty", he also expressed "fear". It is not just Indian media, TIME called the acts racism. Yadu Singh's comments could have been notable if he was the Indian Consular officer for the Sydney consulate for example. --Like I Care 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it was or wasn't racism. Nor are we to determine whether other's views are "correct". That's not the issue, nor is it our responsibility to make that judgement. Rather, the WP:NPOV policy means that we must give report all views. The issue is one one of verifiability and notability. Not one of motivations or "truth". We report what notable people say, not judge whether what they say is correct. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The IPs arent very helpful. Can someone protect this article? --Like I Care 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will ask to have his block extended as he is obviously flouting it. Who Is even provides the same address for the two IP's. How stupid. --Merbabu (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blaming the victim

The White-supremacists editing this article should note that using racist slurs against Indians in this article and blaming them for causing the racial attacks against them by citing from viciously racist websites like countercurrents.org (a website that openly claims that Jews and Hindus were behind 9/11 and the Mumbai terror attacks)[1][2][3] does not fall under the wikipedia guidelines of WP:RS, especially the clause Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources.70.112.199.223 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Countercurrents is by no means considered a reliable source and all info citing that website can and should be removed. --Like I Care 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine - remove Countercurrents - thank you for bringing this to my attention. There are plenty of reliable Australian and Indian news sources which state Indian criticism of their own news sources.

The White-supremacists editing this article ... don't be nasty

Kransky (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me about accusations that editors' sympathies and motivations might lie in "white supremacism" and "fascism" is not so much that it is uncivil or "nasty", rather it is showing that this (anon) editor themselves is viewing this issue through a biased prism. Come on - the Sydney Morning Herald is a "non-notable" and white supremacist source? That's just silly - or perhaps this view is evidence of my racist "denialism"? he he --Merbabu (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Victim blaming is a fairly typical tactic carried out by the Australian media, and was also seen in Australian news following the racist pogroms against Lebanese minorities in the Australian city of Cronulla in 2005. It's an expected thing, but wikipedia is not subjected to fascist propaganda and is required to present a balanced perspective, which has now been severely compromised by ideologically slanted editors.70.112.199.223 (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are just taking the mickey now. While your contributions suggest you are a "new" editor, you seem well-versed in wikipedia. What would a check user reveal about your editing? I have my suspicions. --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, kindly refrain from using obscure idioms and use regular English. Secondly, using threats to intimidate legitimate editors merely clarifies bias on the part of the threatener. Finally, the repeated and relentless vandalism of this article by removing responses to blatant racist ultra-fascist victim blaming will not go unnoticed.70.112.199.223 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

checkuser can be useful, but i dont think he can be blocked unless he is also one of the other editors involved in this article. --Like I Care 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

THe editor is clearly not new to wikipedia - that's for sure. Further, while it's a long shot, I even have my suspicions about who it might actually be - a blocked editor with a long history of trouble making over racism articles. But I could well be wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the background of the IP address is relevant, wheras his/her contributions and behaviour are important. Don't feed the trolls - discuss his/her contributions if any are made after the block is lifted. Kransky (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of WP:RS that point to the fact that the victims of racist violence (in this case the indian students) are being perceived negatively for carrying out protests and organizing in self-defence while the authorities are not doing enough to take action against the racist violence itself. This point should be included in the article under "Australian Reactions" section. 71.198.231.7 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please rename the section titled "other" to "International Reaction."

71.198.231.7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this ip idiot hes a sock of Hkelkar and a heavily pro indian banned editor and illegitimate user 86.158.236.137 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive IP and block evader

Now reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#2009_attacks_on_Indian_students_in_Australia regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Any IP from Austin, TX with pro-BJP type views is Hkelkar. Because Hkelkar is so famous some other banned users like to follow him around and fight with him. 86.150s and 81.150s are the banned Pakistani Nangparbat (talk · contribs). 99.230s from Rogers Comm Co in Toronto that are anti-Indian/pro-Pak are the banned PakHub users (Nadirali), Telstra from Brisbane QLD is a banned Pak sockmaster called Strider11, and sometimes 59.91.250s, a banned Indian Kuntan (talk · contribs) whose views are opposite to Hkelkar. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Main page

Should this article be added to the main page? It is of great significance, and is making much of the news in Australia in the past few days, if not weeks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. Articles like this are always too tempting fir shrill and sensationalist editors - as we have seen with the anon editor and sock. Put it on the main page, and it's even more of a target. It needs more reflective editing. --Merbabu (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

as for coverage, I have watched 2 tv news bulletins tonight and dont remember seeing it. Nor did I see it in this weekends newspaper. I suspect it is getting more exposure in India. --Merbabu (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be due to different regions in Australia you guys are from? --Like I Care 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

On SBS, it is on almost every night, for the last three weeks. Not sure about Channel Nine and Seven. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

well, i nominated it for ITN based on the new BBC story --Like I Care 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all over the nightly news and newspapers here in Melbourne. Has been for the last week or so. True that it might be a regional thing. Gregory j (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Conclusion about ethnicities of attackers...

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section "Assaults", the last line states that "Their attackers were from a range of ethnic backgrounds." and note #12 is cited as a reference. I read through the article in cite note #12, and the article doesn't talk about the ethnicities of the attackers. Therefore, please remove that last statement since it is not supported by an adequate reference.

74.78.192.177 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment is in the reference. They also often have to travel at night on public transport to remote and unsupervised train stations. The students AM spoke to say their attackers were from a range of ethnic backgrounds. But while they say there is a racial element to the attacks, they also see them as opportunistic.  florrie  12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ETA: Though, the context is misleading.  florrie  12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. Celestra (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2009?

unless there exists other articles describing attacks on Indian students, is it really necessary. I have a strong distaste for "year" in article title unless absolutely required. Besides, I am not even sure if all the attacks were just restricted to year 2009. --Like I Care 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the year lost. But, maybe wait for other opinion first. --Merbabu (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Articles_on_events. Guidelines state that the year should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. Without the year it would suggest that the attacks are about assults against Indians in general in Australia. However we are dealing with assults mostly in one city which have become more frequent in a relatively short and defined space of time, and which follow similar modi operandi. Kransky (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. title doesnt have to be all inclusive and if that were the case, we should have named it 2009 attacks on Indians in Melbourne in Australia. My point was we dont need year 2009 as there is no 2005 attacks on Indians in Australia for disambiguation. The body explains it all. --Like I Care 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think mentioning 'Australia' sufficently describes the location of the attacks - the assults in Harris Park overnight does not make this an exclusively Melbourne matter. There probably were assults on Indians in 1902, 1954 and 2005 (youknowwhatimean), but the numbers have only recently risen, commensurate with a rise in the number of Indians coming to study. Kransky (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The year is probably important because it appears to be a new phenomenon. There are very few statistics or studies available but I did find victims of personal crimes by country of birth in the National Crime and Safety Survey 1998. A direct quote from the report: The risk of becoming a victim of any personal crime (Robbery, Assault and Sexual Assault) was relatively higher for those born in the United Kingdom and Ireland, New Zealand, and Germany than for other groups....The data presented is crude and requires caution; information for other ethnic groups could not be extracted because of small numbers. Other statistics (the most recent I could find was 2002) indicate that the risk of being a victim was not closely related to country of birth (victims as a percentage of their own population in Australia) at the time they were compiled. Attacks reported as racially motivated (by the victims) for 1996-1997 (the most recent I could find in a quick search) totaled 62 against Australian born, 37 against people of European birth, 23 against Asians (India/China combined) and 10 against African born (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Annual Report 1996-97, p. 36). To me this is a good indication that the current problems are exactly that...current. In all likelyhood the problems are the result of increased Indian immigration as each new ethnic group is targeted for a few years before they become accepted as was seen first with Italians/Greeks in the 1950/60s and Vietnamese in more recent years (my OR). Also cold calling from Indian call centres has been a very big problem in the last few years and there have been several documentaries on the anger generated by the practice. The Australian companies behind it are obviously at fault but it's all too easy to take it out on the "messenger". Wayne (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be AIC statistics available, however logic would suggest that more Indians are being assulted in Australia because there are more Indians in Australia. Kransky (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

?

"The incidents reached the status of public prominence when an Australian doctor of Indian origin was attacked and hospitalised." - This isn't sourced. Is this referring to Mukesh Haikerwal, or another incident? Rebecca (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could well be but the sentence appears out of context. "The incidents" (ie, attacks on Indian students) "reached the status of public prominence" (did they? or is it that the doctor attacked is prominent?) "when an Australian doctor of Indian origin was attacked and hospitalised" (a prominent doctor, not a student). I also found these [4] [5] articles which, although they mention other attacks on the same night, don't specifically say they were on other Indians or Indian students. I'd delete until/if it can be properly sourced, supported and shown to be relevant to an article on attacks on Indian students.  florrie  23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. Haikerwal's bashing was months ago, but the violence "reached public prominence" a couple of weeks ago, and the two haven't been tied together that I've seen. Rebecca (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Protests and vigilantes in Parramatta

Some sources. [6], [7] --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

scary stuff. --Like I Care 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Target changed from old women to Indians!?! THis page also has a radio interview with Dr Yadu Singh of Indian Student Welfare Committee (wait for the ad to finish).
• Opinion piece - good for background perhaps.
• another
• Latest comments from Aussie PM Rudd
• more
• ha ha - one from Shane Warne - maybe we could use that in the "other" section

Edits done on 9 June 2009

Edits in the article have been deleted stating unverified and presumptive statements and opinions from overseas, Lack of detailed local facts etc. I was expanding the article with news from Indian media as I see article seems to be missing these details. If u expect me to discuss before editing anything I can do that from now on. But someone kindly explain me why they think these opinions expressed from overseas are unverified. Thanks in advance (Nelatan (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

It is not a news article, meaning it is neither FOX news nor Times of India nor ABC. While reactions from Indian side is understandable, they are not necessarily facts. By stacking the article up with too many reactions, the article appears to take on a slanted postition inadvertently. You are welcome to edit the reactions from Indian side and limit with a couple of quotes from notable and representative individuals. --Like I Care 02:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

as general comment, I agree with the post above by Like I Care. Reactions have a place but they are not facts. This article is big on reactions/opinions but not facts. I can help with fixing that later tonight - if I get time. --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to write some facts and put them here for discussion. Lets see what you guys say about it. Peace (Nelatan (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

there are several articles in todays Sydney Morning Herald about the events in Sydney over the last few days. If it helps. www.smh.com.au. It would be nice to balance out the quoted politicians' opinions with some actual events or reporting from the scene. --Merbabu (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some Information related to facts for discussion. kindly you guys let me know your thoughts. Peace (Nelatan (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Student Attack timeline

Three attacks took place in quick succession with the first one reported to be on May 9 2009.

May 9 2009: Twenty one year old Sourabh Sharma was brutally beaten by a group of teenagers on a werribee-bound train. Security camera footage shows teenagers beating up a defenseless traveler

May 28 2009 Shravan Kumar Tirthala, a 25 year-old student was attacked with a screwdriver on May 24 along with his three friends. It was a casual birthday celebration when couple of local youth came gatecrashing and in a drunken state started attacking them. Shravan, who was seriosly injured in this incident, was immediately rushed to Royal Melbourne hospital where his condition was said to be critical. Rest of his friend's escaped without any injuries. On May 31 2009, doctors declared he is "out of danger" and been taken off the life-support system

Balijinder Singh, An Indian student, was robbed and stabbed nearby Carnegie train station, Melbourne on May 25 2009. He said two men carrying weapons approched him and demanded money. As he was searching his bag to hand over his wallet one of them stabbed him in the abdomen. He was later on discharged from the hospital

May 26 2009 A racist attack was reported from Sydney, the victim 25 year old Rajesh Kumar, suffered 30% burns when a suspected petrol bomb was hurled into his home. Neighbors said they saw an un-identified person threw what looked like a small petrol bomb at Rajesh who was sitting on his bed in the front room of his rented house. His roommate saw the later running out of his bedroom towards front door with back and arms on fire, he acted quickly and put-off the flames using an blanket. Rajesh condition is belived to be stable now.

May 29 2009 Australian authorities have charged five teenagers involved in two separate attacks on Indian students in Melbourne. A teenager from Glenroy was charged with attempted murder after the attack with a screw-driver on 25 year old Shravan Kumar Theerthala.

Indian crickter Harbhajan Singh's cousin, Jagjit Singh, alleged that an Australian taxi driver has killed his son in Melbourne and threw the body on a railway track. His son, 26 Year old Upkar Singh Babbal, went to Australia in 2004 to pursue a course in hospitality management and was killed in Melbourne on May 7 2009.

May 31 2009 Protesting against the racial attacks and attitude of government and police against these attacks, Federation of Indian Students of Australia(FISA) conducted a peace rally on May 31 2009. The rally, which compromised of thousands of peace marchers, started outside Royal Melbourne hospital where Shravan kumar was operated. Participants held playcards with slogan on them stating "we want justice", "Racism is more dangerous than swine flue", "End racist attacks" etc demanded that police should provide them with enough protection against these attacks. There was a sit-in protest outside Flinders Street station later on that day which was disrupted by police by use of force. Chief commissioner, Simon Overland, justified the measures taken by his colleagues stating that the protest went out of control as it was later on in the day hijacked by a group of "rabble-rousers" separate from Indian who used rally for there personal gains.

Curry-bashing(as attacks on Indian are popularly called) show up on Indian media articles

June 2 2009 Twenty one year old Indian student, Nardeep Singh, was attacked by five youth in Melbourne. He was stopped and demanded Cigarettes and Money, following which one of the attacker slashed him with a knife on his chest.

June 6 2009 A car belonging to Indian student was torched in Melbourne. According to Vikranth Rajesh Ratan owner of the car, along with his car two others car were damaged in this incident. Ratan said that drug addicts might be responsible for this crime.

June 08 2009 Twenty three year old Indian student, Kamal Jit, was beaten up second time in a fortnight by a group of youths in melbourne. He was found unconscious and bleeding by another student in western suburbs of the city. This is a second attack on kamal jit, who earlier was pelted with eggs by several masked men nearby St Albans station.

Kindly let me know if any of this information values for an entry in the article (Nelatan (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Part of the problem with your previous addition to the article was the loaded terms that again appear in your suggestions above: ie, "racist attack", "defenseless", "brutally beaten" while other things like "curry-bashing as it is *popularly* called" is just factually incorrect - no-one that I know had heard of this term until this week. I have only looked at the first two refs. I have not heard of Information Madness but judging from the tone of its language alone, it is hardly the kind of source that wikipedia requires (particularly on such a sensitive topic). Another big problem with this article is that there are no real statistics. There is one - the 1500 people of Indian origin attacked - but the source doesn't say where this figure comes from, or how it compares statistics for other groups of people. Perhaps that is normal. I do note that last night a NSW police spokesman said that attacks against Indians were not disproportionate to their numbers in the community. OK - so there was no hard data provided on the news with that, but it is certainly an interesting line to investigate - and would be more factual and more suitable to wikiepdia than quoting yet another politician or editor that has a vested interest in drumming up votes or circulation numbers. Call me a cynic but that is what is required I think - rather than jumping on the emotional and sensationalist bandwagon. --Merbabu (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to cover my side from Indian media. I tried looking at newspaper website you gave me but I wasn't able to get much information from it. My main focus was to tell people, who read this article, as in what is happening in Australia and India due to these attacks, and how it all started. If you say that the tone of the article is too loaded I can remove those words(no biggie :)). But if you Google something like "Indian Student attack" all what you get is these loaded words. Regarding Curry-bashing, I don't know nothing about that word until I read it recently. All I am saying is it might be popular among those teenagers who attacked Indian and they might use that, Due to this attacks media started getting that word main-stream(yahoo says that..not me:)). Peace (Nelatan (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, i hope you understand the difference between Google and Wikipedia!! While sources can verify info, we don't replicate their language or commentary if it's inappropriate for wikipedia. And I trust you understand my skepticism about relying on Indian media to gives a facts about things happening in Australia. ;-) What would be nice would be some cold hard crime statistics. We only have anecdotal evidence of the problem so far - it may be good anecdotal evidence - but it's still anecdotal. As for the list of information you provided, I'm not sure - what happens if there really is 100's? Do we list all of them? --Merbabu (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to start citing some of the newspaper background that's been published over the last few days - there was a good article I read earlier with NSW MLC Gordon Moyes talking about the history of problems in Harris Park, and a decent one earlier talking about ongoing problems in St Albans in Melbourne. Rebecca (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would like to point out just as Indian media can not be considered a reliable party and so is Australian media and the leaders in this case. Australian media has its own vested interest in making sure not to show their country in any poor light. Our responsibility is to sift through media from both country and third parties and state facts from all places and include less reactions from politicians and non-notable individuals. --Like I Care 12:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that media's main interest is to sell papers, boost ratings, etc. What's the best way for Australia media to do that? Keep quiet? And this is more clear cut for Indian media - hence the (fair or otherwise) accusations of a beat up. Anyway, no-one's saying that Indian sources shouldn't be used. I was just responding to the Indian editor above who suggested that adding Indian sources was a good way to "tell people" what is happening in Australia. At least you're not suggesting that Australian media is a fascist propaganda tool as our anonymous friend was doing a few days ago. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont buy our anonymous editors's argument about the fascism and other accusations. I truly beleieve majority of Australians are nice people and there are some bad apples in every society. I admit a sense of irresponsibilty in Indian media. Indian Government has a more sensible approach to it than the media. see here. Times of India has started running too many sensational stories nowadays. You can also find some responsible writing in between. The Hindu is by far the most responsible newspaper but they dont have a lot of online content.

Besides, Indian media started reporting each and every attack unlike Australian media which reported only when the students protested. There are plenty of facts about attack on Indian media hidden inside the "sensational" title with hyped reactions from politicians. --Like I Care 13:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

to answer your other question, I would believe the need and effort not to show one's country in bad light (understandably) would trump the need to sell more papers and it is quite the contrary to the situation to Indian media. We all know news stories are not written automatically, there is a plenty of thought which goes into what, when and how to write a story. --Like I Care 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see at least a summary of these attacks listed in the article as currently there's very little information of the attacks taking place which is what this is all about. fyi It's not common to see assaults, unless 'special', be reported by mainstream media and often aren't even reported to authorities. According to Australian Institute of Criminology it's estimated 2/3rds of violent crimes aren't even reported. RutgerH (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently busy and had requested Nelatan for a summary of this list in the article. --Like I Care 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the Background section I have added some links to early reports of attacks from 2006, and 2008, check it out! --Ekabhishek (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts and Figures

I believe that until there are more figures, figures should be kept out of this page, or at least kept out of the lead paragraph, as they are all over the place. Lets take a look, shall we?

In 2009 there were several reports of violent attacks and robberies on Indian students in Australia, particularly Melbourne.

Several? so its a small problem then?

In the 2007–08 financial year there had been nearly 1,500 assaults and robberies on persons of Indian origin in Victoria.

Wait what? I thought it was several. Also, this was between july 2007 and june 2008, whats the relevance? Also, is it just victoria? What about the rest of australia, where the phrase "particularly Melbourne" seems to imply there are crimes also? Also, I thought this was about students, are these all students?

From 2004 to 2009 the number of Indians studying in Australia rose from 30,000 to 97,000.

Ok, but how many are in Victoria? How many were victimized, and was in in specific places or suburbs, or just all over the place? Victoria is no India but the difference between say Wodonga, Preston and the Melbourne CBD.

A large proportion came from rural parts of India, after having availed education loans.

Ok, what proportion?

According to the Australian bureau of statisticsWebsite 2006 census date, there were 234,720 people of Indian descent in Australia. so if 1500-ish were assaulted, that would make for 0.64% (correct me if I am wrong). At the time of the same survey, assault rates for all people aged 15 or over living in Australia (of any ancestry) was 4.8%. All verifiable figures from a noteable source. WookMuff (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using a newspaper that hasn't properly quoted its sources for its numbers for too long. If the 1500 figure is accurate then it shouldn't be too hard to get a first hand look at the figures and then a neutral sentence including the average and total figures can be included to give some context to the 1500 figure.

It would be nice to validate the rest of the figures also but focusing on getting the number of crimes sourced should be a priority. Ansell 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Indian population in Victoria is around 53,000 with around 50,000 of those living in Melbourne. The 1,500 figure is, according to Victorian police sources, for all Indians in the state not just students and equates to a 3% victim rate compared to the 4.8% overal victim rate. Although this looks as if indians are actually targeted less often than the general public Indians are less likely to report assaults so the real figure is probably similar to the average. Perhaps the high profile of the attacks is due to media reporting which gives undue prominance to the problem. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Aus Institute of Criminology (2007), males aged 15 to 19 comprise 41% of all assault/robbery victims so students of any race should figure more prominently than adults. Wayne (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Assaults section - minor edit needed

"Several assaults were carried out by gangs of youths, some armed with baseball bats and golf sticks, and had used racial epithets"

Confused grammar and should surely be golf clubs rather than golf sticks shouldnt it?

Im a new user so cant edit this page, could someone make the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Blue Square (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

How did the Chinese government and students get into the lead? Is this article about attacks on Indian students or not? Certainly mention China in the article tbody, but not the lead.  florrie  23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename and change of focus

Many people have claimed that there is a pattern of racial attacks against Indians, but where is the evidence that this pattern is real rather than perceived? In the absence of some kind of evidence it is only speculation and should be presented as such in the article. I think this article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia or something similar, and the focus should shift to the protests and reaction. - Borofkin (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

does not sound unreasonable. Particulary when one considers the section above titled "Facts and Figures". Perception is not verified fact. --Merbabu (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this. The article, as it stands, is really about the protests. Allegations of violence currently serve as just background, being given as the stated motivations for the protest. I really think that the article needs some better facts and figures in it (I don't think this is wikipedia's fault because I haven't seen these numbers being used anywhere else to draw them from), to address whether there really is an increase in violence against Indian students. I'd like to know whether Indian students are overrepresented in the crime statistics at all to begin with. Ideally, it would be nice to know how likely an Indian student is to be a victim of assault compared to a non-Indian student. If the article doesn't have good information on the actual attacks, which I don't feel that it currently does, then it should be renamed to reflect what it is primarily about, which is the protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory j (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian stereotypes

I'm curious if any sources have mentioned the habit many Australian's have of stereotyping populations. A popular stereotype of Indians in Australia is that they are Gandhi like. This, to an aggressive drunk can make them a target simply because they don't think they will put up much resistance. I've heard a number of people point out that this could be to blame ... and indeed this is racism. It is not perhaps 'racially motivated' but I wouldn't mind betting racial stereotypes could be to blame.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

that, if it was correct, would in itself be a stereotype of Australians. Do u see the irony? It's unreferenced inaccurate and original research. Like much of the article,and the actual issue, it seems to be based more on perception than verified fact. --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron

Call for Article Rescue Squadron: Can any registered user supporting to keep the article add a rescue tag to the article. Since I'm an IP user I still can't add the template unless the protection is lifted. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction

If there is consensus on changing the name to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia, I propose the following new introduction, to focus the article on the protests:

In May and June 2009 there were a number of protests by Indian students in Australia at a perceived pattern of racist attacks and inaction by police. Rallies were held in Melbourne and Sydney, and there was a series of impromptu street protests in Harris Park, a suburb of western Sydney with a large Indian population. The protests attracted attention from the international media, with coverage in India especially widespread and critical of Australia. Representatives of the Indian government met the Australian governemnt to express concern and request that Indians be protected. The Australian Prime Minister expressed regret and called for the attackers to be brought to justice.

- Borofkin (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone try to put this in context by giving figures for attacks of a similar kind against people of different ethnicity? Is it true there has been a big increase in violent crime all round in Melbourne and some other places? If so, how much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer this title, not because it takes focus away from probable racist attitudes, but because it is more accurately protraying what is happening, that being 2009 protests to events of the last 3+ years WookMuff (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about the change in title from attacks to protests, but I certainly see the logic and the need to shift the article's previous misguided emphasis. There is precious little systematic evidence of an increase in attacks, that Indians are being over-represented in crime statistics, or that they are specifically being targetted on racists grounds. Any attack on anyone is to be deplored, and the Australian authorities should protect its visitors no less than it should protect its own citizens - BUT, there is no reason to blindly follow the assertions of sensationalist media outlets and partisan politicians. That is where wikipedia is meant to be better than the media. --Merbabu (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please dont make fake consensus of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia,but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources.There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed new lead reads much better, is a lot more accurate, and is far more neutral. No one is making "fake consensus"; as it can be clearly seen on this talk page, most people support a lead similar to Borofkin's. The "media attention" is clearly centered around the protests, rather than the attacks, and the vast majority of the article is dedicated to the protests rather than the attacks, as well. Though the protests by Indians students are notable, at this stage, the attacks are only alleged to be racially motivated, and there are serious doubts as to whether the attacks on Indians are any more notable than any other attacks/assaults.

In short, yes, I do support the proposed new lead. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead is changing a bit of late (i think this is healthy), but just to clarify, maybe you could give a permanent link to the lead version you mean. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who, me? The version I agree with is written at the top of this section. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article should reflect the current focus of the article, which is on the notable protests rather than non-notable attacks on Indian students. The currently running AFD is not a reason to prevent improvements to this article. Tinucherian, you reverted my renaming to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. Would you reconsider this decision? - Borofkin (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the matter in the discussion with the AFD, let us wait for the outcome of the AFD. Please note that there is no consensus to rename the article to the new title. Sincerely the change of current focus of the article was due to undue change of scope by some editors. While I believe in neutrality, that is why I changed "racist attacks" to "alleged racist attacks" -- Tinu Cherian - 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The AFD process should not be used as a reason to prevent improvements to this article. The current title is innaproriate because it refers to attacks on Indian students that are not in themselves notable. The only reason the attacks are notable is because of the protests. If there were no protests, no-one would be talking about the attacks. Therefore the focus of the article should be on the notable protests, and the title should reflect this. - Borofkin (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like Borofkin's new idea of the lead may be with some minor tweaks but not the title. I have made my points here. thanks. --Like I Care 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I could tentatively support the change - the protests have now dominated the stories, not the assults themselves. While the article is much better than it was one week ago, there still needs to be some control and tighter writing. Kransky (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the protests legal?

My understanding is that if you want to protest something you have to get permission from the police and/or other authorities. As some of the early protests were impromptu and not organised by a particular organisation are they then considered illegal and if so shouldn't it be mentioned? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you needed a permit. I would be careful about adding that before it is verified. Perhaps I might ask at the Australian notice board. --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says these particular rallies/protests were illegal there isn't much point mentioning it.  florrie  10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per this website, it appears that a permit isn't needed, and that a protest is only unlawful if it breaks the law, although its fairly easy to find ways that protesters have "broken the law". WookMuff (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you are thinking of larger street protests, which I believe need permits if they block traffic on public thoroughfares, etc. WookMuff (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've helped organise street protests that have blocked thoroughfares before, and I can't recall ever getting permission or permits, per se; though we have generally liaised with them so they know what's going on. Can't speak for other jurisdictions though. But yes, as to the original post, no, you don't need permission from any authority to organise a protest, and you don't need to be attached to any group to do so - not in Australia! This thread is all a bit bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant in relation to blocking streets on the 31 May, which I should of made clear. At one stage the article was suggesting the police were stopping protests via "ramrodding" protesters. I thought the police were breaking up the street protest because it was continuing into the early morning hours of the next day, blocking a busy intersection and that wasn't permitted. The article has since been improved to explain that the protest went violent and that is why the police broke it up. In Queensland regulations regarding peaceful protests are provided under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992. According to this document, permission is required by the Police Commissioner and the relevant local government authority. This is why I mentioned the legality issue, so from my perspective the question was legitimate. I now understand that laws are different in southern states. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cronulla riots link

Is the link to the Cronulla riots in the "See also" section justified? If so, shouldn't the Sydney gang rapes article also be linked? Andjam (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the link, and unlike the Cronulla riots, it hasn't repeatedly been referred to by comparison in the press. Rebecca (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, assuming that's true. I do think we need some citations to show that the media are making that link though. Gregory j (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about attacks or about protests?

In Australia people of all races are bashed and robbed every day. None of these bashings or robbings are notable. What makes the content of this article notable is that one part of the community (Indians) have protested about being bashed and robbed. There are no sources that show that the bashings and robings themselves are notable. There are no sources dated prior to the first protest on 31 May.

Another way to look at it is this: why don't we write articles such as 2009 attacks on Pakistani students in Australia or 2009 attacks on Chinese students in Australia or perhaps 2009 attacks on Australians in India? I'm sure there have been plenty of attacks on Pakistanis and Chinese and Australians. The reason we don't write such articles is because those attacks are not notable.

If you think the attacks on Indian students are notable idependently of the protests, then you need to produce sources which demonstrate that notability independently of the protests. If no-one can find such a source, then the article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need to correct myself here. The section "Student attack timeline" does contain sources dated prior to 31 May. The question we need to consider is whether these sources demonstrate that the attacks are notable in themselves. In other words, if the protests never occurred, would this article still be notable? - Borofkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. Yesterday it was named protests but it got reverted because of the current AfD discussion. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is about both attacks (but still lacks that section) and protests. The attacks (rightly or just pure hype) received a lot of coverage in print, internet and TV media in India and has received some coverage in countries other than India and Australia. Whether these attacks have racist element to it, or just regular street attacks on par with everyday street violence but blown up out of proportions by the Indian media is debatable and we will present it in the same way. I have requested User:Nelatan to summarise the attacks and we will see where we go from there. --Like I Care 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could expand the "Attacks" section with specific, detailed and sourced information about specific attacks that have occurred. The paragraphs containing vague statements (e.g. "Students using public transport late at night found themselves at risk of assault and robbery on trains and at railway stations in Melbourne's western suburbs,") will have to be removed. I've made a start on adding specific, detailed and sourced information about the attacks. - Borofkin (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has been an eye opener for me: Racism in Australia, especially the White Australia Policy practiced from 1901 to 1970s, plus Australia Says Sorry, to put this clear and historic perspective! --Ekabhishek (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. All countries have racism in their history, including India. What is the relevance to this article? - Borofkin (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ekabhishek, may i request you to keep the conversation purely on issues related just to this article. The issue appears to be a very sensitive one and please do not add any comment which might just inflame the situation. --Like I Care 12:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the attacks are notable, add sourced facts to the article

On 26 May Rajesh Kumar, an Indian student, was set on fire by a petrol bomb thrown through the window of his home in Harris Park. During all the debates over what should be the focus of this article, no-one felt the need to add this fact. If you think the attacks are notable you should add sourced facts to the article. Why not add sourced facts about how the Indian government was talking about these attacks prior to protests occuring in Australia? I can't stress this point enough: edit the article with specific, detailed and sourced information, including names, dates, and locations. Who was attacked? When were they attacked? Where were they attacked? Who criticised the attacks? What did they say? When did they say it? Edit the article! Add sourced facts! It's fun! - Borofkin (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, individually they are not, and less so than the LTTE acid attacks on a couple of Sinhalese Sydneysiders, or the arson attacks on the Sinhalese shops in Melbourne. Those ones obviously have a political element to them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there were a number of particularly nasty attacks in May which may have triggered the protests. These attacks should be covered in detail, and we should try to find sources which show how the attacks led to the protests. The order is important. Did the attacks come first, then the protests, then the complaints from the Indian government? Or was it attacks, then Indian government, then protests? We need to verify the dates on which each of these events occurred. - Borofkin (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are adding claims to the article, please ensure that the sources attached actually support the material. There is nothing in the link you attached ([8]) to the fire bomb para that states the student's name or ethnicity or that the area is unsafe etc. Please provide a further source for the additional material.  florrie  01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking the sources. The source was correct but I had included the incorrect URL. I've fixed the URL and reinstated the material. - Borofkin (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it must have been an earlier version of the same report before names etc were known. I found the same updated version at another newspaper but as the "comments" included inciting violence/retaliation, I was loathe to use it.

another attack, probeand Lebanese involvement. --Like I Care 05:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Retaliation & vigilantes

Should there be a seperate section for this area rather than including the two known attacks by Indians in the "Protests" section? And I can't see mention of the vigilante groups in Melbourne.[9] [10]  florrie  01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename to: 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

As not only students, Indian taxi drivers were also attacked [11]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is linked to a general trend, I don't think this incident should be included. A lot of taxi drivers get attacked. I know a Caucasian driver had a noose tied around him and was doused in petrol, although he was not set alight and the perpetrators ran away. This happened 500m from where I live. This article is about supposed systematic attck, but if this is just a robbery.... Unfortunately all taxi drivers in Australia work in an unsafe environment. And from personal experience I used a taxi five times last year and four of the drivers were Indian, so if that is indicative of the proportion of Indians driving taxis, then there will be hundreds of attacks irrespective of targeting. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There have also been attacks on Chinese students.[12] Should we rename the article to 2009 attacks on Indians and Chinese in Australia? A Catholic man was bashed two days ago while walking home from church.[13] Should we rename the article to 2009 attacks on Indians, Chinese and Catholics in Australia? Or perhaps we need a separate article: 2009 attacks on Catholics in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess u guys are still missing the picture. Assuming it is true that the attacks havent increased from "normal" levels, other ethnicities are also attacked in a similar fashion and not racially motivated, it is the coverage these attacks received by the Indian media and reactions from Indian dignitaries and subsequent reaction from Rudd which makes these events notable. --Like I Care 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree - while I don't want to say any attack on anyone is not notable (I know *I'd* think it was notable if I was attacked, bashed, etc), given the lack of hard evidence of something systematic, the coverage does indeed seem to be the most unusual/notable aspect. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The most notable aspect of these events is the protests in Australia and the reactions of Indian and Australian politicians. The article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - re the heading suggestion, i understand your logic, and it is not a silly suggestion. I'm not so sure. Logically you are correct, but it is a controversial suggestion, and I think it would be more productive to spend our time improving the article's contents rather than arguing over a title. Come back in a few months when the issue (presumably) will have settled down. Then see what the perspective is. Remember, this is still a very current event, and an encyclopedia is thus not the best medium to describe it, although collectively "the community" is doing a good job with the article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To Borofkin, again, from an Australian perspective, it is just the protests and from an Indian perspective, both attacks and protests. Both attacks and protests are notable by every definition of the word WP:Notability. To Merbabu, that sounds like a practical idea. everyone may want to just title it just "protests" at that time or who knows. --Like I Care 12:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Borofkin, calling a title "attacks on Indians, Chinese and Catholics in Australia" gets away from the actual trend that is taking place. There's always been a bit of racism in Aussie as there is everywhere. Possibly back in the 90's when Hansen was at her peak there was a growing or developing racial abuse trend towards Asians = Chinese and Vietnamese. Now it's towards Indians so we have to stay on the actual trend and call it for what it really is.. (Marinesuper (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

What evidence is there of a trend towards increased attacks on Indians? If you know of statistics that demonstrate a trend then this should be included in the article. - Borofkin (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indian media and politicians have provided a lot of evidence. Sheeezzz --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Kevin Rudd picture

Is this necessary? does every article that quotes Kevin Rudd have such a picture? Unless it's a photo of Rudd actually speaking about these events then the photo should be removed. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Sure, the article is short of pictures, but it doesn't mean we should add in any picture just to provide pictures. However, the protest picture is excellent photography. I was as bold as to move it up to the "lead" pic. --Merbabu (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

yes good edit. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion-- a Biased View?

I have been reading all the replies and noticed some of the editors summarizing that article is not notable and imbalanced by Indian media.. To them please read this-- Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media. This article has got enough notability to keep and also I have seen editors saying these attacks were common and were on local residents and not on specificly Indians, I say if you claim for reliable sources, please add a source to this fact too.. Well I have got a new fact.. If these attacks are common and are for greed and fun purpose by thugs then why only Indians were attacked and why not local people(Australians).. Do you have news or info on any such incident... Clearly article needs improvment but not deletion.. people opposing deletion seem to have biased view... If this article is not under Wikipedia's guidlines then there are many such articles depicting attacks on communities and nationality abstracted from News which would need deletion then.. Does any user nominating this article for deletion went for nomination for deleting those article as well???? This clearly proves Biased view.. and user tagging this article for deletion made his last edit almost 1 year back!!!!!???.

Thanks and Regards --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at all the "voting" on the afd, I don't think the article will be deleted so you can relax. But, who says "only Indians" were attacked? Did you read this section above? --Merbabu (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Australians (I assume you mean Australians of non-Indian descent, because there are many Australians of Indian descent) are bashed and robbed in Sydney every night. That is what happens in a big city. - Borofkin (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these attacks racially motivated?

Questions to answer:

• Has there been an increase in attacks on Indians in Australia?
• Are Indians more likely to be attacked than other races in Australia?
• Is there a difference in the rate of attacks on recently arrived Indians and Indians who were born in Australia?
• Is there any evidence of ideological racism motivating attacks? Note that using racist taunts during an attack is not evidence of ideological racism. An attacker may call a fat person fat, but that doesn't mean the victim was chosen because they were fat. Also note that the fact that politicians call the attacks racist does not mean that it is a fact that the attacks were racist, it just means that some politicians think the attacks were racist.

I'm not asking for original research or sythesis. I'm asking if anyone knows of any reliable sources that answer these questions. I haven't been able to find any. - Borofkin (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources --Nvineeth (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This time article has good coverage. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain specifically which part of the TIME article provides evidence that these attacks were motivated by ideological racism? - Borofkin (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME: "Student leaders said this kind of violence racially motivated and had not been properly addressed by government authorities such as police and politicians." " sparking allegations of widespread racism in Australian society,"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Using original research and speculation I would answer:

* yes, because there are more Indians now living in Australia.

* no, ndians are no less likely to become a victim of bashing as any other race who live in dangerous areas

* yes, Indians born in Australia probably know where not to live

* no, if you define racism as a motivating factor.

But I note that I do not know where you can find reliable statistics to answer your questions, and I would be wary if anybody claims they exist. I also point out that this talk page is not to discuss the issues, rather it is here to discuss the article. Kransky (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, there is substantial consensus that the attacks reflect a racial phenomenon at work. It is really only a section of the Australian media and government that consistently denies it. But not all Australians - many acknowledge the racial nature and decry the attempts to whitewash it. Not that dissimilar from hate crimes anywhere actually. Only a tiny fractions of Australians/Indians/europeans/humans are racist, so that is not the implication here by any means. Acknowledging racist crimes in Australia does NOT mean Australia or Australians is being labeled racist. I think too many otherwise fairminded people make that kneejerk association and respond emotionally. The Indian media has had a diverse response also, with lots of internal soul searching on discrimination within India. But a spade is a spade. Many of these attacks were and are racist.

• Better policing could quell racist attacks - Greg Sheridan - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25627170-25377,00.html
• Shane Warne slams racist attacks on Indian students - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25588874-11088,00.html
• Countries appeal for end to racist attacks - Greg Ansley - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10577744
• Blaming entire Australia for racist attacks wrong: Dalai Lama - Times of India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Blaming-entire-Australia-for-racist-attacks-wrong-Dalai-Lama/articleshow/4641295.cms
• All Australians are not racist: Aamir Khan - New Delhi TV - http://movies.ndtv.com/newstory.asp?section=Movies&id=ENTEN20090095510
• Racism: We just keep it in a closet (Indians are racist too) - Economic Times (India) - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Racism-We-just-keep-it-in-a-closet/articleshow/4637610.cms

The article should be kept with its current name. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that lots of people consider these attacks to be racist, and this fact is well represented in the article. What I'm wondering is if there is any evidence that the attackers really were motivated by race. For example, have any of the attackers been caught and said: "I hate Indians"? Are any of the attackers known for their racist views? However, I agree with Kransky that this particular discussion is not really relavent to the article, because the article in its current form does not describe the attacks as racist. - Borofkin (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Broad scope Saturday article

SMH article on Harris Park events --Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

crimes over-representation?

Who is Rafael Epstein? It just sounds like an offhand remark? Are we just going to take his word that crimes against Indians are not over-represented? I believe it would be important we get a chance to look at the statistics he had access for that comment. In addition, why cherrypicking just half of what he said, his full comment, RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Indians are not overrepresented in crime statistics. But Yogesh who praises the police in general says racist attacks are often not reported. --Like I Care 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The ABC is arguably Australia's most respected news outlet. As its Lateline show. It's a very big call to say that it is unreliable - and the article seems to use lesser media outlets very readily. But that is irrelevant. The police themselves have actually said it on camera - see the second reference. The article (and it seems much of the world) to accepts very readily the "bandwagon" view that there is an anti-India crime wave, yet there just isn't the statistics to show that.

As for your second point, although I am not completely opposed, it is an opinion rather than a fact (but probably a reasonable opinion) and thus not overly useful. That Indians are not over-represented in crime statistics is a comment on, well, statistics. That racist attacks are "often not reported" cannot be, by definition, based on statistics. Indeed, there are many types of crimes that go under-reported - presumably. --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Epstein is one of Australia's leading current affairs reporters. Just a couple of examples of his Lateline stories...he reported on the Somali pirates (and interviewed the pirates themselves), he has interviewed Radovan Karadzic, he reported on the Mohamed Haneef story. Wayne (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just quote the Victorian Police Commissioner instead of a reporter? He made exactly that comment, after all.  florrie  14:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - as did NSW police spokesmen - which is referenced. I will fix that. Can you find a reference to Vic police commissioner? As for removing this from the lead, how is this undue weight? The Police themselves are saying that Indians aren't over-represented in the crime statistics? Isn't that kind of *fundamental*???? That's not a side issue. --Merbabu (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Lateline link which was previously (and may still be) in the article. [14] I also read an article this evening which contained some statistics which were said to be released by the Commissioner. Unfortunately they don't specifically solve any of questions asked [15] as while it gives a figure for the number of attacks on people of Indian origin and it gives a total for Indian students in Victoria, it doesn't say how many attacks were made on Indian students or how many people of Indian origin live in Victoria! It's like comparing apples and oranges. And if you take this [16] into consideration, it's even murkier!  florrie  15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) PS - is the question about undue weight for someone else?  florrie  15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Devine, hey? Indeed, not very illuminating. I'm sure the full stats are out there, and would be better than using opinion pieces or snippets from news programs. --Merbabu (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[17] Here is Simon Overland's press statement. The figures aren't clarified at all.  florrie  15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That contradicts the statement. i guess we should rephrase that sentence to provide a more balanced view. --Like I Care 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which statement does it contradict?  florrie  15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

that the crimes are not over-represented. I rephrased that in the article main page.--Like I Care 15:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, it doesn't contradict the statement. Saying the figures have risen for crimes against Indian students does not mean that they are over-represented. Overland also says this issue is symptomatic of what we are seeing across the community as a whole. Without accurate statistices it is not possible to calculate whether crimes against Indian students are over-represented or not, and we can only go on what those who should know are telling us.  florrie  15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Per by edit summary, a rise doesn't mean an over-representation. And what we don't know is how this increase compares to the increase in Indian students vs. the (apparent) general increase in crime. --Merbabu (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. --Like I Care 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

statistics manipulation

just curious, what is about Miranda Devine. not as good as Rafael Epstein? I find it interesting that she mentions that there was protest last year about how police manipulates crime stastistics. and so is this article--Like I Care 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Devine is columnist paid to be provocative - she particularly dislikes the slightly leftish NSW govt. But that's beside the point - it doesn't matter what opinionated columnists write, they are not considered reliable sources - rather we are discussing statistics. Or are you now suggesting that statistics are meaningless because Miranda told you? --Merbabu (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry, if i have missed the discussion. which statistics are we talking about? --Like I Care 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are taking User:Florrie and I around in circles. --Merbabu (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i didnt apologise for you to be be insolent. are you talking about this,

“ Our statewide figures show that in 2007-08, 1447 people of Indian origin were victims of crimes against the person such as robberies and assaults, an increase from 1082 the previous year.

This was compared with 24,260 caucasian victims and 36,765 victims overall.

In 2008, there were almost 160,000 international students in Victoria.

Of these, more than 46,000 were from India, making Indian students the largest group of overseas students in Victoria. This has more than doubled since 2006.

”

--Like I Care 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not refer to a specific set of statistics. I meant statistics (including those provided or commented on by police) would be more useful than the comments of opinion piece writers who are paid to be provocative. And I meant that a comparison of Miranda Devine and Raphael Epstein and their relative merit as sources was irrelevant and missed the point. You did afterall start this sub-section with the title "statistics manipulation" - presumably in an attempt to undermine the use of crime statistics? --Merbabu (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If it does undermine, it is not my original research, it has (as of now) two reports supporting that claim. well, the above statistics does not provide any insight about anything about over or under-representation. as u noticed, I am a little concerned about the comments from police considering allegeations of crime statistics manipulation. It could keep us wondering about the reliablity of any hard and complete statistcs if we ever get our hands onto. --Like I Care 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about many comments quoted in the article and I have been kept wondering about their reliability. But I don't take it upon myself to remove them. If the NSW police said that Indians were not over-represented in crime statistics, that is a notable piece of info in itself. Yes, it would be nice to have statistics for that, but i note that a lack of any evidence for other opinions doesn't prevent their inclusion in this article. Why should we create a different standard for the police?--Merbabu (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating its removal. As long as we attribute comments, we solve most of the NPOV issue if not all. --Like I Care 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A publication on ethnic crime statistics by the Australian Institute of Criminology that goes a long way to explaining why specific statistics are so slow in coming to light. Statistical information on Ethnicity and Crime in Australia. Wayne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reference to actual Indian student numbers in Melbourne that I have found so far and a good article on the subject.[18] The 2004 International Crime Victimisation Survey has some interesting parts. It mentions that more than 50% of victims (verbal assault to physical assault) thought to be Muslim were in fact Pakistani, Indian or other similar nationality and links this to victimisation following 911 and Bali. It also mentions that 0.47% of immigrants surveyed admitted being a victim of racially motivated harassment in the previous 12 months (from verbal assault to actual physical assault) so this is the first statistic for racism I have found. Heres another link indicating attacks on Indian students in Sydney is not racially motivated and why. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks dont get bogged down in the statistics, the reality is that statistics arent important. Statistic can be manipulated how far into WP:OR territory do we really want to get, who's statistics are the right ones? by all means look at the statements by individuals quote people but be cautious giving them to much significance. Look at the stats in encyclopaedic terms the statistic just dont add anything or improve understanding why heres the <OR/commonsense> students because their of studies and visa restrictions prodominately are in casual/part time work, in Australia this work is more prellevant at night and on weekends anywhere in world travelling at night carries a higher personal risk as does having items of value visable so of course students will be statistically higher if by proportion Indian students as a group are a dominant figure in both student numbers in general and that part of the workforce then by default they will a recognised grouping.</ or/commonsense> Keep the focus on the events, reporting and the effects on laws, international relations. Then ultimately the convictions because thats what this is about, yes there is now an under lying racial current but what we'll never know is which came first the egg or the chicken. Personally I think using the expressed feelings of the people in the cente of this storm is a better choice rather than the hard numbers being rolled out, just ensure its attributed to a person who is worthy of note ie Police, Government officials, Consul officials, and care organisation leaders rather than commentators, reporters and bystanders. Gnangarra 06:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra. This article has few details about the attacks, but plenty of speculative interpretations about them. Kransky (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Devine is a deliberately inflammatory right-wing pundit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

The 'Attacks' section includes a number of events which look like bog standard robberies, and unless we are going to include every crime against Indian students in Australia a standard would see appropriate.

I'd suggest that event has to have some racial aspect to it however slight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Determining the "racism" of every Indian student attack, is beyond the scope of this article. "All" of the attacks have had a cumulative effect on Australian Indians causing them to finally shout "enough is enough". Philwalker87 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the basis for including only these attacks?

I'm not suggesting removing all examples for violence against Indians just having a standard to apply to any case so that we don't just get a list of cases.

Or the other option is to separate the attacks into cases with, and without a racial aspect.

Rsloch (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand ur concern. But, pls remember the article is not about racial attacks. Second, even the ones decribed as racial by the attacked men may not be necessarily racial and vice versa. it would be clear case of original research if we were to categorise them. I would say, we leave all the attacks untouched as of now and am positive, the article will mature over time as more information becomes available. --Like I Care 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So all that warrants an attack being included is that the victim was Indian and it happened in the recent past?

Rsloch (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, why are there attacks which occurred in 2008 listed in the "Attacks" section? The article is about 2009 attacks, yes?  florrie  01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

guess it is not about the year. it is really about the attacks and protests. The year makes no sense. --Like I Care 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that only the attacks that are directly associated with the May/June protest and controversy should be included in the "Attacks" section. - Borofkin (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should only mention attacks specifically cited in articles about the protests or cited as examples of the problem. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I will remove the first three attacks. They (and the cites) can always be recovered from the history if anyone feels they have a place elsewhere in the article or if the article is renamed to cover all attacks on Indians.  florrie  10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, though I would include the robbery of Hardik Patel. Objections anyone?

Rsloch (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was just a few days ago, wasn't it? Why would you not include it?  florrie  11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't be including attacks that are bog standard crimes. There was no racial aspect, and the police seem to have done their job, leaving the only thing that links it to the other mentioned attacks being the opinion of a hack on the Times of India. To include it their should be more to an attack than it happened to an Indian student in a specific timeframe, or at least that's my opinion. Rsloch (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to remove any attacks on the Indian students. If anything the 2008 attacks can be moved to the background section. Philwalker87 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put the section on Kanan into context in "Background" though I fail to see how the anecdotal evidence of an attack on Kanwerdeep to steal his mobile phone is "notable" as claimed in the paragraph.  florrie  23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still current?

Is this article still a "current event" as per the template at the top of the article page? I've not heard anything new about the situation in several weeks, but I didn't hear much about it over here anyway. As there has been nothing of substance added to the article in a week or more, it may be time to remove the tag.  florrie  15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

sure. --Like I Care 15:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

General discussion of racism in Australia

Several editors keep adding the statement that "An 11-year study by a collaboration of Australian universities founded 85 per cent of Australians acknowledge racial prejudice occurs in the nation, moreover one in five has been a victim of racist verbal abuse and related incidents." (which is currently back in the article and referenced to a dead link). While the research is, sadly, almost certainly correct, I don't see how this is directly relevant to the article's topic (note that it's about people acknowledging that at least some racial prejudice exists and whether they've experienced it, and not that it's related to violence/robberies, is worse for Indian students, etc) and think it should be removed (again) and stay removed. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It's irrelevant to the article. - Borofkin (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it is irrelevant and would suggest that racism was the primary reason of the assults. Are there any scholarly articles about drug taking or poor street lighting worth including? Kransky (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"85% of Australians acknowledge racial prejudice occurs in the nation" - so what? --Merbabu (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the article. Yes there are varying degrees of racism in Australia (as there are in other countries) but it is drawing a long bow to suggest that because a percentage of Australians may be racist that all attacks on Indian students are therefore racially motivated. There are a few "opinions" in this article which are - in my opinion - of similar concern.  florrie  11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least get the article semi-protected. While we discuss it here and all seem to agree, anon editors continue to restore it with no discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey has semi-protected the article. Thanks YellowMonkey! Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indian students attacking/raping locals

Hi

Having read the 'attacks' section, I noticed the majority of them have not been proved to be racist in nature and instead, it seems, it lists well known crimes against Indian students in Australia, so I was wondering, for balance, If we can discuss an Indian student driver, who ran over and killed an Australian, and the Indian student who helped him to flee the country back to India to avoid punishment, further, the two Indian students charged with pair raping an Australian girl, further, an Indian Education agent who attacked an Indian reporter. These episodes must be mentioned for fairness and balance. Indian students have committed crimes against Australian locals and I am sure if two white Australians raped an Indian student girl, it would be listed as one of the incidents. I think for fairness and balance, we should have a section about Indian students attacking Australian locals.

Also, what about a section discussing Indian medias false portrayal of some events? The attacking of an Indian reporter by an Indian Hindu was reported, by Times Now I believe, as 'yes, it's racism'. This manifestly was not racism as common sense and definition were to be applied. So could I construct some sections, for fairness and balance and context placement, about the role of India's media in the affair (including a subsection of explicit examples of false hoods' given by them'), and the attacks on locals by Indian students?

Regards

the article only lists racist incidents. As any white attacking a non White is obviously and only racism, then such attacks should be listed - no need to question particularly if we have an impartial source such as the Indian media or an Indian politician. But how can it be racist if the attacker is not white? Remember, Australia is a racist society while there is no racist Indian. ;-). --Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

false portrayal by Indian media sounds like a reasonable section to include. but your other suggestion sounds illogical and irrational. --L I C 11:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be proactive in rebutting nonsense. All we can do is suppress it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish

I'm sorry, but this sort of hysterical rubbish being added as a verified source is really upsetting. [19] Load of bull. I'd better unwatch this page for a while I think.  florrie  02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add?Keysvolume (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think questioning the use of the Times of India is perfectly constructive. Trying to pass it off as a quality source is an offence to wikipedia. It's drivel. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all. Times of India qualified as a WP:RS despite what Australian apologists say. Secondly, If TOI is "rubbish", then all the TOI articles (including these ones that subscribe to Australian apologia concerning the racial attacks[20][21][22]), are "rubbish" as well. I doubt that Australian racial apologists would like that :) .Keysvolume (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are new to wikipedia. First and foremost, you need to stop referring to good faith editors as "apologists" and their actions as "racial whitewashing".[23] This contravenes the WP:AGF policy, one of wikipedia's most fundamental. If you continue, then I shall seek administrator advice - indeed, I know they watch this page. on the other hand, if you wish to continue with such remarks, then you could perhaps report the "bad behaviour" to WP:ANI. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A spade is a spade. Good faith cannot be assumed when the Australian editors are only too happy to use a source when it publishes an anti-India article, but trashes the very same source when it is critical of their country. This clearly is a violation of good faith, and no amount of Wikipedia gang warring will change that reality.Keysvolume (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never used a Times of India article. Once again, WP:AGF demands you assume good faith, and that you report bad faith. And, is your attempt to associate myself with Sydney gang rapes a sign of your own good faith? Please clarify. thanks--Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm referring to the Times Now references. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times Now references are a real concern. I'm not familiar with this publication, but it appears to be most tabloidy to say the least, hence my above questioning of its use. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The OP refers to this article [24] critically. This is an article from "Times of India" rather than "Times Now". Are we talking about two different publications here? Did I miss something?Keysvolume (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - we are talking about two publications. I've apologised above for my error and the confusion caused. --Merbabu (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. If you question the validity of the Times Now article, I suggest that the Reliable Sources noticeboard is a better place for that.Keysvolume (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the article talk page is far more immediate and relevant in the first instance, particularly when the sources have been recently added. RS noticeboard can be a good place for a further hearing. Times Now has been used 7 times in this article. Each instance should be checked. Seems like appallingly partisan and subjective journalism though. The Fox News of India??? --Merbabu (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an appropriate analogy. Fox News is controlled by right-wing ideologue Rupert Murdoch, and has faced allegations of right wing bias in their journalism favoring the US Republican Party. All of the English language media in India is neoliberal in political position (the vernacular media tends to be right wing) and aggressively pro-west (there was even one times now special focusing on Huntingtonian ideas of the clash of civilizations). I'm afraid that some more concrete evidence is needed regarding your allegations of partisanship and subjectivity AGAINST a western country (or, in this case, quasi-western).Keysvolume (talk)

My doubts about Times Now have nothing to do with Australia, let alone its status (or otherwise) as a western country. The source alone is enough cause for concern, or "evidence" as you suggest:

TIMES NOW asks

- Aussie cops call it a routine probe. Are we to believe race attacks are routine in Australia?

- Aussie cop demands proof but aren't the victims' versions not good enough?

- Will locals risk social ostracisation by standing witness in court?

- Why hasn't the police released the CCTV footage in connection with the case?

That is not the writing of a reliable source. If the information used in this article is both notable and reliable, then it should not be hard to find it in another, superior quality, publication (either Indian or Australian). --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times of India article cited above is not biased. While it may give undue promenence to one side of the story in this article, in other articles it has been more measured. Certainly here the facts are second hand reports. It is citing the views of relatives of students who were beaten. And you can hardly complain if a distraught mother doesn't give an objective, impassioned account of what has happened.

The reference to the elderly Australian ladies joining the mob does makes me wonder... Kransky (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the claim made about "elderly ladies" sounds bizarre, but that claim is not being touted as unequivocal fact by the reporter, but merely reported as the testimony of the victim. Obviously, such a claim should not be stated in the wikipedia article (unless additional sources verify that the elderly participated in the attack, which frankly does not seem likely). Nonetheless, the base assertion that IS being touted by the reporter can be stated in the wp article using the toi article.Keysvolume (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting full page article in yesterdays newspaper (The Advertiser Sept 19 page 5) about racism and in particular Indian students. It had statistics such as that in 1999 only 20% of foreign students wanted to stay permanently but it is now 70% (2009). Some 41% (NSW) and 37% (Vic) of these students do stay in Australia permanently after graduation (they qualify for residency if they can get a job that uses their degree). The article included interviews with Indian students who stated that apart from from some employers who saw language fluency or culture differences as a problem there was "hardly any racism" in Australia. The TOI leans towards protecting it's people much the same as any countries media does. This means they see the negatives too negatively so to speak giving "racism" too much prominence. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Privacy of victims

I've removed the names from the list of attacked students. This seems like a significant WP:BLP violation. As I see it, the victims of these events don't need to be named, whether or not they are also mentioned in reliable sources, as it seems to add nothing encyclopedic to the article while risking invading their privacy. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Reactions India

The current edit, as 01:26, 14 October 2009, makes a number of statements in the first paragraph that are not supported by the sources it provides. None of these sources actually talk about Australia's media coverage of the incident, so I don't see how the statement "Australia's media coverage and reactions to these attacks have been viewed by India as denialist" can be supported. [25] [26]

The stuff about similar issues in Britain is very interesting, but not pertinent to reaction in India to this specific issue.

The paragraph directly after that appears to be a reference to a specific event in Australia, specifically the bashing of four Indian people by a mob in a car park in Melbourne, circa September. This should probably be included in the Attacks section of the article, as it received quite a lot of media attention in India. But the paragraph needs cleaning up, as it is not very coherent, in that it's not immediately evident what it's referring to. - Netvegetable (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore Keysvolume. Look at his edits. A POV-pushing account YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A more urgent issue might be WP:BLP - ie, this edit. Bolt is paid to be controversial, but I think the edit summary needs removing. The SPA could also look into assuming a bit more faith and stop labelling respected editors as anti-Indian, apologist, and bias. It's unacceptable behaviour. Sort that out, then we can discuss the actual article. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to ignore him. Just concerned about the quality of the article. You can't provide sources that don't back up what you say It's 101 stuff. --Netvegetable (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This section concerns commentary, so the most commonly expressed views representing different sides to this story should be mentioned here. There have been several commentators (Indian as well as Australian) who have linked this issue with the question of caste and religious diversity in India, so I cannot see why this view would not be notable. Kransky (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means note it. But you can't cite sources that don't back up what you say, because that's just whack. --Netvegetable (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Needed

This paragraph appear to have died the "death of a thousand edits". Could some nice editor try to make sense out to it? It's in the 2009_attacks_on_Indian_students_in_Australia#Australia section. Actually reference [73] may be the quickest way of finding it. Good luck, as I have tried to decipher it without success. Perhaps 2 or 3 sentences have been badly combined?

"Bruce Haigh who served in Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1972 and was in contact with members of the black South African resistance, including the Black Consciousness Movement in 1976, Australia is racist and that it is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practiced with some guilt and in polite company circumspection. He cited many cases which speak of itself about how much racism prevails in Australia [73]"

Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attacks" section is synthesis/original research

I believe that the "Attacks" section of this article is synthesis and possibly original research. The section lists about 15 attacks. The list of attacks was collected by Wikipedia editors, and listing the attacks together implies a connection between the attacks. This implied connection between the attacks is unsourced. Has a reliable source listed these attacks? Has anyone outside of Wikipedia specifically referred to these attacks when discussing racism against Indians? If not, then the section is original research. - Borofkin (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the section is very concerning as a reader. A list of crimes, with no explanation except that they are "attacks". There is nothing to indicate that this is a list of racially motivated crimes, or that they are in any way related. It seems that the list is simply a 'selection' of crimes, from the hundred thousand-odd assaults and robberies that occur annually in Australia - a selection based on the race of the victim and the fact that a news article is available as a source. If that is all it is, I think you would need a very good reason to publish such a list on Wikipedia.

On a side note, what distinguishes "attacks" from violent crime anyway, except that it is a word favoured by the Indian media? It is a loaded word that seems to imply some kind of war, and hardly appropriate for something that 'might' be nothing more than a selected component of day-to-day violent crime in an increasingly dangerous city. Are the other 99% of assaults, which occur against non-Indians, also "attacks"? Fswan4 (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidents? --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For that particular section, I'm not sure what the title should be. I would suggest that the whole section be changed from its current form, perhaps to focus solely on the initial incident or incidents that sparked the media storm in late May 2009. I seem to remember there were multiple stabbings within a short time, around the time the whole thing reached critical mass, such as the screwdriver stabbing. Those might already be in the list, before editors started adding every other crime that made the news. If we can focus the section on those specific incidents, I think that would make a useful section for understanding the background of the whole saga, but it would not be a very long list. As for the word 'attacks' itself, it is a wider problem than that section because it appears throughout the article and in the title. I just think other, more accurate words should have been used - crimes, violence, robberies, assaults, etc, rather than something that implies there is some kind of violent campaign going on. A counterargument is that the word 'attacks' seems to have been accepted by media in Australian as well as India, whether it is fair or not. Fswan4 (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "attacks" is not a neutral term. The focus of the article is not the crimes themselves but the protests and controversy. The crimes are a part of this, but the article should really only refer to crimes that have formed part of the controversy. To use Google News to find a large number of previous crimes against Indians (as appears to have occurred here) is not appropriate. - Borofkin (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "crimes" - hopefully making npov synthesis. ;-P --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I later realised that “crimes” was also problematic as it implies convictions of perpetrators. Hence, I changed it to “incidents” but this was subsequently changed back to “attacks” without explanation. I have since returned it to “incidents”. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the synthesis as well - at least, this needs to have some clearly defined inclusion criteria. Right now, we have an incident from 2010, incidents that did not involve Indians, and incidents which don't involve students. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The list should only include incidents specifically mentioned by Indian media or unambiguously attributed to racism by Australian media. Wayne (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

List of attacks (moved from article)

Incidents involving South Asians from 2009-2010 include:

• "David", a 21 year old Indian student, was beaten unconscious in the Melbourne suburb of Pascoe Vale on 4 May 2009. Four men had surrounded him, the one from behind smashing a bottle over his head before continuing to punch and kick him.

• On Saturday May 9, An 21 year old Indian hospitality student was assaulted and robbed by teenagers on a train while traveling to his home in Werribee in Melbourne's western suburbs in May 2009. He said his attackers asked "Why the f--- did you come here? and Kiss my foot"

• A 25 year old student was stabbed in the head with a screwdriver in May 2009 while he was partying with three other Indian students.

• An Indian graduate living in the Sydney suburb of Harris Park, had a petrol bomb thrown through his bedroom window on 24 May 2009. He received burns to 30 percent of his body and the blaze was extinguished by his Indian housemates. One housemate said that they had no enemies and he did not know the reason for the attack. The housemate also said that the area was not safe, and that he knew neighbours who had been robbed.

• A 25 year old Indian student was stabbed in the abdomen near Carnegie railway station in Melbourne on 25 May. One of his two attackers laughed during the assault.

• A student was badly beaten by a group of fifteen people on Chapel Street, Prahran, Victoria on 30 May.

• On 2 June, a 21 year old Indian student was slashed across the chest with a box-cutter knife in Frankston. The incident occurred a day after a Sikh temple in Shepparton was vandalised.

• On 8 June, Indians were attacked in Harris Park, allegedly by a group of Lebanese men, which sparked a street protest. The local police superintendent said there was no suggestion that these incidents were racially motivated.

• On 8 June, a 23 year old man was beaten unconscious while walking home from the St Albans train station. In the suburb of Springvale, an Indian student's car was torched.

• On 11 June, a 22 year old old Indian student was assaulted in Rundle Mall in Adelaide. The fight, which resulted in the student's nose being broken, began when the attacker struck at his turban.

• On 13 June, a 24 year old man was attacked by three people in Melbourne as he was about to enter his car. He was punched directly in the face by one while another hit him over the head from behind rendering him unconscious. He reported that they stole his mobile phone, wallet and car keys.

• On 15 June, a 20 year old man was attacked by two men as he was entering his car in Boronia. He claims the men slammed the car door on his hand, punched him in the head and stomach, then racially abused him, calling him a "----ing Indian c---". He also identified one man as white and one appearing to be of African descent.

• On 29 June, a 22 year old Sikh man was attacked at Dandenong station when a group of six teenagers tried to remove his turban and cut off his hair. Two of the attackers were later arrested by Victorian police.

• On 9 June in the Melbourne suburb of St Albans, two Indians allegedly stabbed a man in the neck who they said had used racial slurs.

• At the end of September, a 28 year old Indian repeatedly hit in the head, possibly with a baseball bat, in St Albans. Police stated that the attack was unlikely to be racially motivated, as the victim was wearing a hood at the time, and this would have hidden his identity.[27]

• On October 5, at Meadow Glen International Stadium in Epping, Melbourne, a skateboarder shouted "F--- off you black c---" at Indians who were inside their car, and then smashed a window of the car. The Indians were on their way home from a Kabaddi match at the stadium and retaliated by attacking the skateboarder and his friends, leaving the sakeboarder in hospital. [28]

• On Sunday 25 October, 22 year old Indian from Yarraville was attacked at a bus stop next to Epping railway station, Melbourne. [29]

• On December 9, a 28 year old Indian was stabbed outside his girlfriend's house in Brunswick West, Melbourne, [30][31]

2010 attacks

• 21 year old accounting graduate, Nitin Garg, was stabbed in Cruickshank Park in West Footscray, Melbourne, after 9:30pm as he was walking to work from Yarraville station, he died later in hospital on 2 January 2010.

• Three Indian students were fighting and two of them died. Running total this year - 3 dead Indians, 3 Indian murderers of Indians, one or more unknown murderer of Indians. Greglocock (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of attacks

It is not appropriate to create a large list of attacks -- this is original research. I have moved the list to the talk page. Please rewrite the "Attacks" section in prose, only mentioning significant attacks that are related in some way to the June 2009 protests. It is not Wikipedia's job to conduct an investigation into violence against Indians in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But, no doubt this won't pass without partisan controversy. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not original research! So many Indians have been killed, blinded, or disabled in these racist attacks! 211.26.205.186 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When each entry is backed by verifiable citation, it is not an original research. I came to wikipedia to read about the death of Nitin Garg. I'm rather disturbed that details of individual cases reported in media are censored out in wikipedia. Vapour (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The OR comes by grouping them together. There is no question as to whether or not Nitin Garg was murdered. So there's no OR in claiming that he was. But drawing paralels between his death and other instances of violence against Indians would be OR unless those parallels were drawn by reliable sources. In this case they have been drawn, but it isn't necessarily the case with the others in the list. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merely listing attack on Indian students which were reported by media is not OR. Had the content claim without attribution/citation that all of these attack were racist or coordinated, then it would be a OR. Mere existence of list make no such statement. I'm o.k. with adding to uncited case, followed later by deletion. Moreover, deletion of verifiable content is specifically against wikipedia policy so the deletion of the list itself seems unwarranted. Vapour (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have confused OR with verifiability. What is being argued is that the list is synthesis. There is no problem with lists per se, but there needs to be a criteria for inclusion. What is the criteria for inclusion of an entry on this list? - Borofkin (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this argument will carry. Aside from the fact that the list of relevant cases is common in wikipedia, putting cited fact in proper context such as summarization or putting a cited fact in one section but not in other section is not a synthesis. If the article is titled "racist attack on Indian student", then putting any attack on indian student in the list would amount to extra interpretation. For example, in Missing White Women Syndrome article, all cited case are mentioned as a (possible) example of MWWS by at least one media outlet. The list section is specifically designed to collect the reported case of attack on Indian student in Australia. "Indian reaction" section, on the other hand, state cited report of Indian reaction. These are not synthesis, IMO. Anyway, given that these listed cases are reported by media outlet, what alternative way of presentation would you suggest? Vapour (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that a list is appropriate. I think that the criteria for inclusion in the list should be that the incident be associated in some way with the controversy. We shouldn't just include every attack on Indians in the last three years. - Borofkin (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also do agree that certain limit should be placed. Maybe the list should be limited to attack from 2009 onward. I doubt this controversy will extend beyond 2010. Vapour (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the criteria for inclusion should be that the act of violence is associated in some way with the larger controversy. For example, this attack is on an Indian in 2009, but in the source there is no suggestion that anyone linked the attack to the broader issue. The attack is only in the list because Wikipedians found it using Google. - Borofkin (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that the wikipedia and other encyclopedias do contain lists, Example include list of whales and its level of endangerment in whaling article or list of cases mentioned in media as an example of Missing White Women Syndrome. "What wikipedia is not" say that wikipedia is not a link farm or list of facts. This doesn't appear to mean that we can't have list. Rather, it mean that the article should contain more than a list. I personally would find list of attack cases to be quite useful as I came to this article looking for the detail of a particular case. Vapour (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem, I guess, is that a "List of attacks on Indians in Australia" is valid, in one sense, but serves little enclyclopedic value, and may well hit significant problems per NPOV. However, a discussion on the 2009 attacks which led to protests and the ongoing issues between Australia and India, especially in regard to students, is encyclopedic. The latter is the direction that I gather this article is taking. Given that, it doesn't seem useful to that end to simply add every attack against Indians in Australia here, but instead to include only attacks related to the broader topic. That relationship will need to be established through reliable sources, of course. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I found the lack of list to be unhelpful and uninformative. Secondly, the verification policy not only ask that content being verified, it also ask not to remove verified content. Use of list is a convenient and common way in wikipedia to observe verifiability while allowing the main article free from distraction of listing every cases or details. Making a connection and interpretation from each individual citation would be synthesis. However, merely putting verified content in a list or a section is not. Otherwise, anything except cut&paste in separate segment would amount to synthesis. Should we remove every section which use cited facts? After all these facts are contextualised. Does that amount to OR?

I came to this article after reading a newspaper article about the near 50% drop of Indian student application, which happen to mention about the murder of Nitin Garg. I'm not Australian or Indian and this was a development I wasn't aware of. So I naturally came to Wikipedia to get the further detail. I was rather annoyed to discover that not only such detail unavailable, "Incidents" section, oddly, doesn't mention the incidents of attacks. When I clicked the talk page to find out what is going on, I was further disturbed to see that someone removed the list of individual attacks, most of it having proper citation. The current article give an impression that it was all the fault of Indian hyping up the issue. Vapour (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article rename

I think this article should be renamed to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia" and the focus should be tightened. At the moment the article is too open ended, and is prone to creating unsourced conclusions via synthesis. - Borofkin (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that name is descriptive enough to cover the whole episode, especially since the media reaction in India was such a huge part of it, and more noteworthy than the protests in my opinion. I don't really have any good suggestions for a term that encompasses everything. Leaving the current title is probably the simplest option - the phrase "attacks on Indian students" seem to be the accepted term by the media in Australia, even if it is unfair and plainly not neutral. Fswan4 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 'too open ended' point though - I think the article should be just focussed on the period during mid-2009 when this all became an issue, with the protests and media frenzy that occurred within those couple of months or so, before the storm entered a lull for the rest of that year. That period was an important turning point in our relations with India as well as the education industry etc, and it deserves its own article. If editors keep on reworking the lead paragraphs to accommodate the present day's news as part of the 2009 'attacks', and start adding non-students and non-Indians into the mix as someone did recently, then there will no longer be an article specifically about the controversy that started it all. Fswan4 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Violence against Indians in Australia controversy" -- that way we can cover the entire period 2008-present, and we can avoid disputed terms like "racism" or "attacks". - Borofkin (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is about the attacks on Indian student in Australia. One could legitimately debate the extent of racist motive in such attacks or the extent of Indian hype or Australian denialism. Still, the proposed new title would covertly endoring the view that it is about indian hype and not australian denialism. Vapour (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title would also eliminate "students", which is problematic becasue some Indian victims of attacks were not students. I don't see why non-students should be excluded from the article. - Borofkin (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On the students front, I suspect the problem may not be one of excluding students, so much as one of including non-students. The furor was in regard to attacks on students in Australia, and has generally be focused on that. Keeping "students" in the title might be wise, as it would prevent the article from wandering too far afield and including attacks on all Indians. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the media and the students focused on the attack on students. "We report, you decide." Vapour (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "covertly endorsing the view....". The use of the word "controversy" accurately presents the disputed nature of the violence. Some people think it's racist, and some people don't. - Borofkin (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that one side accuse the other of hyping up and the other side do like wise with accusation of denialism, the proposed title is akin to "Australian treatment of 2009 Indian attack victim", which would be equally unfair and biased. The sensitivity of Indian about racism from white (due to its past as a colony) and sensitivity of Australian of accusation of racism (due to its history of White Australia) are played out in media and in this article. Vapour (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely everyone agrees that the core issue is violence? If most Australians hated Indians, but never acted on that hatred, then there would be nothing to write about. It is the violence that makes this article notable. Focussing on the violence doesn't reject the racism thesis because many people believe the violence was racially motivated, and the article should reflect this. - Borofkin (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not real happy with the new title - "Violence against Indians in Australia controversy" makes it a tad too broad: is it now all Indians, when previously the focus was Indian students, over any period of time? It seems that this should be more narrowly defined to just the 2009 (and arguably 2010) issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is narrowly defined -- the article focusses on the controversy, which is restricted to 2009-2010. There is no reason to restrict the article to students, or to a particular year, but there is a reason to restrict it to just the notable controversy. - Borofkin (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. It just seems to me that the article was restricted to students, as that was where the controversy was, and that long term the lack of a date will allow this to grow beyond what was viewed as the initial bounds. If the title is used to define the content, not the intent, then we risk including any attack on Indians in Australia, as pretty much anything can be attached to the generic "controversy", and we risk having an inherently one-sided account. But I guess we'll see where things go. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why cant this page be edited.

I have tried my best to work out if indian students are being persecuted or not. Here is my work below - would anyone be able to post it for me??

Expected Homicide Rate of Indian Students An expected homicide rate for the Indian student population would be a maximum of 6.6 Males 20-30 if no persecution of Indian students was occurring.

General population Australia 1.2 murders per 100000(2008) - estimated 2009 1.3 per 100,000.www.abs.gov.au

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Males 15-30 make up 25% of murder victims in Australia and 8% of the population (2008) - estimated murder rate 4.4 per 100,000 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3235.0~2008~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument#PARALINK6

Expected murder rate of Male Indian students aged 20-30 would be = 4.4 * .75 = 3.3 killed per year (assuming males 20-30 make up 75% of the student population or 75,000)

the above figures allow for no influencing factors. Cities / Poor neighborhoods / Working and traveling late at night would be influencing factors. Assume this doubles the risk of murder then at a maximum you would still only expect 6.6 Male 20-30 year old Indian students to be murdered per year.

There where xx? Male Indian students 20-30 murdered in Australia in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ger876452334 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article is semi-protected. This means that new users, such as yourself, are unable to edit the article until your account has been established: it is referred to as being auto-confirmed, and will happen with your account after a certain number of edits and a few days have passed. However, while your work above is interesting, we won't be able to use it, as Wikipedia has fairly strict rules against the use of original research. If you can find a reliable source that makes the same conclusions we may be able to add it, though. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Caste

Why has caste and caste related violence in India been added as related articles to this article. They are totally irrelevant to what is going on in Australia. Is this an attempt to smear Indians? 92.29.34.78 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious why caste related violence has been added as a relation to this article. It is totally irrelevant to what is going on in Australia and yes it is an attempt to smear Indians. You have it there 92.29.34.78. You've hit the nail right in the middle of it's head. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

Another thing 92.29.34.78, bringing up problems that occur in India is a well known ploy used to deflect and cloud th truth as to what is going on in Australia. People will hope that by bringing this up that others will follow suit and say "well hang on, doesn't the same thing happen in India?" "So why talk about what's hapening in Australia when Indians are hurting each other?" The main reason for people saying this is that nobody wants to admit that their backyard is dirty. The other reason is that rednecks want to deftect the truth or somehow suggest that Indians are partly to blame. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

An interesting viewpoint. Given that last year at least 1/3 of the murders of Indians in Australia were by Indians, and this year it is 2/3 is it possible that Indians just like killing Indians? Does the high murder rate in India (also mostly by Indians, not Australians, I'd guess), not have anything to do with this? Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shiv Sena

About their calls for an Australian cricket ban. I expected better of the ABC than to say that Shiv Sena were responsible for not allowing Pakistani cricketers into India, which is nonsense. Also rather silly that CA officials haven't heard of these people when they once dug up a cricket pitch [32] YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranjodh Singh

Should it be clarified that the suspects are two Indian nationals?Ticklemygrits (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference re above: [33] - Format (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure this ref belongs in the article. The willingness of Indians to murder Indians is well known (32000+ per year), this article is about Indians whining about everybody else. Presumably an Indian in Australia is safer from his countrymen (or especially her countrymen, given the relative statistics for dowry murders 8000 vs 0), so this article is all about perception, not fact. Greglocock (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the controversy surrounding violence against Indians in Australia. The Ranjodh Singh attack is part of the controversy, regardless of who did it. - Borofkin (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain specifically why it is relevant? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want the relevance explained to me so I can comment. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

An example of the Indian media and pollies immediately claiming that it was a race murder, probably by a white, then it turned out to be a financial dispute among some Indian farm workers who were probably not registered YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus deemed it OK to mention Ranjodh Singh in the article when no one had been arrested for the murder and there were no reports of who might have done it. Are we meant to delete all references to Ranjodh Singh now that it has been reported that Indian nationals have been arrested for the crime? Format (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't very hard to turn up examples of the indian newspapers reporting on this eg http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Indians-held-for-murder--MEA-says-be-careful-of-Oz/573272 while of course still wittering on about racism. So I suppose it is relevant, given, as I said before that this article is about perceptions. Perhaps we should retitle the article "Why are Indian papers so whiny, and Australian ones so spineless?", as that is really what it is about. Greglocock (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deindent. Um, So 1/3 of the murders of Indians, in Australia last year, were committed by Indians? Doesn't that make them a tad overrepresented in the murderer statistics? If the Indian murderers hog all the murders what are the the racist Ozzies going to do? Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tally of victims so far

I think that we need to keep an up to date page with the current tally of bashing or stabbing victims and a section for the up to dater tally of deaths as well. There's nothing wrong with awareness. What do you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not appropriate for the article as per discussion at Talk:Violence_against_Indians_in_Australia_controversy#List_of_attacks - Format (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Outlook article

It seems to me that the Outlook article is unusable as a source. The following observation by the SMH has repeatedly been removed by an editor for no very good reason

"The article does not mention that three Indian nationals have been charged with murder in one of the recent cases"

If you actually go and read the article it ledes with " But there’s unanimity on one count: “curry-bashing” is fast becoming the young Australian’s favourite pastime. " Um. really. I don't know many young Australians, buut I doubt 1 in 50 is even aware of the term.

Greglocock (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That was removed by me. :) First, I haven't read the Outlook article. What I've read is a source discussing the article. So I'm uncomfortable making solid statements about what is (or is not) in it - from an academic perspective, referencing something via another source is a huge risk. Second, I'm really uncomfortable with listing what an article doesn't cover: there's a lot that any given article doesn't cover, and there may be good reasons why it doesn't. In this case, it is very likely that the article was written before they were arrested, but there may be other reasons as well. I suppose we could point out that the SMH/Brisbane Times highlighted that the Outlook article didn't mention the arrest, but I don't see much value in doing so, and that says more about the Australian press that Outlook. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there's anything wrong with stating that one article has discussed another by stating what the second article says about the first, and providing a reference to the second article. News articles quote people all the time, and we reproduce those quotes WP all the time - as long as it is verifiable. Format (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's true. In this case, though, I'm not sure we gain anything by saying that the SMH said that the Outlook article didn't mention the arrest of the Indian nationals - it seems like such a peripheral issue that I just can't see any value in it. And even the SMH only offers it as an aside. - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Its ridiculous to describe the outlook article by using a source which is highly critical of it. If you do, you should really discuss the interpretation of the outlook article by another source, which then makes the whole text a farce. Source the article directly or have the text be an australian interpretation of an indian article! 92.24.23.91 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the SMH article really 'highly critical' of the Outlook rant? I don't think so. It points out that the Outlook article is willing to ignore the FACT that a large proportion of Indian violence in Australia is perpetrated by Indians. It is polite enough to ignore the FACT that 32000 Indians are killed by Indians every year, and another 8000 Indian wives are killed for primarily financial reasons, by their loving families and countrymen. I repeat my earlier point, why are we treating Outlook as an RS when it contains distortions (such as the curry bashing quote (hey great idea why not read the magazine?) and is at best misleading as identified by the SMH? Surely if a source includes obvious distortions some of which are noted by an RS then that is a valid critique of the source, and should be used to qualify any commentary derived from that source? Greglocock (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Greglocock if you want to discuss crime in India create an article on it or add it to another article. Facts about 32000 Indians killing each other have nothing to do with what is going on in Australia. Furthermore your statement on Indian violence makes no sense. Indian Violence can mean violence perpetrated by Indians or violence over the subject Indian in each instance most if not all of the violence would be committed by Indians . You comments are better suited to the Indophobia article. Its ridiculous that attacks on Indians are supposed to be balanced by negative views of Indians. On that account an attack on an Australian abroad should be balanced with everything that's wrong with Australia 89.242.211.168 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making is that a magazine article that conspicuously fails to mention the violence of Indian culture when discussing violence against Indians is not inherently a very good source. However as you'll notice I have changed my mind, as indictaed below, and think this piece of rabble rousing is actually a good example of Indian media hysteria and hypicrisy. Why would I write an article about India? I don't have any interest in the place. My reaction is not Indiophobia, it is India-don't-give-a-monkeys. Greglocock (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If we include one external publication, quote from it, etc, it is absolutely, positively, normal (and good) practice, to also include reference to another acticle that points out deficiencies in the first. State what that criticism is, and include reference to the article. This is a normal thing that would be easily visible in dozens of WP articles. As the word controversy in the article title implies, a crucial aspect of what this article is about, is press reactions and reporting, claims that the press are being inflammatory, blowing things out of proportion, claims Australia is in "denial", etc. So in this sort of article, comments about the deficiencies of another press report are absolutely appropriate and relevant. For a balanced NPOV article, it becomes crucial that comments like the SMH one are included. Just because an editor hasn't read the Outlook article (even though it is readily accessible on the web) that is no reason to delete fully referenced and verifiable evaluations of that article. Format (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Format,I think there's a bit of confusion about what I'm saying, which suggests I've been saying it badly. First, generally there's nothing wrong with mentioning what an article says about another article. The only issue is that we need to word it carefully. If I haven't read article A, but I have read article B which discusses it, then I can't say "Article A says ..." - I can only say "According to article B, article A says ..." That doesn't mean we can't make the claim - just that we need to be clear where the claim comes from. The original wording added by Greglocock didn't make this distinction.

But the real issue is much simpler. The SMH article, mentions as an aside, that the Outlook article fails to cover how three Indian nationals were arrested. That's interesting, but its just an aside, one sentence in a long article, so it would need to be an important aside to be worth covering. In this case it isn't. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is because it demonstrates that an RS recognises that the Outlook article has an agenda, and if you actually bother to read the outlook articles, are typical hysterical Indian media rants. As a compromise i suggest rewording my original sentence and putting it back in. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no - the articles have some balance in them. They're definitely presented from the Indian perspective, arguably with a clear agenda, but "hysterical Indian rant" is a tad much. And the main issue still stands: it is a minor, unnecessary point, that barely relates to the Outlook coverage, and says more of the Australian media's desire to find fault in the Outlook article. Indeed, while Outlook failed to mention that three Indian nationals have been arrested, it equally made no mention of the entire Ranjodh Singh case, so one can hardly fault them for not adding that detail. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That article is not much better than the Pakistani papers who say any old thing is a false flag terriorst attack by Mossad or RAW. Still, the quoting of Jim Salaem is pretty amusing, I doubt he would have got 0.05% of the vote in Australia, and One Nation is irrelevant too, < 1%. As for Ranjodh Singh, now that it is thought that other Indians killed him, obviously it isn't consistent with their objective to include crimes by Indians YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deindent - ok I've rebooted as well. The Outlook article is not an RS about the attacks, it is however a good example of the media hysteria. Therefore it should be included in this article. A discussion of the Outlook article by an RS is, to my mind, the raison d'etre of this wiki article. It is ALL about perception. The reality is that Indians are being murdered at the usual rate in Australia (~6 per year for the past 5 years), and that they are much safer here than in India, and that a reasonable proportion of these murders are performed by Indian nationals. But that is not what this article is about. It is about the controversy, not the crimes. Greglocock (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Guess it makes it o.k to attack Indians if its usual.

89.242.211.168 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Since 2004 the article says 33 Indians have been murdered (I'm using murders here as a proxy for all violent crimes because they all get reported). That means on average 6 Indians are murdered each year in Australia. Last year I think 6 Indians were murdered in Australia. Therefore the rate is not increasing, at least from that admittedly statistically unreliable snapshot. The relative safety of Indians in Australia vs in India is best illustrated by the the rate of Dowry murders, 0 vs 8000. Do you have any reliable statistics that says otherwise? Greglocock (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Annual murder rate per million: Indians in India =34, All Australians in Oz=11, Indians in Oz=25. The official explanation for the higher rate for Indians in oz compared with all Australians is that they are much more likely to be young and male, and about half of all violent crime involves young males. Unofficially I would point out that if you eliminate Indian murders by Indians in Oz then suddenly the difference gets much smaller. So it is pretty damn simple, Indians murder each other wherever they are. Please do something about it if you care. Greglocock (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New Incidents section

I'm concerned that the inclusion of three new incidents, all from 2010, skews the article too far in one direction. As the list of incidents was removed earlier, we now have a problem where the only incidents mentioned in detail are the three which have been shown to be non-racial in nature (two by Indian nationals, one as insurance fraud), one of which, the two recent killings, has not been connected to the overall controversy (possibly because the identity of the attacker was found so soon). The other two attacks were related to the general controversy, but it seems to me we either cover all significant attacks connected with the controversy equally (or at least according to due weight), or we leave the coverage general and don't provide coverage of specific cases unless there is a particularly important reason for doing so. Either way, I'm not comfortable with the current version. - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Background section, immediately above the abovementioned section listing the 2010 incidents, also lists a few 2008 attacks on Indians. I am not sure why they remained when the other incident were all removed? The scope of this article seems to be creeping. The smattering of attacks that are listed seems skewed. Format (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the background section may need rewriting, and it probably needs to be updated to have some coverage of 2009 and 2010 attacks. Generally, I figured the article was about the controversy, rather than the attacks, but as such some coverage of the attacks is going to be required in order to provide sufficient context. How much is, I suppose, the difficult question. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all the information should be restored and expanded upon. The introduction in particular needs to reflect the fact that many of the racist-attack-theories have been rather strongly discredited. This article's scope is not to discuss perceptions of racism in general, but these incidents in particular. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the controversy, not the attacks. The rather limp wristed approach taken in the Australian black-armband media, accompanied by a dearth of good statistics, and the spinelessness of the politicians, all add up to a situation where the Australians are being rolled by a hysterical Indian media who are blithely ignoring the rather more significant problem that Indians just love topping Indians. I think the 2010 stuff is unduly emphasised now, and would have thought a terse note that runs along the lines of "In 2010 66% of murders of Indian students in Australia were committed by Indians" would be enough. Of course adding numbers up and dividing them is probably WP:OR, and to be fair I think predicting a trend on the basis of three events is daft. Greglocock (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is about the incidents, so they need to be touched on too. This is several highly relevant and well-referenced sentences, not an article's worth of long winded minutiae, there is no reason it oughtn't be included. Two of the three incidents previously included took place in 2009, and were quite central to the controversy, the third has now been removed. I have restored the intro, cutting it back a little. What's the problem with the quote? —what a crazy random happenstance 08:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There continues to be a weight problem with only including those two incidents in the lead - they are relevant now, but not particularly important in the controversy as a whole, and selecting those two for the lead definitely skews it in one direction, especially given that many attacks did seem to have a racial dimension. This is a different issue about including them in the body, of course. You've fixed the problem with the quote, though: in the earlier version it wasn't clear that the quote only referred to two cases, rather than the problem as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but rather than removing the information about fraudulent attacks, perhaps information about real attacks should be added to balance it? —what a crazy random happenstance 08:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidents - Jaspreet Singh and Ranjodh Singh - why are those two in particular included? I repeat, this article is about the controversy, not the facts. Greglocock (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've lost you entirely. How does an encyclopaedia cover anything, but through facts? Would you prefer the entire contents of this article be replaced with just two sentences summarising each side's position with fifty sources each? I think the good people enforcing WP:SYN would have a problem with that. The actual incidents themselves, and the falsification/misrepresentation of some of them are a major part of the controversy. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The attacks and murders are not the FOCUS of this argument, the controversy is. All I'm asking for is your rationale for including those two incidents alone in the main article. Greglocock (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaspreet and Rajodh should be discussed, because they are examples of dishonest and hysterical reporting and soapboxing by the media and Gautam Gupta YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

another possible explantion

has any one looked into the possiblity that islamic extreemists espesaly pakistanis might be involved in some of these attacks espesaly the killings. this vary article states that suvivors of these attacks have reported that some of the attackers were middle eastern or asians. pakistanis might be placed in both catagories by difrent people. this expanation needs to be investagated.