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)

Rename to: 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

As not only students, Indian taxi drivers were also attacked [1]. --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.[2] 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.[3] 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)

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)

Hi- can we include the new statistic of Indian nationals committing crime in Australia. Over 12 months there were 256 Indian nationals charged with assault in Australia with 86 of those offences for rape or sexual assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.83.156 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish

I'm sorry, but this sort of hysterical rubbish being added as a verified source is really upsetting. [4] 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[5][6][7]), 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".[8] 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 [9] 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. [10] [11]

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.[12]

• 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. [13]

• On Sunday 25 October, 22 year old Indian from Yarraville was attacked at a bus stop next to Epping railway station, Melbourne. [14]

• On December 9, a 28 year old Indian was stabbed outside his girlfriend's house in Brunswick West, Melbourne, [15][16]

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 [17] 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: [18] - 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)

I think those events should be included if in India they were indeed significantly reported as australians attacking indians - and later shown to be Indians attacking or in one case, fraud related. Indeed, this article should not just cover the actual Australian's attacking indians, but the full context - of which Indian media coverage and reactions are important. --Merbabu (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem is not whether or not they should be covered, but whether or not they should be covered almost exclusively, and whether or not they should be the only incidents mentioned in the lead. Personally, I'd prefer not to mention any incidents in the lead, and either replace the list of attacks against Indians which was removed, preferably in a better format, or not have any incidents mentioned at all. Highlighting only incidents in which Indian nationals were shown to be responsible isn't the best way of providing NPOV. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

YEah - i'm not sure it needs to be in the lead, nor am I sure that they should be the only incidents reported here (I haven't read the article for a while and it seems to have changed significantly). I'm just saying they should be here.--Merbabu (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably there is no controversy about Indians being killed by non Indians in Australia, since they are outnumbered 80:1 this should be the normal case. The controversy is that the Indian media is blaming non-Indian Australians for killing Indians when the majority of murders of Indians in Australia are performed by Indians. The refusal of the hysterical Indian , and spineless Australian, media to recognise this is the true controversy. Greglocock (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The fallacious nature of the attacks has become a major part of the controversy over the incidents - it is definitely worth including in the lead. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the initial focus was on assaults of Indians. The hysteria was just feuled by the murders. But I definately think the murders should be included because of the media attention they garnered. The Indian media attention seems to have petered out a little now, and they have the upcoming media junket for Indian journos so I doubt there will be more in the near future.Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:18, 23 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.111.178 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an investigative service, and this talk page exists solely to facilitate improvements to and discussion of the article itself, not for us to theorise about the actual incidents and what may or may not have transpired. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)