Jump to content

Talk:Australia–India relations

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

Uramium Sale

[edit]

I would like to raise a consensus on whether the refusal to sell Uranium to India by Australian government has been detrimental to Indo-Australian Relations or not.

From the Indian side as far as I know, the government of India did not like this move by Australia. ankit 05:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Curry Bashing

[edit]

I think that it is a stupid thing to 'Curry Bash.'

The most contentious issue here is the issue of Curry Bashings in Australia.

Is there a consensus here that we should move the entire section to the mentioned "2009 Attacks on Indian students in australia" page and just write a line about it here or mention a paragraph about it here. ankit 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Current State of Affairs

[edit]

Also a consensus is needed as to whether there has been increasing disharmony between the two countries since Dr Hanif case or not.

Again as far as I know from India's side, all major polls show a demand to apply travel ban on Australia. ankit 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the above that you bear some animosity toward Australia and/or Australians. Phrases like "deeply racist" breach Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Using your own experience as a source is against Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The continued overemphasis on recent events goes against WP:RECENT. Look, if you want to write about how bad a place Australia is, find a blog and do it there to your hearts content. Until then, here on Wikipedia try and follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore this guy. This kind of behaviour is quite common among editors from Asia, given the extreme nationalism that is prevalent everywhere. Admins do similar edits and some are total POV pushers, although on Wikipedia as long as you are polite and don't pee off anyone's ego there's a good chance of living, unless the natural opposition race is strong. Nevertheless it's good when POV pushers get angry because kowtowing is the only thing that a lot of admins (outside Australia) care about. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are providing no consensus here. The two of us are not consensus. Please give this article a week for some inputs. My own experience have nothing to do with this page. Let other people tell us about the state of two countries' affairs. Stop acting as Australian Prime Minister Mattinbgn ankit 05:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And please stop trying to "teach me something" or trying to show me "the mirror" and get some education and modesty yourself before you become a bigot as well. ankit 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations

[edit]

All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles: 

   * The noun form of the countries is to be used. ("Philippines", "United States" and not "Filipino", "American")
   * Country names are to be placed in alphabetical order.

All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should roughly have met any of these criteria in order to meet notability for the bilateral relational articles. 

  1. They have been engaged in a war.
  2. They engage in significant trade.
  3. They have been/are in an alliance.
  4. They share a border.
  5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
  6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.

Elements: 

   * resident representatives
   * state visits
   * nationals of the other country
   * treaties
   * common memberships in multilateral organizations

Topics to cover: 

   * date of recognition
   * diplomatic and consular representations and representatives (embassies, consulates)
   * cultural and scientific cooperation
   * non-governmental actors
   * trade volumes
   * state visits
   * bilateral agreements and treaties
   * nationals resident in the other country, migration between the two countries

Sources 

   * directories of representations
   * trade, population statistics
   * studies on immigration/emigration
   * news reports on state visits
   * corpus of treaties  -- ankit 17:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Page Protected

[edit]

I've protected this page to stop an incipient content dispute. This is not an endorsement of the current revision. If you want to make changes to this page please use the {{Editprotected}} template. If the dispute has died down or parties to the dispute have come to agreement, you may request that the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP or ask me to unprotect it on my talk page. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn's Vandalism

[edit]

Mattinbgn has overstepped his duties as an Administrator to fully restrict this page. This is blatant POV pushing and I am definite that he is being paid by some department or guy or a group to do this. Why other administrators don't act against him? Yellowmonkey's edits were useful. I would like someone to stop mattinbgn from vandalising this according to his wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk I am glad you protected the page, but how do you know he was editing in good faith? Using bigotic statements, pushing his POV? I urge administrators to investigate further, to find out what good faith he was using. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitsingh83 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In good faith" is kind of a wikipedia-specific term. It means that an editor is contributing with the intent of improving the encyclopedia. It 'doesn't mean that everyone may like their contributions or that their contributions may be positive. If someone has a POV and doesn't recognize it, their contributions can still be in good faith. If someone is disrupting wikipedia unintentionally, their contributions may still be in good faith. Only when it is clear that their contributions are made with the intent to impact wikipedia negatively (see the examples in my link to WP:Vandalism) can we say that their contributions are bad faith. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I'll list below some of the online sources that can be used to improve the article. Ideally we should look at books, analytical reports and review articles instead of relying on news-of-the-day. Please help add to the list and also in adding material from these sources to the article. Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're stuffed as far as newspapers go. They are only there to sensationalise and sell junk. I mean all these newspapers are harping on about ethics and look at their own articles and deliberate attempts to incite ill-feeling for their own financial gain. And then they harp on about exploitative businessmen, sportspeople who bend/break the rules etc YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether the problem lies with newspapers per se, or editors who mis- and overuse them as sources. Either ways, this article needs an overhaul to reflect all aspects of Indo-Aussie relationship instead of focusing on the latest brouhaha. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary comments removed; please see WP:NOTFORUM. EyeSerenetalk 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socks of Ankitsingh said Nishkid YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

[edit]

Expanded from existing articles in an attempt to dilute recentism, although the bilateral history will probably need its own article. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, are their any sporting interactions between Australia and India besides cricket ? Can't think of any, but ... Abecedare (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found one: Leander Paes has won a couple of doubles titles partnering with Australians Wayne Arthurs (tennis) and Paul Hanley (tennis), and reached the Austrlian Open doubles final twice, but that is still a stretch. Abecedare (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey and cricket are the only sports with a major overlap. Soccer, nope, other stuff that Australia is good at: cycling, swimming, rugby, Australian football, tennis in the old days, none interest Indians. As for Paes etc, those only affect two people and isn't related to any national organsiing bodies and the public doesn't care much about doubles, generally....The only tennis overlap recently was Australia forfeiting their Davis Cup tie against India, citing terrorism fears. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect reference citations

[edit]

As of today's date reference numbers 22 and 23 are incorrectly formatted and now appear tagged as "no text was provided for refs named". Is anyone out there aware what reference these unnamed citations are linked to? Please add if you do as that will adjust the references correctly.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. –Moondyne 13:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Best wishes.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 14:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australia–India relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit by User:2404:e800:e61e:452:89e8:e49d:fe8b:6391

[edit]

@Verbcatcher:

I have many issues with the recent insertion that was touting the so-called Indian-Australian alliance.

First, I want to be clear that I am not disputing clear facts such as the AUstralian politicians' yearn to sell out Australia (sort of like they tried to do with the 1976 Loans Affair, but that's for another day), however I do take issue with the WP:POV being pushed by User:2404:e800:e61e:452:89e8:e49d:fe8b:6391 that claims the relations between the East India Company and the Hindu people was something longstanding, as if the British Empire were fond of them.

  • This cannot be any further from the reality. It is quite clear, if you want to start with the work of James Mill, who was forced to take the Hindu people seriously and wrote a comprehensive and beautiful book The History of British India, that some of the largest issues arising with managing India was, in fact, the Hindu people's rude mannerisms and arguably-pathological lying.

I am not here to throw stones, but I would like to see some of these sources revised and a more neutral tone taken. The edit, was it was, was trying to paint a rosy picture that suggested the British loved the Hindus, and that this "love affair" (in the editor's WP:POV) has lead to massive numbers coming for school. This is just flat out untrue.

Please make the necessary changes.

Thanks.

You are still not being clear. The substantive additions that you reverted appear to be:
  1. the first British colonies set up in Australia were governed from Kolkatta, then capital of India
Just skimming the article I linked above, it is clear there were real challenges in settling the land. Obviously whatever came down from Kolkata (if anything did, as it's incumbent on the editor to conclusively prove this) could only come so fast, from such a distance, and much had to be done in the meanwhile.
Thus, not only is the mention of Kolkata irrelevant, but your combativeness over my reversion suggests that this was even more irrelevant than I originally thought it was at the beginning of this message.
  • In closing, on this point, what I am trying to get at is: Today's India is radically different from the past. India is a sore spot and to suggest at the time any realtime governance was at-all possible while mired in chronic perjurers, is hard to believe.
  1. Australia and India have signed nuclear supplies and cooperation, and army and collaborations including joint the regular naval exercise called AUSINDEX.
Great, you can leave that part in.
  1. India and Australia have established a $100 million Strategic Research Fund.
That's part of point 2, so 2 & 3 are one and I can't really dispute what the Australian politicians are trying to do.
  1. Whereas for Indians, Australia is the second most popular destinations for the Indian students, with nearly 60,000 Indians on student visa in Australia in 2017.
I mean, now they are. How is this reflective of anything though, is this relevant to the ties that the author originally tries to paint ("ancient India, managed by the Mighty British Empire, now was the command station to manage Australia (PLEASE!)")? I don't think they are, but whatever if you want to keep that, FINE.[2]
  1. In 2017, the India-Australia bilateral trade was worth $20 Billion and the Strategic Research Fund was worth $100 million.
Two figures here, 20 Billion and 100 million
#20 Billion. As I stated in my comment of the original reversion, The article that is a source for this is an Opinion article that is subscription-only. I would like to see other sources for this, if possible. I deliberately did not google it, as I am trying to evaluate what was given.
#100 million. This is the same number in 3, and is related to 2. Thus points 2 3 4 are one. I would really like to see this fact/"deal" consolidated.
All of these are neutral in tone. Several references and images were also added. Have I missed something?
I am really not that concerned (at this time) about those in contrast to point 1.
They are not neutral! See above! PLUS, the link he uses for the 20 billion

Can we fix some of my concerns? I do not think the Kolkata command station theme is cool. We're Commonwealth Realms for a reason. Bloody struggle to settle them, and once we got that down, opportunists are coming and exploiting us while we should be focusing on continuing to improve!

I did not make the IP edits. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ To all of my australian lads, I am profusely sorry for mentioning this. I do not seek to disparage your history; none of the Colonies have a rosy history. I'd rather become a great island started from Anglo convicts than one who was allegedly managed from one of the British Empire's biggest mistake (in some ways. coming from me I know that's strong, but this edit embodies the strain they induce on one's mind)
  2. ^ This will change in the near future, I promise!


Note, the previous edit has become somewhat garbled due to edits to my text. See here for my last contribution.

Your objections appear to be:

1. the first British colonies set up in Australia were governed from Kolkatta, then capital of India

You labelled this as "WP:OR without WP:RS" and also make various comments as to its relevance.
If the British colonies in Australia were ever administered from India then this is obviously relevant to the history of Australia–India relations. It is presumably referring to the 18th century, when it would be understandable because of the geography and slow communications. You later comments about a "Kolkata command station" are strange, why would it be worse for Australia to be ruled by a British minister based in Calcutta than one based in London? However, this is not mentioned in History of Australia (1788–1850) and is unsourced and I agree that it should be removed.

3. Whereas for Indians, Australia is the second most popular destinations for the Indian students, with nearly 60,000 Indians on student visa in Australia in 2017.

You wrote: I mean, now they are. How is this reflective of anything though, is this relevant to the ties that the author originally tries to paint ("ancient India, managed by the Mighty British Empire, now was the command station to manage Australia (PLEASE!)")? I don't think they are, but whatever if you want to keep that, FINE.< This will change in the near future, I promise! >
The large number of Indian students in Australia is clearly relevant for an article on Australia–India relations. Your comment "This will change in the near future, I promise!" suggests that you have an anti-Indian agenda.
No, I do not have an anti-Indian agenda. What I do have is a pragmatic perspective of how immigration should be used, and how it is currently being used. A responsible, custodial use of immigration would not have such large numbers coming in.
My father originally came to a realm as a student, but little did he know that his education was not the primary reason he was allowed in the country[1]

4. In 2017, the India-Australia bilateral trade was worth $20 Billion and the Strategic Research Fund was worth $100 million.

You object to the cited source being subscription-only. There is no ban on citing such sources, although this should be tagged {{subscription required}}. You also object to this being an opinion article. I have not seen the article, but it is attributed to Malcolm Turnbull, the Australia Prime Minister. I don't know whether you agree with his politics, but he should be an acceptable source for issues of fact. The article was published in The Australian, a major newspaper that we can rely on to fact-check Turnbull's article.
The issue I have with that article is that there is no verbatim quote. We need the verbatim quote to be certain. Further, if you google this alleged 20 billion dollar deal between India and Australia, all I can find is mentions of France reaching 20 billion euros in arms sales
CS Monitor [rightlog.in/2017/04/usa-australia-india-education/Indian Blogger] Indian Express
  • I guess what I'm saying is, aside from Turnbull and CS Monitor, I don't see any hard facts or white papers that provide some raw breakdown.
For example, between America and Canada, even though most Commonwealth Realms people are stupid and think Canada is ghetto, we can at least see how much raw crude is going across the border.
That is, even if we do not put a number on its worth (the stock market ticker valuation for these large-volume deals is pointless), People can see that the United States imports over 33% of its AIWYL (oil) from Canada
I would like to see something like this in the context of the Australia/India trade deal so that, even if there is not a number, I can at least "see" how that 20 billion dollars in free trade is accrued.
@Verbcatcher: Heya again buddy, I found the official figures here. I would be more comfortable if you were to use this as a source over Turnbull.
It states 14,380m AUD. If you want to round that up to 15, even though I believe you should round down to 14 (decimals are ugly for presentation), I would be okay with that.

In my view, your only objections that stand up are the administration of early Australian colonies from Calcutta and the subscription required tagging of Turnbull's article.

You have now made another mass-revert, this time of 18 edits, including ten of mine for which you have not expressed any objections. This is rude and lazy. Your edit summary was:

  • Large edits such as the one that took place must be discussed prior to insertion. I never suggested you made the edits, but seeing as you're already deflecting from that without any insinuation on my behalf, I am now suspicious.

This laughable. the only large edits that have been made are your two reversions.

I admitted that I reverted more than I needed to in order to establish a few key points, no need to be so touchy about that fact.

I will revert you mass-revert and then resolve the two issues I have described. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After procuring this official Austrlian government link that states trade was at 14,380m AUD, I feel much better about it. Thanks again Verbcatcher. One of the more memorable exchanges I've had on here in some time (positive).

References

  1. ^ And given money, 1200CAD at UVic as a TA in the mid-seventies, iirc. he didn't think much of it, because he's programmed that way, but little did he know it was a big thing.

I have found a good source that says "$19.4 billion in 2015-16". It appears that India buys Australia gold for wedding gifts (also coal etc.) and Australia buys the services of Indian call centres (also software development etc.) Verbcatcher (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia–India_relations&oldid=1205506333"