Talk:Australians

the one million Australians outside Australia

it was the estimate in 2006. if anyone has more recent data please mention it.Grmike (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)grmike http://www.advance.org/en/rel/4 says that one million Australians were not counted in the national census. adding that to the population of Australia for the total population seems okay to do. for example people of Canada includes all expats in the total population.Grmike (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)grmike

Australian Diaspora section is just a brutal and ugly copy and paste of the source article

Back on 10 April 2010 an IP editor copied and pasted virtually the entire text of the Australian Diaspora article into this one, including the tag links and table of contents. It's a mess. Given that there is a reference to the Diaspora article, this one should really contain just a brief summary.

SImilar but less extreme messes exist in the next two sections, Demographics and Indigenous population.

Anyone want the job of cleaning it up? HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've substantially cleaned this article up. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage

Does anyone agree that the collage in the infobox doesn't really reflect the cultural diversity of Australia's people? Almost every person in it is of European (specifically anglo-celtic) descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.105.178 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there are so many notable Australians of non-Anglo background: Quong Tart, Victor Chang, John So, Billy Sing (Gallipoli War Hero), Cathy Freeman, [Waleed Aly]], etc.

If anything make sure the representation is proportional at least, so Asian Australians who make up 8% of the population should at least have one or two pictures in the collage!124.181.90.40 (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cornish

The Cornish were amongst the first settlers in Australia and have been very influential in Cultural terms. I don't quite know what you have against them being included.Bodrugan (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 seems to think that the Cornish are English. Despite her/his decision not to discuss on this talk page I would advise him/her to read a little bit before she/he makes such comments.

Try "The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins" (it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yTKFBXfCI1QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+australian+people+an+encyclopedia+of+the+nation+its+people+and+their+origins+ethnic+origins&hl=en&ei=D8UQTZHFNMWXhQfUgcG4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or if your interested in things outside of Australia:

The "Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups" (again it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=npQ6Hd3G4kgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=harvard+encyclopedia+of+american+ethnic+groups&source=bl&ots=wdwRHi5sqo&sig=GITywqExKJQ2JuOQIEgYVCbjz0M&hl=en&ei=g8YQTfHnPIiahQf82JG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

The "Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples" (and again it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dbUuX0mnvQMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Canada%27s+peoples&hl=en&ei=QMcQTZuAG8WwhAfC3IS3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or else you can take a look at the Cornish people article. Bodrugan (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that section fo the article is meant to be telling us what countries people came from, not their racial or cultural backgrounds within or beyond that categorisation. The other entries in that list are "English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish". None of what is cited above contradicts my view that the people from Cornwall were English at the time they came here. To say English AND Cornish is a duplication. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the word English in the section links to the English people article. It could be changed to read "beginning with the early British, and Irish settlers." which would better represent what you are trying to say.

During the 19th and 20th Centuries it has been common practice, though uncommon now, to label the whole of Britain, including Scotland and Wales, as England. Do we take therefore that the Scottish and Welsh who emigrated at that time were also English?

Another thing to point out is that Wales until very recently was indistinguishable from England within the United Kingdom. So using your own logic the Welsh would also be a duplication of the English. Bodrugan (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

All those issues you mention could be discussed as interesting matters, but have nothing to do with my point that "English" includes "Cornish". HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I see here is that HiLo48 has yet to provide any evidence at all, apart from his own point of view, that the Cornish are considered English at all, let alone in mainstream academics.Bodrugan (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But you would also have to remove Welsh as that would also be included under English.Bodrugan (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

anyway, the section in question is about the cultural impact of those people, which has noting to do with some modern political boundaries. Therefore it makes much more sense for it to mean the ethnic/cultural groups.Bodrugan (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose a total rewrite here for that part of the article if you like, but I simply say again, English includes Cornish. Cornish is redundant. That's the plain and obvious logic behind my intention to now remove Cornish from the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

But the Cornish are not English, especially so in cultural terms, and the section we are talking about is about culture. Bodrugan (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many groups within and from the United Kingdom/British Isles who identify with a different cultural background from that which has given their "country" its name. Yorkshire springs to mind as an obvious example. To just isolate the Cornish would be be inappropriate. As I suggested above, feel free to propose, here on the Talk page, an alternative wording that takes into account all claims of separate cultural identity.

I would also suggest that we both wait and see if others have views on this matter. I'm surprised nobody else has chimed in yet. This must be a less commonly looked at article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(ADDENDUM: Sorry. Didn't realise you had effectively just initiated that process. Didn't know that feature existed. Thanks for the education.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that show that anyone, other than the English, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish, within the United Kingdom/British Isles claim to be an ethnic/national group? Bodrugan (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, can you provide any evidence that the Cornish are not English? And/or that it is normal practice in a significant number of mainstream accounts to list them as separate groups? Whether you - or I - personally like that classification or political/ethnic reality is neither here nor there. Fine, say "English, including the Cornish", where that point is significant - as it often may be - but it's just odd to do it any other way. Looking at your contributions and userpage, you seem to be on a mission. Please take it elsewhere. N-HH talk/edits 00:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am only updating Wikipedia where I see something missing. I happen to have been reading a number of books on this subject recently. "The Cornish people... are a distinctive people, if a small one-as distinctive as the Scots or Welsh or Irish." A.L. Rowse, The Cornish in America, 1969. "Other Celtic traditions have survived, including a certain ethnic conciousness which insists that the Cornish are not English." in the above mentioned The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins.

I could quote more if you want. Bodrugan (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"James Jupp, doyen of Australian immigration and multicultural studies, agreed: the Cornish were 'different'. He did not, therefore, include them in his history of The English in Australia (2004), explaining to his readers that:

...Cornish emigration to Australia was at its height between 1840 and 1880 when Cornwall was exceptionally homogeneous and culturally distinct. While Cornish Australians were often imperial patriots (as were many Scots and protestant Irish) they deserve to be treated as a distinct ethnicity at least within the Australian context."

"By the 1850s, he said, 'at least half of the population [of Australia] were Irish Catholics, Scottish Presbyterians or Cornish Methodists', and 'Methodist support in South Australia and Broken Hill was mainly Cornish'. South Australian immigrants generally, he observed, were 'drawn largely from England and Cornwall'." quotations from Philip Payton's, Making Moonta: The Invention of Australia's Little Cornwall.

Celeste Lipow MacLeod in Multiethnic Australia (2006) says, "immigrants from rural areas of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall had little in common with the English'. Bodrugan (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for educating me about this view of history. The problem that you have here is that it is, effectively, a fringe one. To have both English and Cornish in a list of peoples just stands out as a radical view. However right you may be about your view, it isn't going to be accepted in an article like this at this stage. Maybe some time in the future when Cornwall has its own parliament like Scotland. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, too, if you can find a way to define the categories? To you, what is English? Everything within the political area of England (see the trouble we're striking here?) that is not Cornish? HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Why not, instead of either including or not including "Cornish people", write something like this: "...migrants beginning with the early Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and English (including Cornish) settlers."? That ought to include the Cornish people without giving undue weight to a people group that is ceremonially & bureaucratically part of England. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)—Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see little practical difference between that and the original form Bodrugan wanted. It still highlights Cornish as being something special wrt English. Maybe it is, but as a fairly well read Australian I hadn't heard of the Cornish nationalist activities until reading this Talk page. So, I and a lot of people like me would be somewaht puzzled by that emphasis on Cornish. Now, I'm not saying that the Cornish people don't have a right to argue their case for recognition. It looks they they do have one. But to most readers of this article English is going to mean people from England, and, to them, that obviously includes Cornwall. It just somehow needs more explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, "migrants beginning with the early Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and English, many of whom came from Cornwall." The books imply that Cornwall contributed a much larger percentage of people than the other English counties did. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I see here is that HiLo48 has yet to provide any evidence at all, apart from his own point of view, that the Cornish are considered English at all, let alone in mainstream academics.Bodrugan (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you google "Cornish English" the first page with any relevance(after loads of Cornish-English dictionaries) is this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/cornish_nation_01.shtml Bodrugan (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nobody has to "prove" that the Cornish are considered English, or that if you are from Cornwall you are also by definition from England. This is getting trollish now. And, although it seems to have escaped your notice, the very link you've posted makes exactly that point - it assumes/asserts that pretty explicitly and definitively, before discussing the ways in which, historically, that was not always the case and the fact that some in Cornwall today wish it were not the case. As for the proposals above, I wouldn't object, as noted previously, to something along those lines, although it seems to me to be something better covered/noted in the body. N-HH talk/edits 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

So despite leading Australian specialists, in the field that we are talking about, stating that the Cornish are not English, your personal views override this. I agree with you that somebody is being trollish, you have made your views on the Cornish clear before. The experts say that the Cornish, at the time of immigration to Australia, were as distinct a group as the Welsh, Scottish, English etc. Wales wasn't even officially a country within the UK during that period, so according to your logic the Welsh are also English.Bodrugan (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not an article about Cornish nationalism. And our goal here is to make a good article about Australians. I will just repeat a point I made earlier - "to most readers of this article English is going to mean people from England, and, to (almost all of) them, that obviously includes Cornwall." While Cornish nationalism may be a commendable goal, this article is not the place to bring that fight. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. And, in response to the previous comment, this is not about my "personal views", or anyone else's. No one, least of all me, disputes the distinctiveness in certain respects of the Cornish and Cornish culture and history, or that reputable and authoritative sources acknowledge that, or might even on occasion posit a clear separation between Cornish and English. However, as noted, in both general usage and in academia, people from Cornwall are unsurprisingly counted as people from England (just as it is generally asserted that the Earth revolves around the Sun, without people haggling over that). And, as also noted, this is an article about Australians. N-HH talk/edits 13:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Here’s a recap and some new references:

"The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins" (it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!): "Other Celtic traditions have survived, including a certain ethnic conciousness which insists that the Cornish are not English." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yTKFBXfCI1QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+australian+people+an+encyclopedia+of+the+nation+its+people+and+their+origins+ethnic+origins&hl=en&ei=D8UQTZHFNMWXhQfUgcG4Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

"James Jupp, doyen of Australian immigration and multicultural studies, agreed: the Cornish were 'different'. He did not, therefore, include them in his history of The English in Australia (2004), explaining to his readers that: ...Cornish emigration to Australia was at its height between 1840 and 1880 when Cornwall was exceptionally homogeneous and culturally distinct. While Cornish Australians were often imperial patriots (as were many Scots and protestant Irish) they deserve to be treated as a distinct ethnicity at least within the Australian context."

"By the 1850s, he said, 'at least half of the population [of Australia] were Irish Catholics, Scottish Presbyterians or Cornish Methodists', and 'Methodist support in South Australia and Broken Hill was mainly Cornish'. South Australian immigrants generally, he observed, were 'drawn largely from England and Cornwall'." quotations from Philip Payton's, Making Moonta: The Invention of Australia's Little Cornwall.

"immigrants from rural areas of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall had little in common with the English'. Multiethnic Australia, Celeste Lipow MacLeod, 2006

"All of the Australian colonies were established by the British, and thus most colonists were British, encompassing a mix of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh and Cornish migrants in different proportions at", An Archaeology of Australia Since 1788, Susan Lawrence, Peter Davies

” 45% English, 15% Irish and under 10% Scottish, with smaller proportions of Welsh and Cornish” Global Values Education: Teaching Democracy and Peace, Joseph Zajda, Holger Daun , 2009

” In the case of the British, they would have further differentiated themselves into regional groups such as the English, Irish, Welsh, Cornish and Scottish.” Aboriginal plant collectors: botanists and Australian aboriginal people in the nineteenth century Philip A. Clarke, 2008

”Moreover, at the time of Australia's founding, there was no "British identity," as such, in Britain (Kumar 2003; McGregor 2006). This identity could only be forged where English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish, among other settlers and their descendants...” Political theory and Australian multiculturalism, Geoffrey Brahm Levey, 2008

”... displays on the town's Cornish, Welsh, Irish and German pioneers.” Australia, Justine Vaisutis, 2007

”... such as the Dutch, English, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish, Americans, Prussians and French.” Aboriginal people and their plants, Philip A. Clarke, 2007

”... thought that she had insulted not only the Irish, 'but also the Welsh, Scotch, Cornish, and British,” Daisy Bates: grand dame of the desert, Bob Reece, 2007

”Celebration of Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Cornish heritage with theatre, music, crafts, sports and food.” Australia, Insight Guides, Jeffrey Pike, Brian Bell, 2005

”Historians such as Patrick O'Farrell - in The Irish in Australia - have shown that the Irish were at least as distinctive and as important as the Cornish, Welsh and Scots in the growth of New World” The Cornish overseas: a history of Cornwall's 'great emigration', Philip Payton, 2005

”This mining interpretation centre has displays on the Cornish, Welsh, Irish and German pioneers...” Lonely Planet Australia, Susie Ashworth, Carolyn Bain, Paul Smitz, 2004

“Most English were Anglicans, Scots were Presbyterians, the great majority of Irish were Roman Catholic, and the Cornish and Welsh were Methodists." Australia, Terry G. Jordan-Bychkov, 2004

”The Australian Irish, though poor in comparison with their Celtic counterparts, the Welsh, Scots and Cornish,” The liberator's birthday, Jill Blee, 2002

” The term 'European colonists' when used in relation to Australia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries refers to people who would have generally considered themselves to be English, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, Prussian...” Where the ancestors walked: Australia as an Aboriginal landscape, Philip A. Clarke, 2003

”Nevertheless, Celtic emigrants formed a very substantial minority (almost half) of the Australian population during this period. The Scots, Irish, Welsh (and not forgetting the Cornish) displayed some regional concentration and language...” The politics of ethnicity in settler societies, David Pearson, 2001

”It is a unification of diverse narratives between the Cornish, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Manx and Bretons.” Tracking the Jack: a retracing of the Antipodes, Tara Brabazon, 2000

” but the Cornish, Scots, Irish and (to a lesser degree) Welsh are writ large upon Australian life.” New directions in Celtic studies, Amy Hale, Philip Payton, 2000

” from the Anglo-Saxon (English) population of Britain and the Celtic (Irish, Scottish, Cornish, Welsh and Manx,” The imaginary Australian: Anglo-Celts and identity, 1788 to the present, Miriam Dixson, 1999

here's a few non Australian sources:

” The British also were divided into English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and Cornish” Constitutionalizing globalization: the postmodern revival of confederal arrangements, Daniel Judah Elazar, 1998

”Should a translator seek to write for a particular Anglophone group (Scottish or Welsh, Irish or Cornish, English or American, South African or Australian, New Zealand or Indian)?” Baudelaire's world, Rosemary Lloyd, 2002

”Irish peasants fleeing from famine, Welsh and Cornish miners, and an occasional eccentric English aristocrat.” The Cambridge illustrated history of the British Empire, Peter James Marshall, 2001

"The Cornish people... are a distinctive people, if a small one-as distinctive as the Scots or Welsh or Irish." A.L. Rowse, The Cornish in America, 1969. "Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups" (again it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=npQ6Hd3G4kgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=harvard+encyclopedia+of+american+ethnic+groups&source=bl&ots=wdwRHi5sqo&sig=GITywqExKJQ2JuOQIEgYVCbjz0M&hl=en&ei=g8YQTfHnPIiahQf82JG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false "Encyclopedia of Canada's peoples" (and again it has a whole chapter on the Cornish!) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dbUuX0mnvQMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Canada%27s+peoples&hl=en&ei=QMcQTZuAG8WwhAfC3IS3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bodrugan (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. As noted above ..

No one, least of all me, disputes the distinctiveness in certain respects of the Cornish and Cornish culture and history, or that reputable and authoritative sources acknowledge that, or might even on occasion posit a clear separation between Cornish and English.

We could also look, for example, to the Australian census, which points to no such distinction within the "English". Or the fact - for which I need no proof, surely - that, for better or worse, Cornwall is part of England in any geo-political sense that doesn't involve tinfoil, and has been for hundreds of years, whether people like that fact or not. Hence, someone from Cornwall is also, by definition, someone from England. This is observation, not rival nationalism. I am sure that were I to dig into half the sources above (and I don't have the time, nor have you provided full quotes in context or references so that anyone can look at them) there would be few challenges to that syllogism. Issues about identity are never simple, but waving a trump card, or even several supposed trump cards, rarely illuminates. N-HH talk/edits 03:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1) There is no such thing as an automatic English nationality, like there is with Australian, etc. Anyone born in England, be they English or Cornish, is automatically British. English is a choice, being born in England does not make one automatically English.

2) Country of birth, nationality and ethnicity are not the same thing. Being born in England might make one "born in England", but it does not make them ethnically "English". Cliff Richard is not ethnically Indian. Cornish people are not ethnically English.

3) Wikipedia is here to educate, not to reinforce people's misconceptions. Just because most people consider the Cornish to also be English does not mean that Wikipedia should also make that assumption. The overwhelming academic consensus is that the Cornish are a separate ethnicity. --Joowwww (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Cornwall is (and was at the relevant time) IN England. It isn't a separate place like Scotland. No case. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are forgetting HiLo that Wales was also at the relevant time IN England. The only thing separating Scotland and England at the time was Scots law, but then again Cornwall's Stannary law system was also much in effect at the time and the Duchy was able to successfully argue that Cornwall wasn't IN England at the relevant time.Bodrugan (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is also very definitely not the place for promoting ethnic battles and assertive nationalism. And we are not talking about a "misconception" such as the Koala being a bear, which, indeed WP should be correcting. If Cornwall is in England and, on the more subjective level (which, yes, matters for identity issues), "most people [including most Cornish, the last survey I saw] consider the Cornish to be English", then that's a pretty good starting point as to how a Wikipedia page should be looking at these things, with qualifications as appropriate. There is no "overwhelming academic consensus" that overrides that, as if it were an error of fact. The Cliff Richard example just doesn't work btw, for rather obvious reasons - the point is of course about internal geo-political divisions/borders and moving from the place to the adjective* in the context of settled families, not the offspring of travelling workers being born in entirely different countries. And I'm really not sure that "the Duchy was able to successfully argue that Cornwall wasn't in England".

Having said that, I have acknowledged (twice now) that many sources do treat the Cornish as separate from other English groups. Particularly at the time of emigration to Australia, Canada and the US etc, there was a much more distinct culture (for better or worse, we are all more homogenised now), which is, indeed, highlighted in the sources given. I'm personally fine with the change to countries; nor would I have disputed an addition that included specific reference to the Cornish, with an em-dashed or bracketed note to say "often treated separately from the [rest of the] English". Indeed that would have seemed far more educational - in terms of it acknowledging both the inherent nuance in such things and what a lot of these sources actually say - than the previously proposed alternative of simply listing the groups as if they were definitively different, separate and mutually exclusive. N-HH talk/edits 13:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ps: I think a lot of the problems here stem from what everyone here really means by "XX-ish". To some - and, I suspect, most people in the real world - this is primarily an adjective related to background and place, sometimes (eg in the case of "British", although not, as noted, "English"/"Welsh" etc) backed up by what it says on a passport. To others, this is a profound statement of identity and culture, often framed as much by rejection of a label as by adoption of it (eg "I'm not European, I'm British!").

Here are a few more quotations for you, enjoy:

“the old identification of British with English, thereby admitting Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Cornish to the family.” Australian historical studies: Volume 39 , University of Melbourne. History Dept, 2008

“For example; the Celtic nations, the Breton, Cornish, Irish, Manx, Welsh and Scots peoples,” Leading and Managing Schools, John West-Burnham, Helen O'Sullivan, 2011

“As well as the Irish and the English, Anglo-Celt included the Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Hebrideans.” Fair enough: egalitarianism in Australia , Elaine Thompson, 1994

“The primitive and "natural" character of the Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Cornish was a common image in the eighteenth and nineteenth” Fear and Temptation: The Image of the Indigene in Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand Literatures, Terry Goldie, 1993

“For the rest, I've got bits of Irish, bits of Cornish and bits of Welsh but the English side straightens and...” Self portraits (Maie Casey), David Foster, 1991

“To the negative past of Anglo-Australia's attempts to produce uniformity by erasing its citizens' different ethnicities, ... because it was made up of "Scotch, Irish, Welsh and Cornish communities," was also multicultural. ...” The Greek idea: the formation of national and transnational identities, Maria Koundoura, 2007

“... recent and extensive works on the Irish in Australia and several on other Celtic immigrant groups such as the Scots and Cornish. Until recently, important and more general works on immigration to Australia hardly mentioned the Welsh” Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, Royal Australian Historical Society, 1995

“... a sample of children born in Ballarat to Welsh, English, Irish, Scottish and Cornish parents was taken for the years 1860, 1870 and 1880.” “The Cornish are included in the analysis as they comprised a clearly defined ethnic group” Llafur, Volume 9 , Society for the Study of Welsh Labour History, 2005

“As such most nation-states are home to multiple nations. The UK, for example, is home to English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, other smaller groups (such as Cornish and Manx)” Geographies of globalization, Warwick E. Murray, 2006

“I suspected that the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, and the Cornish, the blood Celts among them anyway, would all feel at home here with these Bretons.” National geographic magazine: Volume 209 , National Geographic Society (U.S.), 2006

“Lloyd's book reflected the feelings of many there: "The Irish, the Scots, the Welsh, and the Cornish...” Multiethnic Australia, Celeste Lipow MacLeod, 2006

“The second chapter distinguishes between the English, Welsh, and Cornish of the Australian continent.” Material culture: Volume 37, Pioneer America Society, 2005

“... the development of an Australian nationalism, just as separate English, Scots Irish, Welsh and Cornish identities existed” Journal of Australian colonial history: Volumes 5-6, University of New England. School of Classics, History and Religion, 2004

“The book traces the arrival and settlement of Scottish, Irish, Welsh, English and Cornish groups...” Australian geographical studies: Volume 41 , Institute of Australian Geographers, 2003

“but the cultural alchemy involved not just the English, Welsh, Cornish, Protestant Irish, Scots, ...” The enigma of ethnicity: another American dilemma, Wilbur Zelinsky, 2001

“... can also be seen elsewhere in this volume, especially in the chapters on the Scots, the Welsh, and the Cornish.” A world turned upside down: cultural change on Australia's goldfields 1851-2001, Kerry Cardell, Cliff Cumming, 2001

“But she spoke for most single immigrant women, English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish alike.” Blue china: single female migration to colonial Australia, Jan Gothard, 2001

“... or to whether the English, Scottish, Cornish, Welsh or Irish were allowed to practise their cultural and ...” In search of an identity: essays and ideas on Anglo-Australians, German-Australians and others, Johann Peter Weiss, 2000

“The Australian-Briton was, characteristically, a Protestant of mixed English-Scottish- Welsh-Cornish (and perhaps Irish) ancestry.” The way we live now: the controversies of the nineties, Robert Manne, 1998

“Non-English Britons: Scots, Welsh and Cornish” Immigrants & minorities: Volume 17, Taylor & Francis, 1998

“the Anglo-Celtic majority (with its numerous subgroups, such as English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Cornish, etc.)” The International migration review: IMR.: Volume 31, Center for Migration Studies (U.S.), 1997

“Taped interviews are also held with early Chinese, Maltese, Scots, Cornish, Estonians, Finns, Welsh, Irish, ...” National Library of Australia news, 1994

“English, Irish, Scotch, Welsh and Cornish blended with Europeans — among whom the Germans were particularly successful...” The Oxford companion to Australian music, Warren Arthur Bebbington, 1997

“An Australian British identity was built from the identities of Scottish, English, Welsh, Cornish, and Irish immigrants.” Communities of thought, Anthony Crothers Milner, Mary Quilty, 1996

“in terms of their origins (although this includes the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and Cornish as distinct ethnic groups in this calculation” Unsettling settler societies: articulations of gender, race, ethnicity and class, Daiva K. Stasiulis, Nira Yuval-Davis, 1995

“... diversities among English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Cornish immigrants.” Bold experiment: a documentary history of Australian immigration since 1945, John Lack, Jacqueline Templeton, 1995

“English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh or Cornish, country women or town women, married, widowed or single, thieves, ...” The women of Botany Bay: a reinterpreation of the role of women in the origins of Australian society, Portia Robinson, 1993

“To get the larger ethnic mix (excluding mixing between English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Cornish in the major Anglo-Celtic division)” Insight, Godfrey Wiseman, Australia. Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Overseas Information Branch, 1992

“Persons who said that they were of Australian, British, Breton, Celtic, Cornish, Manx, English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh or other British (including Anglo-Saxon) ancestry were coded as being of Anglo-Celtic ancestry.” Sex and ethnicity in the Australian labour market: the immigrant experience, Frank Lancaster Jones, 1992

“Half (49.8 percent) of the first responses to the ancestry question were for English, Scottish, Irish, British, Breton, Celtic, Cornish, Manx or Welsh origins.” Atlas of the Australian People: Australian Capital Territory, Graeme Hugo, Australia. Bureau of Immigration Research, 1991

“British has always meant multi cultural in Australia with the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish as well as the English.” Australian book review, National Book Council (Australia), 1988

“As a generalisation, books about English-speaking ethnic groups (the Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish) have been ...” Australian book review, National Book Council (Australia), 1990

“Welsh, Cornish and German free immigrants were attracted to the district and by 1851 the population had grown to over 5000.” The great Aussie pub crawl, Douglass Baglin, Yvonne Austin, 1990

“PEOPLE BORN IN AUSTRALIA: FIRST AND SECOND ANCESTRY RESPONSES (a) British (so described), Breton, Celtic, Cornish, Manx, Welsh and other British ancestry including Anglo-saxon.” Census 86: Australia in profile : a summary of major findings, Ian Castles, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1988

“The term British always concealed English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Cornish to name only the most obvious categories.” The Australian quarterly, Australian Institute of Political Science, 1988

Bodrugan (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Slab posts won't convince me of anything. I can be certain that you won't post anything that looks in another direction from your favoured one. Cornwall is in England. If someone came from Cornwall, they came from England. I am not discussing Wales. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Australians

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Australians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ABS Ancestry":

• From Welsh Australian: "20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia" (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
• From Uruguayan Australian: "20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia" (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-06-02. Total responses: 25,451,383 for total count of persons: 19,855,288.
• From Ethiopian Australian: ABS 2006b, Ancestry

Reference named "ABS2008YBindigenous":

• From Demographics of Australia: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population". 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 7 February 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-03.
• From Indigenous Australians: "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Population". 1301.0 – Year Book Australia, 2008. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 7 February 2008. Retrieved 3 Jan. 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

European ethnicity

An IP editor highlighted a problem with this section with an edit that unfortunately involved some WP:SYNTHESIS. The text states that "About 60.2% of Australia's population is of European descent, based on those who declared European ancestry in the 2011 census."

The IP editors change highlighted the fact that the census also allowed people to declare themselves to have Australian ethnicity. Many people choosing that option would have earlier come from a European background.

So the precision in that sentence is just not valid.

We could change the "About" at the start of the sentence to "At least", but that wouldn't be telling the whole story either. Not sure where to go with this. Anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How about we tell it like it is, and keep the 'About 60.2% of Australia's population is of European descent, based on those who declared European ancestry in the 2011 census', however, add to this something like 'however the option to choose Australian as an ethnicity means that the percentage with European ancestry is likely to be markedly higher'. Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got me thinking with "tell it like it is". How about "60.2% of Australia's population declared European ancestry in the 2011 census, but the option to choose Australian as an ethnicity means that the percentage who have European ancestors is considerably higher." HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Australian ethnicity

I was wondering if this sentence was necessary? "In addition, many of those who chose Australian ethnicity are of European ethnic origin themselves." It seems to suggest that people of European descent who declare that they have Australian ethnicity are more notable than people of other ethnic origins who "chose Australian ethnicity". -- The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos

Miranda Kerr in February 2013.jpg looks more appropriate than Miranda Kerr.jpg and Kylie Minogue Cannes.jpg is easier to recognise than Kylie Minogue in Paris 2005-03-26.jpg. Also, Tony Abbott is the current Prime Minister and should be mentioned whether it be over Nick Cage or someone else. Andreas11213 (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia policy to support your latter point? HiLo48 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Eww! Six columns of photos, with lots of whitespace. Please, edit war over a smaller set like we had a the beginning the year.[1] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of Eddie Mabo's picture. There are now no images of indigenous Australians in the "image array" there at all. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree with it all you want, Wikipedia's policy on non-free media prohibits the usage of non-free media in that manor. Unless it is a free image it cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Edit summary that accompanied the removal of that image referred you to Wikipedia:Non-free content. If an appropriate image of Eddie Mabo, or any other reasonably well known Aboriginal Australian, can be obtained, it would be a good option. HiLo48 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Eddie Mabo image was used in several articles without appropriate fair use rationales that are required by WP:NFCC. He is a fairly significant Australian and should be included. As he died in 1992, the chance of obtaining a free image is rather low. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes

I can't believe you're accusing me of arguing that "pre-colonial indigenous peoples were part of the Australian nation" (hint: nowhere does the text of my edit say that). it merely states that untill European settlement, the population of Australia was composed of indigenous people only. so you're making stuff up again. the version you keep reverting to claims that Australians are an ethnicity (really? last time I checked Australians were a diverse nation consisting of individuals from various ethnic and national backgrounds). i see no references there either, so instead of throwing unnecessary ad-hominem at me how about you instead go find some reliable sources yourself in the first place? because the version you keep reverting to isn't sourced at all. So at this point, I would kindly ask for objective consensus of any user who sees this discussion here. Please read both versions and chime in with opinions regarding what sounds more reasonable. Thank you. Quackriot (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't about Australian citizenship, Australian "society", or demographics of Australia, we already have separate articles on those two. This article has never been about people who merely live in Australia, but always about the Australian ethnic group that originated in the 19th century – there was obviously no Australia-wide ethnic group prior to this point. Try educating yourself by reading the Ethnic group article, you're verging heavily into WP:OR territory. 58.7.156.156 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Who gets to decide that "this article has never been about people who merely live in Australia but always about the Australian ethnic group that originated in the 19th century"? You and your personal views, I guess? No, especially if "verging heavily into WP:OR territory" is indeed to be avoided as you seem to suggest. Do you really think it's reasonable to disregard all the people who identify as Australian on the basis of residence, citizenship, culture, society, etc...? It can be very relevant to Australian identity and as such it's unreasonable and misleading to detach it from this article. The current opening statement that Australians are "an ethnic group and nation native to the continent" is ignorant at best. Quackriot (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The current version says "Australians ... are an ethnic group and nation native to the continent of Australia...". I don't think this is accurate. Each year many people born in other countries obtain Australian citizenships. After that they are "Australians" (by at least some definitions) but not "native to the continent" (by any reasonable definition of "native", in particular "born in that place"). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Australians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Australians article keep the current statement "Australians ... are an ethnic group and nation native to the continent of Australia..." or can it be changed? Was my edit reasonable? Quackriot (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please link to a diff for your edit, rather than a specific version. I believe that you may have changed significantly more that just the sentence you quote above. (Examples: [2][3].)Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that; here is the link to a diff where my latest edit can be seen (on the left side): [4]. The reason I first and foremost asked for comments as to whether or not the above quoted sentence should stay is because I suppose it defines the article in a certain direction. To me it seemed misleading (and too narrow), but if most other Wikipedians who may comment here find it a reasonable definition, then my edit certainly makes no sense and I'll walk away, no questions asked. But if most users comment in favour of changing the article, only then I'd like to ask for input on whether or not my edit was reasonable. My edit was just one attempt at trying to "capture" the definition of Australian in a manner as reasonable as I could (which seemed to take several statements, as you correctly noticed). If certain parts of my edit are reasonable and others not, that's alright. If most users find my edit a totally unsuccessful attempt at that, that's totally fine too. Then someone else may give it a try. I'm not saying my edit is the only alternative; I'm trying to suggest it's all up for discussion.Quackriot (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• If this is about whether to take either side of the diff linked, neither. I would simply define Australians with the legal definition: "citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, with their status governed by Australian nationality law". A person becomes Australian when he or she gains Australian citizenship, and ceases to be Australian when he or she relinquishes Australian citizenship. A person can be associated with Australia yet not be Australian, just like they can be Australian without being native to the continent of Australia. Banedon (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• In agreement with the above user, the term "Australian" is simply a nationality. Australians are not an ethnic group, just like Americans are not an ethnic group. A person becomes Australian when they gain citizenship. Now, Aboriginals of the continent of Australia would be considered an ethnic group. I don't think that this article should define Australians in this way. Good luck. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• The edit in question raises the WP:PROVEIT flag, and could be easily reverted based on failure to provide a reliable source that verifies the content added by the change. It also greatly impacts the scope of this article, and should only be done after a consensus is formed, or sufficient reliable sources are provided to show that the changed definition/scope of Australian is based by a multitude of reliable sources to give that new definition weight, where it is the common definition.
  The diff provided did not do that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First sentence

The first sentence is currently "Australians (/əˈstreɪljənz/), colloquially known as Aussies (/ɒziːz/), are a people associated with the continent of Australia, sharing a common history, culture, and language (Australian English).", and appears to have been that for some time.

Given the conversations above, I am reluctant to boldly step in where I have not looked much before. However, I am pretty sure I would be able to find enclaves of Australians who speak Pitjantjatjara, Yolngu, Greek, and possibly even Barossa Deutsch. At the least, I would seek to end the sentence at the last comma.

A "common history and culture" is also difficult to reconcile between 21st-century immigrants, 19th century free settlers and convict immigrants, Aboriginal and TSI heritage and many other groups. It is hard to claim to be united by a single culture and to be multicultural at the same time. Shortening the sentence to "Australians (/əˈstreɪljənz/), colloquially known as Aussies (/ɒziːz/), are people associated with the continent or nation of Australia." would seem to be more accurate and inclusive. I added "or nation" to allow for people whose association is with islands or territories other than the continent. Do I get agreement to change the lead sentence in this way? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

100,000 Australians in Greece

I don't think there are that many and the references are about Greeks in Australia, not Australians in Greece. Antondimak (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Actually, I've just checked them (and found an archived version of the dead link reference) and that's what they say. From my reading of the information, however, I'd consider this to be WP:SYNTH for the infobox. The sources are referring to Greeks who migrated to Australia for a short period of time, then returned to Greece. Whether that makes them 'Australians' in the sense that is being implied is pushing the WP:NOR envelope. I'm going to remove it from the infobox as as SYNTH. If editors believe it to be significant, this needs to be noted WP:INLINE, but I'd suggest that it's really for the demographics article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Content removed from infobox - Region 5: Australians in Greece = 100,000 --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Religion

@Iryna Harpy: I don't understand why you reverted, as "... removal of WP:DUE content", my edit. So far as I can tell, my version has the same information - I've merely reworded it so that it is easier to read (and grammatically correct), and moved the "22.3% no religion" down into a separate paragraph.

In retrospect, "the majority (61%) are Christian" probably needs rewording to make it clear that it is 61% of all Australians, not 61% of religious Australians - but the same applies to the existing version. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To resolve the above-mentioned 61% ambiguity, I propose simply removing the words "Of those declaring religious affiliations" (from my version), ie:

Australians have various religions and spiritual beliefs. The majority (61%) are Christian according to the 2011 census. As in many Western countries, the level of active participation in church worship is lower than would be indicated by the proportion of the population identifying themselves as Christian; weekly attendance at church services was about 1.5 million in 2001, about 7% of the population (21.5 million) that year.

22.3% of the population reported having no religion.

References

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Junk Article - Should Be Reverted

Australians aren't an ethnicity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is incredibly poor. It claims to be about "Australians", also known as "Aussies", defined as " citizens and nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia". It then says "the Australian culture and law does not correspond nationality with race or ethnicity, but with citizenship and loyalty to the country." But this article is supposed to be about Australians as a people, as an ethnic group, and as a nation. Its sister articles make this more than clear. For people to deny their very existence is nothing more than racism. It is not about citizenship which already has its own article. And the Australian culture has always associated the Australian nationality with race and ethnicity. Australia until recently had one of the strongest racial and ethnic associations with its nationality (meaning citizenship) in the whole world. That's all on top of the fact that "Aussie" has never ever referred to nationality (meaning citizenship). It has always referred to the native White Australian ethnic group, missing entirely from this article due to the ignorance of some editors. The article also contradicts itself by alleging that Australian culture and law associates "Australian" with citizenship. Given how citizenship was introduced much later, long after Australians began to be identified as an ethnic group and nation, this is quite incredible, not to mention just a point of view. One of the problems seems to be from the inability to understand that Australian can mean both a nationality and an ethnic group. There is also the effort to describe Australians as being 'European-Australians' or similar. That makes as much sense as calling the English ethnic group Germanic-Britons because of their descent from the Angles and their residence in Briton. We can also see the ridiculous attempt to denigrate the Australian ethnic group by saying that recognising its existence is "disregarding all the people who identify as Australian" on another basis, as if that's in any way relevant. Ethnic groups and nations undergo a constant process of formation and disintegration. This is no different for the Australian ethnic group. What is surprising is that a resource dedicated to education should try to actively erase history in this fashion. So now we have a runt of an article that gives no details on its actual subject matter but manages to cram in a lot of mutlicultural propaganda and relegates the actual Australian ethnic group to just another hyphenated identity. Yet the last paragraph of the introductory section refers to a "separate Australian identity and national character" dating from "colonial times". Good luck finding much of it here. In reality, the ancestors of Australians were also Australian. The fact that the ancestors of their ancestors migrated here much more recently than the Angles to Britain is neither nor there, but clearly there is some discrimination going on here against Australians due to the youthful character of their nation. That same nation that people on this talk page deny exists.121.44.63.135 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC) "Australian" is not an ethnicity, anymore than "American" is an ethnicity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird tautological opening sentence?

The opening sentence says: "Australians, colloquially known as Aussies (/ˈɒzi/), are citizens and nationals of the Commonwealth of Australia, although some dual citizens, expatriates and permanent residents may also claim Australian nationality."

(A) What's the difference between a citizen and a national?

(B) "although some dual citizens [and] expatriates...may also claim Australian nationality." ...Well, yeah obviously....because they are citizens. That's like saying 'Australian citizens are Australians, BUT Australian citizens are ALSO Australian.' Duh...

(C) "Permanent residents also claim Australian nationality"...umn...maybe? I feel that should be deleted if it doesnt have a citation? I dont know of anyone who claims to be Australian who isnt a citizen Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations

I think the "Regions with significant populations" list in the infobox is getting too long. Are there any guidelines on what it a reasonable limit for "significant"? Mitch Ames (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Australian (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Australian (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)