Jump to content

Talk:Chilean Australians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Discussion following filing of RfC on 12 May

I have read Nadine's essay. She says "The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."
She doesn't say where she gets, or how she calculates, the numbers of "second and third generation Chileans". Conversely the ABS data is clear, caveated and professional. You may call me a "snobby square", but on Wikipedia articles a certain standard of accuracy and professionalism (not to mention civility) is required. Otherwise I recommend you stick to writing hip-hop articles. Kransky (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to confess, when I read that there were 23,000 Chileans born overseas, and only 25,000 in total by ancestry, I thought to myself: that looks odd. The Chileans are a relatively newish immigrant group (approx. 1970s onwards), so it's quite impossible that there can be 23,000 born here, but only 25,000 in total (if we accept that we are counting 1st and 2nd generation born here). For example, look at the 250,000 odd Italians arriving during the 50s and 60s, and counting close to 1 million claiming ancestry by the 90s. If we are all accepting that 23,000 is correct (and that's something we would know), then 25,000 is way, way wrong, and I don't care if it's Jesus Christ saying it's correct. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
YES! Thankyou! You understand, this was one point which I was trying my very hardest to get Kransky to understand but he does not listen! If you read further up you can see my comment saying by his logic there would only be 2,000 chileans born in Australia which is highly unlikely and then if you read down he tries to defend his logic which did it for me. (All this you can view in the discussion we have had over this article). Thankyou finally a third party so Kransky has to aknowledge what I say now and cannot ignore it any longer. Again thankyou if you have the time and patients you can read the whole history between us and understand why I have gotten so frustrated with Kransky. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it looks odd, but this ABS article suggests why there was an ancestry undercount for chilean-Australians. I have made reference to this on my version. ThanksKransky (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC).
So this is suggesting that about a third of all those born in Chile might actually describe themselves of "Spanish" ancestry? I guess this becomes a definitional issue. It's clear to me that the study that was done would have included all children born in Australia to Chilean born Australians as being of Chilean ancestry (one possible definition), whereas a large proportion of those same Chilean born Australians view themselves more as having a European ancestry? As I say, this is a definitional problem, but I can't help thinking that the ABS' 25,000 figure is highly misleading. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear to people like Kransky because exactly what I left in my reply to his comments left at Talk:Geography, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Talk:Australia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile. "Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory." I am most certain that the high majority of Chilean Australians born in Chile would have done this and that the ancestory number is due to the second and this generation Chilean Australians who were actually born in Australia. That's why the number of 45 000 provide by the Chilean Embassy makes alot of sense but Kransky does not understand this. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pippu, exactly it is a definitional issue. I had agreed long ago to add in the caveat about the ABS data being indicative only, referring to the 2001 Census result where many Chilean-born respondents nominated other ancestries. "45,000" is the result of Nadine assuming the number grew by 5,000 from an estimate Jupp provided five years ago which he said was merely "could". Why not say it is 63,756 or 80,000 or 42,000? Kransky (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the Chile Embassy web site at work, and since work happens to be the ABS (in the Methodology Division, no less) I'm not sure whether or not I should be chiming in about ABS methodology (at the very least, not until I've seen this other paper to compare it, which I'll try to do at home). However, a relatively unrelated question - why on earth are we citing h2g2 as a reference? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think that was added by what looks like a Chilean (Not sure if hes Australian also) after Kransky and I requested for comment on our dispute. I think it was Selecciones de la Vida but don't hold me to this you'll have to do some research for yourself. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute isn't at all clear to me. I have yet to meet a circumstance where the Australian Bureau of Statistics would not be considered a reliable reference provided of course the data is used appropriately and its qualifications understood. The paper by "Nadine Botzenhart, a Bond University student (Gold Coast, Qld), who worked in the Embassy of Chile between February and May 2006, in the framework of an intership program organized by the Australian National University. " has not been cited properly - eg using a template that clearly states authorship - try {{cite web}}. There seems to be some doubt in the discussion above as to whether the article is hosted or published by the embassy - I think it has to be viewed as less reliable if it conflicts with ABS data. The qualifications of the author are less than the qualifications of those emplayed by the ABS in aggregate. I am not sure that the two sources conflict so much as add additional information with nuances that are not picked up in raw figures from the ABS. So what is the problem - why can't both figures be cited with appropriate qualifications? If Chilean born people describe themselves as of Spanish ancestry to the ABS - you can refer to a reliable source for this view, refer to the ABS data and refer to other data which gives a higher figure and have explained the difference with regard to the reliable source. The answer is not to ignore the ABS data but to explain variations. I note with some concerns the assertion in Nadine Botzenhart's paper: The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. She starts off with a firm figure, apparently referenced from ABS data, but does not explain how she arrived at ther extrapolation concerning the second and third generations. Without that explanation I have concerns about the figure being cited. I downloaded her full paper (word document and also the appendices) but could not locate any reference to the 45,000 figure in it. --Matilda talk 07:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Matilda, you are being like Kransky now. The ABS statistics are quite clearly provided and included in the revision which I have been reverting to. If you saw my comment on Talk:Geography, Talk:Australi and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile, you would see this "I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.". She wrote the paper on "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia" and then you can see underneath that summary of her paper, links to her whole paper and appendixes. Then there are two new section provided by the Chilean Embassy not the intern. The following quote is provided by the website: The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. it is not provided by her and you can verify this by reading her full paper. The data provided by the Embassy does not conflict with the ABS data and provides futher information. I have only kept the revision which is best from both worlds in that it clearly provides the ABS data and also the Embassy of Chile to Australia's data. Also if you read the dispute you can see what data I am opposed to Kransky adding, data which is unreferenced. Simple. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that referring to both sources, displaying both numbers, and explaining why they might differ is a good solution. The two numbers clearly come from a different perspective of what constitutes "Chilean ancestory". The ABS will know precisely who is born in Chile, but then asks people to describe their ancestory, and a significant percentage (including a third actually born in Chile) are describing themselves as having an ancestory apart from Chilean. That is going to differ wildly from counting children and grand children of those born in Chile. So on this particular point at least, I think it is impossible to say that the ABS is accurate - it's indicative of what people choose to call themselves - but who amongst us would believe that one third of Chileans were born in, have a parent or even a grand parent born in Spain? In fact Demographics of Chile tells us that Chile never experienced any substantial 20th century immigration from Europe (as opposed to, say, Argentina). In other words, when one third of all Chileans born in Chile tell the ABS that they have a Spanish ancestory - what are they really telling the ABS? That they descend directly from the Spanish colonialists from four centuries back? Is it not more reasonable to count the children and grand children of those born in Chile as being of Chilean ancestory? If that is the case, then the leap from 23,000 to 45,000 makes perfect sense, and the leap from 23,000 to 25,000 makes zero sense (depending on what one really means by Chilean ancestory). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 08:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, read my reply further up and you will see I have said this! Kransky did not or still does not comprehend this. I don't think the two sources come from a different on what constitutes "Chilean ancestory", I just think people like Kransky misinterpret the two field provided by the ABS being birthplace and ancestory. You will notice he has not understood this fact throughout most of his argument and this is why people who don't understand completely and refuse to listen should not make major edits like Kransky has been doing. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I went digging around all the other "ethnic" groups in Australia, utilising the very helpful info box that most of these sorts of articles have (but not all). To be honest, the stats shown are all over the shop, and a very clear pattern emerged. Those from the more "mainstream" ethnic groups, e.g North and Western European, have extremely high rates of "ancestry" compared to "births" from that particular country. Those from less "mainstream" ethnic groups, have far, far fewer claiming ancestry. There will be some valid reasons for the former, such as some of these groups now going back 3 or 4 generations, but that's really only part of the story. The true tale of these stats (in which people are free to claim whatever they want) is a strong willingness to be associated with the more dominant ethnic groups in Australia, e.g. North and Western European. Looking at the Chilean example, it's a classic case, and closer inspection bears out what I am saying. A full third of Chilean Australians born in Chile claim Spanish ancestry, despite the fact that there has been no significant immigration from Europe for centuries, and, the bulk of the Chilean population is descended from mixed Spanish/Amerindian peoples. Of course, you might ask why would a Chilean want to be so strongly associated to the more dominant European ethnic group? It's called human nature! Look at this extremely poor article: Spanish Australian. There are 50,000 Australians of "pure" Spanish stock, but if you want to throw in the mestizos and mulattos, you can creep up to 75,000 (which is where quite a few of our Chilean friends are hiding in the ABS census). Now who amongst you is doing the appropriate genetic testing to ensure that these Chileans are of "pure" Spanish stock? And could you blame anyone for not wanting to be labelled a "mulatto", or half-caste (the word itself coming from the Latin word for mule - charming!). In fact, I find all these articles quite distasteful. This reliance on the ABS stats for this specific question shows an incredible degree of naivety. I'm not too fussed which way this goes, but if anyone here really thinks they have a strong handle on "Chilean" ancestry, or indeed any other type of ancestry menitioned in this series of articles, all can say is: you've got to be kidding me. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are extremely on point! And I know this from experience as I will now mention that I have taken so much interest into this article and it being factual and the best it can be, is because I am infact a Chilean Australian. What you just said is all extremely true but do you want to know what further adds to this? Well over in Chile there is great rivalary over Chile and Peru, kind of similar to Australia and New Zealand, Chile and Peru are much more extreme based on the history. But anyway something I know and which all Chileans know wether they want to admit it or not, is that Chileans in general hate to aknowledge their native blood and always choose to say they are white or spanish over mestizo even though the majority of us are mestizo! There is many of reasons why Chileans do this but this is a whole other lengthy subject in itself. So yeh something you should know about Chileans is that fact, so not only is it easier to fit into Australian society by identifying as European, but Chileans already have that mindset! I know this because I am Chilean and if you don't believe me do some research on it, trust me I'm not lying. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution I proposed earlier is to include a caveat about the reliability of ABS data (using the 2001 Census data in which many Chilean-born Australians didn't identify their ancestry as Chilean). Also note that in the text of many of these articles the text reads as "x number of persons declared themselves to have y ancestry either alone or in combination with one other ancestry" (ie: we report declared, not actual, ancestry). I still consider the ABS data is sufficiently reliable, whereas Ms Nadine is just assuming an ethnic group doubles in population over three generations. The reasons why Chilean-born Australians choose other ancestries is perhaps worth exploring, but it is not central to this argument. Kransky (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your solution is not needed! You have been the only one unable to comprehend why there would be 45,000 Chilean Australian and having that caveat just confuses things even more as you still do not understand! And now you have confused everyone with your pointless argument on what is fact! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I please have comments for this comprimise language: "According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount as it ignores Chilean-born residents and their children who may have nominated other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry" Kransky (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You still do not understand! Look I will make it clear to you by giving out personal information which up until now I didn't want to do but honestly I have exhausted every other possibility. I am a Chilean Australian, I am a second generation Chilean Australian who was born here in Australia. This is what I put in the ABS last year! I was born in Australia, both my parents were born overseas in Chile, and I indentified my ancestory as Chilean! We as children make up the ancestory figures! As we say Chilean! Both my parents did not put this they put spanish but I ended up convincing my mum to add Native American aswell, so she will be like one of the 10 Chile born Chilean Australians who did this, and honestly I am not exaggerating I think there will only be like 10 due to reasons I will not go into detail about now. But yeh, both my dad and mum are mestizo except my dad, being a chilean, refuses to aknowledge this so he only put his ancestory as Spanish on the ABS. So you must not add that compromise language as it is pointless and absurd! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for this statement: "However this may be an undercount as it ignores Chilean-born residents and their children who may have nominated other ancestries." As annoying as this may sound, you cannot utilize your own interpretation of the census data, even if we all agree that it is most probably accurate. Is there a way to reword this so that it can be accurately cited to one of the sources available? Just to make sure this is clear, I am not disputing your interpretation, it seems most probable, but that's not good enough here unfortunately.PelleSmith (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He can't as it is not even accurate! He still does not understand at all and now I see his little knowledge is rubbing off on other users! WTF what is becoming of wikipedia?! See this is what happens when he gets me blocked for telling the truth and only one biased opinion can be heard by all you third parties! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not annoying at all and a perfectly reasonable demand. My RS is here. The key paragraph is On the other hand, people arriving in Australia from the same birthplace may have different ethnic and cultural affiliations. For example, the ancestries of East Timor-born people living in Australia were Chinese (61%), Timorese (40%) and Portuguese (10%). Of people born in New Zealand, 14% stated Maori as their ancestry, while English (52%) and New Zealander (21%) were the most common responses. As with those born in New Zealand and Australia, ancestries given by those born in some other countries often include a national ancestry and one associated with a colonial power. Thus, a large proportion of those born in Chile reported their ancestry as Chilean (63%), but Spanish was also relatively common (29%). The statistics for Chilean-born ancestries then follow in a graph. Kransky (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP!!! You have confused everyone now and are making things worst! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. One suggestion I would have is to rewrite the part about children. Do children figure in this statistic at all? What you propose makes it sound like the children "may (also) have nominated other ancestries." Otherwise that's a great source, and I think it goes far towards explaining the lower than assumed figure (by at least one researcher).PelleSmith (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I will quote myself "This one took him a while. I had to tell him this because he could not comprehend it before hand but then he adds the caveat trying to shut me up hoping I would not revert his edit where he sneaked in unreferenced information which he has constantly been doing. Only he is not able to comprehend that just because you're Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory." TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When I said children I meant the offspring of persons who were born in Chile (ie have an actual Chilean ancestry). It sounds misleading and is imprecise (ignores second generation plus). Instead, why not "According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount as persons with Chilean ancestries might have instead chosen to nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry". Any takers?Kransky (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
He still does not understand and quite clearly me being away from all these discussions has caused great damage, all third parties read my replies and read this whole discussion from start to end. All of you except the greek lettered user are confused, not due to your own fault but due to Kranskys! So please read. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think that wording is good, in that it explains how Chilean-born Australians may have listed another ancestry. It doesn't explicitly take into account nth-generation Chileans of other reported ancestry, but given the difficulty in identifying such an ancestry in the first place, and in collecting accurate statistics based on such an identification (and I agree that the methodology in Nadine's paper is not well-explained), I think that it's best not to discuss the concept in detail. Even something like Aboriginal Australian ancestry is amazingly difficult to quantify in any meaningful sense, and they have the dual advantage of being (a) a larger population than Chilean Australians (and hence easier to get accurate population estimates of in relative terms) and (b) being a population of huge interest for the government (and hence more likely to get money put aside to get such estimates). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing because Kransky is confusing, and this is not Nadines estimates, this is data provided by the Embassy please I insist you respect my request and thoroughly read every aspect on this matter as you will see me being a Chilean Australian am quite sure on all aspects of this matter! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
For the 50, GAZILLIONITH time Kransky has snuck in this unreferenced information "The largest Chilean Australian communities are in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result) and Melbourne (6,530). " Please, please, PLEASE read through the discussion on this talkpage and you can see this has always been my major issue with him! He is still not behaving appropriately and always goes unpunished yet I get blocked as a result of him lying and me attributing the noun to this word! What is wrong with wikipedia?! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

16 May responses to TeePee

  • Reply to TeePee - I do not see that the data Kransky is using is unreferenced. I see him using sources which are reliable. I do not see any basis for the Chilean embassy's assertion of 45,000 except a paper written by an intern which does not refer tot he 45,000 but in fact has lower figures. The embassy has not done a census, referred to registrations of their nationals (which would not include Australian nationals of Chilean ancestry, or ... They do not explain their figure and hence they are not for this purpose a reliable source. I find your arguments unpersuasive and disruptive. Also please note that Matilda, you are being like Kransky now is not within Wikipedia guidelines as it is a comment on the editor and not the content.--Matilda talk 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see you chose not to listen. I'm sorry for commenting on you but it is the truth, not due to your fault. You have just been sucked in by Kransky's biased opinion and not having me here to dispute what he was saying. I hope you can accept my apology and this time take the time to read my replies before judging my argument as "unpersuasive and disruptive". TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
TeePee - you have to settle down a little bit. The wording I'm reading at the moment is on the right track because it is explaining why the Chilean ancestry might be understated in the ABS stats in a reasonably neutral manner. The stats from this person's independent study are missing, and from what I understand from others who have looked through it (and I haven't), it is unclear precisely how she arrived at them (even though any half competent demographer would have little doubt that the figure of 45,000 must be far closer to the mark than 25,000). What would really be useful is if we knew: 1. that she defined Chilean ancestry as anyone born, and/or with a parent or grand-parent born in Chile; and 2. whether she actually had access to this sort of data. In other words, if we knew she was able to count Chileans defined in this manner, and/or was able to somehow extrapolate from a reasonable sample, and that is explained in her study, then clearly no one would object to showing her estimate of 45,000, because it would fit seamlessly immediately after what is already written there. Relax mate and check it out! If need be, perhaps get confirmation from the Chilean embassy, if you have contacts there. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
How can I settle down when this argument has been tipped in the favour of Kransky while he got me blocked for 24hrs for telling the truth about him. Had there been no lying I would not have been blocked inthe first place! Angelo I thought you were the only one who understood, read futher up to see why this is not hers! You also think these are her estimates as does Matilda and I just explained it to Matilda. Honestly can you people listen to me and read as I request. This data is provided by the Embassy of Chile to Australian and not the intern! This is a reliable source and has ben verified as so at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. Please all I ask is read and not base your judgement on me the editor and instead on the facts. Please this is all I ask and is all I have ever asked. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
TeePee - please add your comments at the bottom of the section, not in between dialogue already written. If you want to comment on what has been said, just cut and paste a quote so we know what you are referring to. Otherwise it is difficult to work out what is being said when to what. Kransky (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kransky - how is it difficult? I am replying directly underneath the comments I am addressing and you figure out when comments are posted based on the timestamp, this is what they are for. You can also check the history of this talkpage. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jupp reference

This reference is really useful:

  • Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. page 197. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved 2008-05-17. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

see also the preceding page. After reading this with some update of more recent data from the 2006 census I think we are most of the way there on this dispute.--Matilda talk 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done Matilda - that's perfect! TeePee, take a look, he gives an approximate figure of 40,000 (including children born in Australia to Chileans), which looks pretty good to me. Let's weave that in, cite the reference, and it's done. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Matilda this is also a good reference and futher supports the Embassy's view. But this 2001 reference does not need to be added as the Embassy's 2006 reference has already been verified. You still don't understand that this is the Embassy's data and not the interns. So I plead to you to actually read my replies so you can see I am not making up facts. Please just read. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
TeePee, Matilda's reference explains what the 40,000 comprises (Chilean-born plus their Australian born children). I think that everyone would agree that this is better defined than the "ancestry" question in the ABS stats, which are clearly flawed (and it's on that point that I have been agreeing with you all along). Re this other figure of 45,000, I can see how one could get up to that figure if you start adding Australian-born grandchildren (which would only have started happening in recent years in any significant numbers). But - do we know for sure that the 45,000 figure includes that? In fact, do we know for sure what the 45,000 is meant to represent? That's the problem that people are having with that number, and that's why this other number of 40,000 is so much more acceptable - there is greater clarity about what it is measuring (not to mention that it's a pretty good source to begin with). Actually, I thought you might have been a bit more relieved to find another source confirming the more accurate figure to be back up in the 40,000s. That's good, isn't it? By the way, my name is Pippu, not Angelo. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I come across ungrateful or disrespectful about Matilda finding that reference. But it has the exact same issues that the Embassy's figure has. I did not need this reference Matilda provided to convince me of the number of Chilean Australians as I was well aware that 45,000 is correct as seems you Pippu, Itsmejudith and maybe PelleSmith of this fact. About the only thing this reference does is explain it simpler in less formal language by using the word "children". The embassy does the exact same thing except it says "second and third generation". If people will just realise the Embassy has provided this and not the intern which I have already said in my replies, then there would be no issues as the Embassy's information does not conflict with the ABS data at all and instead quoting Itsmejudith, "adds another dimension". The reason for the 5,000 number difference is the reference provided by matilda was published in 2001 where as the Embassy published their data in 2006, something else which I alluded to in my previous comment. At least now all this other people who don't understand will have an easier time understanding as there are now two valid references saying the same things. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Jupp's reference states "Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their persons born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today". It was published in 2001 with 1996 Census data. The number today could even be more, but Jupp is wise enough to prefix his statement with a "could".
So thats it. Either we use the (a) accurate, but conceptually flawed ABS data, (with a caveat warning that many Chilean-born didn't identify themselves as Chilean in the 2001 Census) or (b) we use say it might have been around 40 000 in 2001. Or we use both statistics, with caveats.
I have made modifications to the "Demography" section - moving up Pippu's text (thanks Pippu) and acknowledging that the number of Chilean Australians could be around 40,000 with the Jupp reference (I've met the prof - nice guy). My ABS text, with the caveat, still stays. I have also changed the info box to present the number of Chileans by self-declared ancestry. This should please everybody. Kransky (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You did not even quote him correctly! The correct quote is as follows "Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today."
This is not it. We do not need to use (a) and do not need to add (b) as we already have (c) which is the data provided by the Chilean Embassy and is more up to date the the author's reference.
Sigh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the revision I had and as you can now see the many flaws your edits have had as you havn't been able to fathom up until this point that there is more than 25 thousand Chilean Australians. You have once again referenced information with invalid references so I will revert the edit back to the one I have always been keeping and ask people to view it and address what problems there are. I hope you all have now taken the time to actually read my replies and aknowledge them by letting me know what you don't understand about them. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the embassy or the intern made the comment. Even if the embassy made the comment (and you could argue it has, because it is on its website without a disclaimer disendorsing comment), the issue is the reliability of the data. One does not need to be a genius to assume the Chilean-population has increased in size between 2001 and 2006. But why does Nadine say 45,000? Why not 42,000 or 50,000 or 78,423? What is her rationale to say "we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of 45 000"? Remember that Jupp in 2001 merely said it "could" have approach 40,000, so Nadine is making an estimate on an estimate. Very rubbery figures.
Could people look at the comprimise version on 15:58, 17 May 2008 and make their judgement?. Please TeePee - do not change it until we have agreement on this, or we will repeat this debate again next week. Kransky (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am sorry but now these third parties are involved you have completely changed your tone, as that was the issue before hand Kransky. I am glad to see you now understand the intern did not provide this and infact the Embassy did. That is right there is no disclaimer disendorsing it because I am assuming you have actually now taken the time to read her whole paper and have seen the information I have always been referring to is no where to be found in her paper! Oops spoke to soon, once again Nadine does not say 45 000, the Embassy does! And the Embassy says this because obviously they have thoroughly reserched this and have all the sources to do so. Jupp has done the exact same thing as the embassy, except the embassy is more reliable as they are specific to Chilean Australians. Fine I will let you have your way this one time, even after all the crap you have put me through as I don't want people's opinions on me as an editor distracting them from the facts. But in doing so I ask people first view the revision I provided before Kransky made his change to it's current revision, and tell me what problems there are with the version I posted. Remember I asked first, don't believe me look above Kransky's comment. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Teepee, care to explain the difference in meaning between my paraphrase and the actual quote? Exactly what point are you trying to make? Kransky (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is you must quote correctly! Simple, no need for explanation. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support or Oppose - question by PelleSmith 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky asked us to come here and say whether or not we support or oppose the current wording. I've taken the liberty to create a thread here for this purpose. Currently the wording reads:

"According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries[4]. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry[5]. The true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp[6]."

I suggest you all weigh in so that the editors here can move on with this entry. I also suggest that those who have minor issues with the specific wording specify this in their reply but do not wholesale oppose the addition unless they oppose its content.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm not sure about the specific wording but this content looks right. The embassy is not an RS but now you have an expert in the field suggesting something similar. Problem solved.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by TeePee + following discussion

  • Oppose - PelleSmith can you reply to me as I replied to you before Kransky so please answer the point I brought up concerning why the Embassy is an RS. The paragraph you quoted is not needed in this article and the revision I have provided is an alternative. It does not need to be provided as only people like Kransky who did not understand how the census works would have trouble relating the two numbers together. Also the wording is not good, it isn't an undercount, how exactly is it? Kransky still does not understand and that is why he is adding his POV saying it may be an undercount. Chilean born Australians are quite right in saying there ancestory to be something other than Chilean. So there is no undercount. And then he adds the "true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp" this statement implies the two sources conflict, just like he thinks the source of the Chilean Embassy conflicts with the ABS. None of the two conflict with ABS so again his wording is not the best. And why does the demographer need to be mentioned? I don't think I have ever seen a demographer mentioned on a wikipedia article in any articles similar to this one. So these are all the reasons why it should not be kept in the revision Kransky has provided, plus what I have already mentioned numerous of times and on your talkpages as you can see. That is, he has once again snuck in the reference which is invalid to the data he is editing into this article. Problem not solved TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
TeePee please do us all a favor and research reliability and verifiability as I have now asked you several times. You do not understand the relevant policies and seemingly you refuse to do so. The embassy is simply not in itself a reliable source for that information. The reason to mention that this man is a demographer is completely obvious. He is an expert in the relevant field, so his educated guess is an important one. We attribute and provide context where needed here on Wikipedia. Please wrap your head around this. As I mentioned already, if the wording isn't the best then please suggest changes to it, but please drop this talk about the non-RS embassy number. Everyone on this talk page has explained to you the problem and you clearly refuse to listen. My patience is wearing thin. I'm done with this. I only came here because of a question on the RS/N. I've stated my support for Kransky's version but I'm sick of trying to communicate with a wall so please stop leaving me messages. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How dare you breach civility by commenting on me and not my edits! I already told you numerous times I would read them and then you say "seemingly you refuse to do so"! Where the hell do you get off replying to me in that manner. I was not reading it as I was editing after I got home from work and it was far too late for me to be seriously taking time to address this issue! By the time I signed off yesterday it was 5:18am! This is how late I stayed up for you! And then you post a comment like that you ingrate! I have completely lost any respect I have had for you based on the manner you have just conducted yourself in! I have listened to everyone and unlike yourself have kept an open attitude and made sure I have thoroughly read their replies. You on the other hand have been so arrogant as to not reply to all the point's I raise, have not taken the time to thoroughly read the discussions (quite evident in me needing to post an entire new section highlighting all the times I have asked for a valid reference) and ignorance has been shown quite clearly in the hot headed reply you left above this! Your comments stating you will not comment on this any further in your clear closed mind in this matter does not warrant your opinion notable. If you will not take the time to hear all sides of the story and make sure this article is the best it can be then you opinion is not needed! I have now read both links you sent me and there is no indication at all that the Chilean Embassy is not a reliable source based on both the policy and guideline I have read. Jeff Jupps estimate is out of date and the Embassy's estimate is more recent. I am positive if Jeff Jupps himself could be involved in this matter he would also agree with the new number provided by the Embassy 5 years later. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
From the RS guideline: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." The appropriate context here, for a population estimate, falls under the section that follows on scholarship. Please read it and explain how the embassy on its own, or by way of its intern researcher, qualify. They do not. As I have stated before it would be OK to mention the embassy figure if attributed and framed correctly, but a demographer is a much more reliable and hence preferable source for a demographic estimate. This should be rather obvious if you have read the guideline. Also the best guess we have is that embassy is extrapolating from the 2001 Census, which it mentions just prior to its vague comment about adding 2nd and 3rd generation Chileans to the figures of that 2001 Census. It is clearly not correct to claim that their figure is more recent than the demographer's own 2001 figure. My apologies for the "wall" comment. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: From the RS guidline: "although some material may be outdated by more recent research" The Embassy's not the interns research outdates Jeff Jupp's reference. Jeff Jupp's reference was published in 2001 based on the 1996 Australian Census. The Embassy's reference was provided in 2006 based on the 2001 Australian Census. I'm glad to see you have cooled down now and will be providing your opinion based on the information at hand. This is all I have ever asked for. Cheers TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am scraching my head wondering how the "Embassy" figure (really, Nadine's, and based on Jupp's) could be attributed and framed correctly. "the Embassy of Chile published an online essay by ANU intern B.Nadine in which she estimated that the number of Chilean-Australians in 2006 was 45,000, based on a statement made five years earlier by ANU Demographer J.Jupp in which he estimated the Chilean Australian at the time had approached 40,000, and by assuming that in the period the population had grown by around 5,000"  ???? doesn't sound that convincing does it... Kransky (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Kransky I see no connection to Nadine with the 45,000 figure. I have to agree with TeePee there. Her report makes no mention of it, only the embassy website does. If it is buried in the report somewhere please tell me where because I cannot find it. She mentions another 40,000 figure and sources it to the embassy, but I have just commented on the problems surrounding that figure below. It would be safe to say something like: "the Chilean Embassy estimates an even higher figure of 45,000 Chilean Australians based upon their own guess work and the 2001 census." But as I have already stated I don't understand why anyone would want to add this with the demographer's estimate already in there.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: That's because she did not provide it the Embassy did! Seriously how many times need I repeat myself? Honestly someone read these discussions and count them on your two hands, I'm quite positive you won't have enough fingers! And PelleSmith as I have already said, the reason being is they are both essentially the same thing except the Embassy's estimate is more up to date based on the Census taken 5 years after the Census which Jeff Jupp's based his estimate on. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chilean_Australians/Archive_2&oldid=1150037265"