Talk:Chinese Australians

Suggested Removal

Is Jackie Chan listed as Chinese Australian solely because his father worked in Canberra for a while? The link seems tenuous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.49.20 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

I would much prefer it if this article were called Chinese Australian -- better to be singular. Enochlau 13:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support - put in request. this is standard. -- Zondor 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is better to call the Australian Nationals of Chinese Origin or Descent as Australian Chinese. As they are Australians who nether (a) come from China and nationalized in Australia no loner uphold the Chinese citizenship and the only true nationality they got is the Australian nationality, or (b) borned in Australia and never get the chance to get the Chinese citizenship and the only true nationality they got is the Australian nationality. I'm sure that most Australians of Chinese Origin or Descent whould liked to be called Australian Chineses rather than Chinese Australians as it sound more natural. You can find this out by just looking how some of the more common Australian Chinese newspaper lable themself as or check with any of the Australian Chinese association and find out how they lable themself. You can find that Chinese Australian is only used by non-Australian Chinese who can not understand that Australian Chinese is in fact Australian and not Chinese nationals. If Australian of Chinese Origin or Descent can not be lable or called as Australians, then no one other than the Australian Aboriginals can have the right to call themself Australians. The right to call ourself Australians is not, can not and will not based upon race, religion, gender or age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.23.253 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discision

Page moved. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Terence Tao

I am not sure it is 100% appropriate for TT to be included in the list of notables here. Tereance Tao is a great guy - his stature in the mathematical world is immense but it looks as if he has not been around Aus for a while and he might not be back. Including him in the list of notable Chinese Aussies does not feel quite right. novacatz 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were to take the definition of a "Chinese Australian" literally, he needs to be an "Australian", i.e. an Australian citizen. So, the question then is whether he has taken up US citizenship now. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, fair enough... cross referenced from Wikipedia, didn't know he was not Australian citizen... my criterion in these situations is always Australian citizenship. If he doesn't have Australian citizenship he can't be considered Australian. By the way, Enoch, obtaining another citizenship does not mean loss of Australian citizenship, so if he was an Australian citizen it would be irrelevant if he took up US citizenship. Doire (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes of course. Where did you read that he's not an Australian citizen? He would've been to start off with since he was born in Adelaide... enochlau (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Doire, for your edification -- if someone chooses to be naturalised as a US citizen, one of the steps is a pledge under oath renouncing their existing citizenship. novacatz 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Novacatz, for your information -- if an Australian national takes an oath renouncing their existing citizenship in a naturalisation ceremony in the United States it has no bearing whatsoever in Australian law and they remain an Australian citizen regardless.Doire 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT TRUE! The answer from here [1] to question one states that a citizen can lose their citizenship if they renounce their Australian Citizenship (as required by the US naturalisation process). You may be confused with the April 2002 changes which allow an Australian to acquire a citizenship without automatically losing Australian citizenship (this is a change from the previous rules; it is pertinent where someone wishes to acquire citizenship in a country which does not require renounciation). HTH, HAND. novacatz 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confusing an OATH of renunciation for rhetorical purposes of a CEREMONY in the US with ACTUAL renunciation BY APPLICATION ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN LAW. Very few applicants for US citizenship bother to renounce their other citizenship - that's why you have dual citizens who have US passports. Same in Australia before 2002. One of the reasons the law had to change was because the Australian Government had no way of knowing whether its citizens had obtained other citizenships. The only country to inform it was Italy, and the Italian Government had ceased to do so by the 1990s. Doire 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess we are both right in a way. You are right - renouncing Aus citizenship is a matter of filling in the form (and paying a fee!?!?). Part of the ceremony for US naturalisation is an oath that other citizenships have been renounced. Do people do this? Probably not if it is disvantageous. Can the government check? It is really hard. Does the government want to check? From my understanding the US govt doesn't want to open this can of worms... but for others (China) they will treat a former-Aust as just that - no longer a Aust. citizen with no right of recourse to Aust. consulates inside of China. novacatz 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Glad we sorted it out. The Chinese Government, of course, considers all those with Chinese ancestry to be Chinese citizens only, even in cases where the ancestry is somewhat distant. At least that's how I understand PRC citizenship law.Doire 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Enoch, I have never heard of Terence Tao myself, so I have no idea where he was born or what citizenship(s) he holds. However, searching for prominent Chinese Australians on Wikipedia came up with his name, so I popped him in the list. If he's an Australian citizen, good on him. If he isn't, then pull him off the list. By the way, birth in Australia does not automatically entitle you to Australian citizenship unless one (or both) of your parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Doire 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragging this discussion back on topic -- TT is still an Aussie <- this tidbit from his CV on his website. So I guess he stays on the list. novacatz 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool. enochlau (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This article, on him winning the Fields Medal, says that he is. Jpe|ob 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the usual approach to "Aussieness" in the Australian media, anyone who's ever set foot within 200 meters of a kangaroo anywhere on earth is Australian. --Sumple (Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Is it possible to get a hold of statistics of Australian born Chinese Australians? I remember seeing this somewhere on the census, or perhaps on one of their "multicultural" supplements. Chinese Australians aren't all immigrants (myself included), knowing that some of them have been around since gold rush days.

I believe it is a very small percentage, but would be interesting to know regardless. Thanks!

Real estate tycoon L J Hooker was a Chinese Australian

[2]

Sino-Vietnamese are Chinese?

I notice the stats in the article mention Vietnam as a source of "Chinese" immigrants (Vietnam - 41,230).

While I'm aware that many immigrants from Vietnam are Overseas Chinese, I was just wondering whether such people (Sino-Vietnamese) are normally considered "Chinese" or "Vietnamese"? I ask because according to the article on Hoa, 'Along with ethnic Vietnamese, the Hoa are usually referred to as "Vietnamese" by the Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese.'

User:Bathrobe 7 April 2006

My viet-chinese friends consider themselves chinese... --Sumple (Talk) 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it might depend on the person whether they consider themselves Chinese or Vietnamese. However, the safe answer is that they are both Vietnamese and Chinese, i.e. Vietnamese-Chinese, and thus that suffices for the purpose of this article. enochlau (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They are Chinese-Vietnamese Australian.

What % makes it matter? Is my daughter really a Vietnamese New Zealander Irish Maori? If Maori came originally from Chinese, so... Vietnamese Australian New Zealander Irish Maori Chinese? Is she an ethnic Australian? Is she an ethnic New Zealander? an ethnic Vietnamese an Ethnic Maori an ethnic Chinese? Where do you draw the line and realise the stupidity... and just think... She is my lovely Australian daughter (why does it matter she has a mum who is from Vietnam, a grandmother from Australia, a dad from New Zealand, a granddad who is 1/4 Maori etc...)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.60.99 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"She is my lovely Australian daughter..." You have it correct right there! HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

this page suxorz

omfg not enough info on teh history bit i cant reach my 1k word limit for my phuckin history assignment and Duel me

• This comment was added at 22:36 AEST by User:Duel me. I reverted it at 22:40 with the comment "write your own assignment; don't plagiarise - revert gratuitous comment". User:JSIN chose to reinstate the comment twice (User Blnguyen also removed), the second time the reinstatement was with the comment "revert - it commented that there wasn't enough info in history and suggested that editors expand it". I think User:JSIN is being excessively charitable in his remarks. Wikipedians priorities are not driven by the needs of high-school wanna-be plagiarists, or at any rate mine aren't. User:Duel me's remarks were not in good faith or constructive - they are not a useful addition to this talk page but I will accede to the wishes of User:JSIN that they stay here. Note I still think the {{mess2}} message to User:Duel me was warranted - we do not want irrelevant messages on talk pages. --A Y Arktos\^talk 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagging of the section on Chinese Australian communities today

The section on Chinese Australian communities today is poorly expressed, in particular using cliches and stereotypes. Reliable sources are required. I have provided comments visible in the edit view as to what I found difficulties with - assertions about Hanson triggering political involvement, scholastic achievement, focal points of the community, ...--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What? what's wrong with Chinatowns being a focal point of the Chinese community?? I'd like to see some evidence to the contrary! --Sumple (Talk) 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

what is a "focal point" - does the term mean anything? I am not proposing evidence to the contrary, I am requesting sources. "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."--A Y Arktos\^talk 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• To assist in consideration of what a "focal point" might or might not be, see Focal point dab page, and Focus. Wiktionary does not help much at wiktionary:focal point with definition 2 as "the centre of any activity". I assume this definition is what is intended in this article but it shows how vague the term is - "any activity"?!? Certainly not all activities, nor even many activites that might provide a focus for the community, for example politics or schools. To be used meaningfully you need to say what is in scope - focal point for eating out by the community, banking, ...? Generalisations need to be avoided - for example, do Chinatowns across Australia incorporate these activities as a focus for the chinese community in that city?--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see some referencing too, as most of that section seems to be info obtained from gross generalisations. For example, Chinese kids are good at school. Most Chinese immigrants can't speak English etc etc. French line 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

use of the word "Prominent" in describing some notorous figures

in the section Prominent Chinese Austalians, it is a mix of famours and notorous figures - see below:

Andrew Chan: drug lord, sentenced to death Victor Chang: heart surgeon Si Yi Chen: drug smuggler ...

I'd suggest to take out teh notorous ones or at least separate them from really prominent ones - i.e. people who have made contributions and not destructions to the society.

"prominent" means "sticking out". I'd say andrew chan is quite prominent. --Sumple (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

famous means well known; it does not necessarily mean virtuous. Calling somebody a "drug lord" is too informal; "convicted drug smugger" is more appropriate Kransky 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Teminology

I noticed the phrases Chinese-born and Australian-born used in the article. Isn't that a grammatical error? If anything it should be china-born and australia-born because it's referring to locations of birth instead of cultures. French line 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

** THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME A RACIST JOKE **

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Implies that Taiwan is part of China. The reality is that Taiwan is **NOT** part of China and will never be for the foreseeable future. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han ethnicity. Therefore, to call Australian citizens who came from Taiwan 'Chinese Australian' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.

3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

Information that really belong to Wikipedia articles like 'Hong Kong Australians', 'Taiwanese Australians', etc must also be taken off this article NOW.

If this article is not fixed by 21 March 2008, 00:00 UTC, this article will be **NOMINATED FOR DELETION**.

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.142 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Overseas Chinese. —Umofomia (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

**THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION**

Because the article and this talk page consistently contains untrue and offensive material, and remain so after repeated warnings, this page has been declared UNTRUE AND OFFENSIVE and will be DELETED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.118 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About 'Hoa','Sino-Vietnamese', and the question of identity

The labels 'Hoa' and 'Sino-Vietnamese' are both extremely misleading. In fact, the word 'Hoa' is really just a political label that the Vietnamese government and the populace used to marginalise certain people. In reality, there is no real difference between the 'Hoa' and the 'native' Vietnamese (which are really a mixture of Viet peoples, one being the Kinh people). For the record, the 'Hoa' peoples are considered to be of Vietnamese ethnicity by most Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese; they are NOT considered to be ethnic Chinese at all. This classification, surprisingly for some, is consistent with the definition of ethnicity. In fact, calling 'Hoa' people 'ethnic Chinese' is actually wrong if the concept of ethnicity is to be strictly applied. Apart from this issue, there seems to be many other serious misconceptions over just what 'Chinese Australian' means. For example, do we include Taiwanese Australians in this category or do we exclude them from this article (and include them in a article about Taiwanese Australians)? Or should we include Australians born in China BUT who are not ethnic Chinese (such as ethnic Tibetans)? So what is the bottom line? Firstly, this article needs to define the term 'Chinese Australian' far more rigorously than it does now. Only by doing so can we be sure which peoples this article is referring to. Secondly, the ABS statistics on ancestry are extremely poor sources of information for this article. Because the term ancestry is vaguely defined, there is scope for wild misinterpretation. Indeed, there are some statistics from the ABS dating back to the early 1990s that claimed that over 30 % of Vietnamese Australians are of Chinese ancestry (an outrageous assertion by any measure) Furthermore, the concepts of ethnicity and ancestry are quite different. Thirdly, this article is really about a civic identity rather than an ethnic identity. So this means that on this point alone, this article needs substantial revision. In particular, there is a need for separate articles on 'Hong Kong Australians' and 'Taiwanese Australians' (and move content from this article to the relevant ones as appropriate). 122.105.147.208 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is now being edited in an attempt to remove irrelevant content from the article. Also, for the first time, the article makes it clear that 'Chinese Australian' is a civic identity (as opposed to an ethnic identity). So, material relating to topics like 'Taiwanese Australians' and 'Vietnamese Australians' are now being removed (they can be reinserted in the relevant articles if useful). I will now be checking each name listed in the article for relevance. So, stand by for further edits. 122.105.147.208 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing this page all editors are now reminded once more that they should read this section carefully (and indeed any other applicable sections) and discuss any changes that they wish to make. Recently, once ignorant user reverted some changes claiming that there was no justification, a completely false allegation. 122.109.121.124 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A user has added an entry for Taiwanese born people in the article. Unfortunately, some people find the idea that Taiwan is somehow a 'Chinese' state (whether politically, culturally or ethnically) extremely offensive. So, could we get rid of that entry please?

Also, the expression 'Chinese herritage' doesn't really mean anything as far as the article is concerned. How would Australian descendants of Chinese immigrants who can't speak any language but English be classified? What about Vietnamese Australians who can speak Cantonese but because of some mishap are completely unable to speak Vietnamese? In short, what is 'cultural herritage'?

To be honest, there is no simple answer to the last question. Therefore, I have reverted the definition to a less ambiguous one. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just inserted a much clearer definition that happens to be similar to the one put forth before it was changed to an ambiguous one. Now that the article contains a clear definition for the term 'Chinese Australian', we need to check every name listed in the notables section to see if they can remain in the article. I say this because, under the new definition, some of the people listed would not be considered 'Chinese Australian'.

And by the way Taiwan is NOT part of China. Many Taiwanese people are just fed up with this nonsense about Taiwan being part of China. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

um...I never said nor implied Taiwan is part of China (although Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China). Chinese Australians have been part of Australia long before the cross strait issues. Why should people from one ancestry come from only one country? Why can you say somebody is not of a particular ancestry if they cannot speak the language? You seem to be the only person making these issues Kransky (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody realised that 'Chinese Australian', just like 'Lebanese Australian', 'Iraqi Australian', 'Malaysian Australian' etc is just a term denoting a particular civic identity, i.e. NOT ethnic identity? If the term is indeed a civic identity term only as stated, then I am afraid to say that I will have to reverse Kransky's changes. But if the term denotes an ethnic identity as well, then may be the introduction should clearly state the distinction between the two identities and revise any other parts of the article as appropriate.

On the matter of Taiwanese Australians, I strongly believe that there should be a separate article for that subject and that qualifiers must be added if it is necessary to label them 'Chinese' in any way. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody realised that 'Chinese Australian', just like 'Lebanese Australian', 'Iraqi Australian', 'Malaysian Australian' etc is just a term denoting a particular civic identity? Short answer: No I don't know of any official sources that deconstructs this term. You are overcomplicating what is a straight forward issue and being unnecessarily prescriptive.

Feel free to start a Taiwanese Australian article if you want.Kransky (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This game is getting ridiculous. For the record, I cannot emphasise enough that many Taiwanese Australians associate themselves with the Chinese ethnicity only because many of them are not very culturally minded at all (due to widespread propaganda both in and out of Taiwan). As for the Hoa people and their Australian descendants, they are NOT even considered ethnically Chinese by Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and - surprise, surprise - Taiwanese (and their respective governments)! So we ALL need to get a grip and stop putting information that is either out of touch with reality or would be considered offensive. This means getting rid of content about Taiwanese Australians and Vietnamese Australians from the article. I must add that a request has already been made to amend Vietnamese Australian to ensure that the Hoa people in Australia and their Australian descendants are counted as Vietnamese Australians. I will also be arranging for an article on Taiwanese Australians to be created in the near future. 122.109.98.50 (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, it is you who needs to get a grip. For a start, provide us with evidence to back up your highly POV statement that many Taiwanese Australians associate themselves with the Chinese ethnicity only because many of them are not very culturally minded at all (and you say this article is offensive?!). Likewise with the Viet-Hoa. Kransky (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow,the user who has started this has raised some interesting issues mainly in regards to ethinicity and civic identity of the Chinese peoples. I'm aware that many Chinese who came from Vietnam would closely associate themselves as ethnic Chinese or the Hoa.However this is depending on whether they had previously lived in Vietnam for many generations or lived there for only a brief period. Would Chinese people who came to Vietnam in the 60s then left in the 70s be Vietnamese?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.30.136 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We use the statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and in the census people self-identify their ethnicity. --Matilda ^talk 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Attention all editors

Please note that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by immigrants from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; the 'Hoa' are considered 'Vietnamese'. In light of this, I urge all editors to check that this and all related articles reflect the said classification. 122.109.98.81 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the situation in Australia, but this is definitely not true in North American. Roadrunner (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition revisited

I have just one crucial question to ask: at the page Vietnamese Australian, it is acceptable to define Vietnamese Australian as 'an Australian either born in Vietnam or is an Australian descendant of the former.' But try doing something similar at Chinese Australian and the statement is met with an extremely hostile reception. Why is it the case that a concept that has been accepted for use in an article on some other minority ethnic (or civic) group not been accepted for this article? Are there any fundamental differences so as to warrant defining 'Chinese Australian' in a way that is not in common usage but which seems to have been adopted by Australian academia? Or is this just another blatant attempt to impose the label of Chinese ethnicity against people who are totally opposed to being labeled as such? 122.109.98.81 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Australian Bureau of Statistics terminology

When we use primary sources of data, we stick to the terminology that they used. I don't know of any authority that refers to the PRC as "Mainland China", except perhaps that which is on Taiwan.

The terminology is accurate. Remember that most persons born in Hong Kong were born prior to 1997, so strictly speaking they were not born in the PRC or mainland China.

I suppose I could redo the map and include both Hong Kong and China born...

Kransky (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Mainland China" is a political neutral term that is preferred by Wikipedia when editing China-related article, as far as I understand. When mainland China and HK are put together, it does not give an impression that HK is not part of the PRC (but "China and HK" does give that impression). This also applies to Taiwan, as the phrase "China and Taiwan" implies that Taiwan is not part of China, but "mainland China and Taiwan" doesn't tell the reader either way. I understand that we need to use the terminology that Wikipedia adopts, not the terminology of the primary sources, as we have to be in compliance with Wikipedia's relevant policies (eg NPOV) when we edit the articles here, but the primary sources don't.

I will reproduce the relevent NPOV section, as follows:-

"The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China..."

You will note the extract above is not subject to dispute. The dispute only applies to the naming of Taiwan/ROC articles (see talk page).

Kransky said:-

"The terminology is accurate. Remember that most persons born in Hong Kong were born prior to 1997, so strictly speaking they were not born in the PRC or mainland China."

It is correct that these people aren't born in mainland China or the PRC. HK is not part of mainland China in the context of this article, so using the term "mainland China" does not have any impact on HK's statistics and HK's status relating to Chinese soverignty.

Also, using the term PRC is less accurate because HK has been part of the PRC for 11 years and the statitics might include people born during this period.--pyl (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please indent your comments.

When people were interviewed for the Census in 2006 they were asked what country they were born in. Those who said they were born in the People's Republic of China answered as such. The ABS publish their data stating these people were born in the PRC. They therefore should be reported as being born in the PRC.

It is not just a Wikipedia requirement, but a requirement whenever you quote a survey or any other primary source, not to misrepresent what was stated, even if you think the term you are suggesting is synonymous. To say that in 2006 x number of Australian residents said they were born in the PRC is accurate, NPOV and factual. Kransky (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is easier to read if I don't indent since I was essentially responding to your comments and no one else's. But I would indent here at your request.

I have a feeling that you simply just ignored what I said and repeated what you said earlier.

I visited the ABS website and got the information. The information did not say the PRC. It said as follows:-

China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)(a) 93,281 113,310 206,591

It is clear they are talking about "mainland China" here. If you want to quote the original terminology as you insisted then do "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)" but it is clear that calling Taiwan as "Taiwan province" would be contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This is essentially the point I was trying to put across at first place: The ABS has a POV that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy so we need to change to terminology accordingly.--pyl (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)" is POV and inappropriate, even if it is what the ABS says. However I note that the actual form itself (and therefore the primary data source) respondents would have written something that implied they were born in China (but not Macau, Hong Kong or Taiwan). Tell me if you are satisified with this text I have now included. Kransky (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the original forms. I found the relevant section, as follows:-

61 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia)

6100 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia), nfd

6101 China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)

6102 Hong Kong (SAR of China)

6103 Macau (SAR of China)

6104 Mongolia

6105 Taiwan

If you look at the italic bit, I think they used the same terminology.

The way the labels are made in the article, it can imply that Taiwan is not part of China, which is another POV. It can also imply that the statistics is about mainland China and Taiwan, but it doesn't include HK and Macau. That's why I suggested "mainland China", as it doesn't make any suggestions on Taiwan's political status.

I appreciate that you wish to stick to the original terminology in order to be accurate but I think we both agree that the original terminology is inappropriate as it suggests that Taiwan is part of China as a province (Australian government's POV).

Please read the relevant NPOV section that I quoted above, if you haven't. "Mainland China" is the term that Wikipedia suggests us to use to avoid this problem.

If you can, please make changes to the main text as well. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the label and the main text accordingly.--pyl (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have written ("one dot denotes 100 Sydney/Melbourne residents born in China (excluding Macau or Hong Kong)") implies exactly what you mean by mainland China. We therefore have no need to use the term "mainland China", whose useage is not practiced worldwide. Kransky (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said at all? I feel quite disrespected. Let me repeat what I said earlier.

"The way the labels are made in the article, it can imply that Taiwan is not part of China, which is another POV. It can also imply that the statistics is about mainland China and Taiwan, but it doesn't include HK and Macau. That's why I suggested "mainland China", as it doesn't make any suggestions on Taiwan's political status."--pyl (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I (Kransky) have inserted Pyl's comments, left on my talk page, to continue the discussion:

I explained in the talk page of the Chinese Australian page and said why the ABS terminology is inappropriate. You agreed with me, then you proceeded to use another POV term. I expressed my concerns that this other term is not appropriate and explained why. You didn't bother to reply. Then when I proceeded to use the NPOV term, you just simply reverted the edits and gave a reply suggesting that you didn't read my explanations at all. No, you did not write a term that is equivalent to "mainland China" and I explained why if you bother to read it.

I feel that your act is simply disrespectful.

I am not introducing a new terminology for the sake of it. The term used by the ABS is incorrect and it cannot be used in Wikipedia without breaking the NPOV policy. I cited the policy and I didn't get a reply to it.

Then you insist on using "PRC" in the main text, when you conceded that the original survey didn't even use this terminology.

It is commonly accepted in Wikipedia that "mainland China" means the PRC territory not including HK and Macau and the term does not include Taiwan (regardless of Taiwan's status). This is the neutral term. Please don't let me constantly repeat stuff. It is quite rude.--pyl (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In response, I regret you feel upset about this. Now look at things from my perspective. I spend time developing a map I believe will help describe how Chinese Australian settle in Australia. And in response I have you complaining about the terminology used. So lets lay off the crying game please.

I considered the ABS terminology "Taiwan, Province of China" to be inappropriate. However it is not relevant to this discussion here.

What you consider is mainland China is the People's Republic of China less Hong Kong and Macau (the SARs). Can you confirm we are in agreement here? This is what the maps show.

If so, then the argument becomes one of what terminology we use. I think we should use the terminology as used by author of the survey ("People's Republic of China"). As we know that statistics on the SARs are collated differently we can assume they are excluded in the PRC count. Therefore it is entirely appropriate to use the term "PRC" or "People's Republic of China" (I would also agree with "China") with a reference to Macau and Hong Kong being excluded in the count. I am totally against something like "PRC less Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan" as this implies PRC ownership of China.

I am not in favour of using "mainland China". I don't have any problems with it, except that I consider it inappropriate to combine an unofficial term with official statistics. You risk misrepresenting the ABS as it suggests the ABS uses this term.

There is absolutely nothing POV or incorrect by stating "PRC (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)". Kransky (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am doing a cry game here. I am just disappointed that I spent so much time explaining things and you just gave a response which gave me the impression that you simply didn't read what I said. I think that's rude.

That being said, I am not trying to deface the statistics that you put time and effort on. I was just suggesting a NPOV term, which has supported by consensus in the Chinese naming policy.

Yes I confirm that "mainland China" means the PRC minus Hong Kong and Macau and it makes no suggestion as to Taiwan's political status.

I didn't see "People's Republic of China" being used by the survey either in the published results or the original forms. I showed you what I meant previously. I am not sure where you saw the term being used.

People's Republic of China includes Hong Kong and Macau. That's the common understanding of English speakers. That's why this term shouldn't be used. And yes saying "PRC less Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan" implies PRC ownership of China, and it is against the NPOV policy.

I am not sure if you read the NPOV policy that I cited. It clearly points out that in situations like this, editors should use "mainland China". It is exactly what the ABS means and there is no issue of misrepresentation here. The ABS has to use "China" because of political reasons, as the Australian government recognises the PRC as China.

Kransky said:-

"There is absolutely nothing POV or incorrect by stating "PRC (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)"

Yes there is. As the PRC claims Taiwan, there can be a POV implying the statistics includes Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a non sequitur. The statement "PRC (less Hong Kong and Macau)" does not imply that Taiwan is part of the PRC, nor does is imply it isn't. I am suprised that you think otherwise.

Yes it does. Otherwise the NPOV policy wouldn't suggest that we use "mainland China" instead. It is about claims of a country, and some people read the article taking into account of the claims and others don't. I believe the UN's POV is "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China". The term "Mainland China" avoids this issue.

The ABS published their results specifiying that those people declared their birth as being in the PRC.

The link you showed me said "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)" in the published results. It didn't say PRC.

You seem to be oblivious to a greater issue. If we say that "according to the ABS there were one million people who were born in China" it implies that the ABS uses this terminology. It does not. Kransky (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No it didn't use "China", it used "China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)". And I don't think any media in Australia would be using that terminology because it is considered to be quite offensive to the Taiwanese.

I don't think in this case we are implying that the ABS uses any particular terminology. We are simply using a NPOV term to describe ABS' statistics.

If we can't agree on this, then I suggest that we post this issue on the Administrator's NPOV noticeboard and let's see what they say.--pyl (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that "PRC (less Hong Kong and Macau)" does not imply that Taiwan is or is not part of the PRC. Your response "Yes it does. Otherwise the NPOV policy wouldn't suggest that we use "mainland China" instead." is felacious. There is no Wikipedia policy that obliges us to call the PRC "mainland China".

This showed that you don't read what I wrote. Let me repeat what I said earlier, as follows:-

I will reproduce the relevent NPOV section, as follows:-

"The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China..."

You will note the extract above is not subject to dispute. The dispute only applies to the naming of Taiwan/ROC articles (see talk page).

You are probably a busy person like me, and if after several attempts at explaining we are not getting anywhere I agree we need somebody else to look at the issue. Kransky (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

OK.--pyl (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well your tourist example is irrelevant. I agree that any reasonable person will assume the statement "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" implies "Taiwan is outside China". But I maintain that any reasonable person will not consider the statement "PRC (less Hong Kong and Macau)" endorses or refutes Taiwan's position vis a vis China.

Because the Australian Government does not recognise the RoC, and the ABS collate statistics on Taiwan separately, it was forced to make references to "Province of China" (to which, if you are insulted, is understandable). I still think the best way to balance NPOV with fidelity to the source data is to use the definition I have provided. Kransky (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not my example. It is Wikipedia's example. Go read the full policy. I just extracted the relevant bit for your convenience.

I don't feel insulted that the Australian Government considers Taiwan as a province of China. Politically, I actually agree with them. I think you made a wrong assumption by assuming that people with Taiwanese ancestry all believe that Taiwan is an independent country. I don't, and about 50% of Taiwanese population don't either. It is just we aren't as loud as Taiwan Independence supporters.

I hope you also understand it can also be offensive to a group of people when you say Taiwan is not part of China. So to me personally, I rather that you use the original terminology which is China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province).

I was asking for "mainland China" because it is Wikipedia's suggestion. That's all. Pure and simple - no personal political motives.--pyl (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with Kransky that there is nothing POV or incorrect by stating "PRC (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)", the ABS collates stats on Taiwan separately and I am not sure if I see the issue with reporting that separately. It also happens to be politically realistic - we can say the capital of China is Nanjing and the provisional capital is Taipei or we can say the capital is Beijing and Taiwan is a province ... we are not here to play games. We need to be faithful to the source data. I am unable to see the NPOV issues in relation to being faithful to the source. Nor can I see any ambiguity. If User:pyl has an issue he needs to debate it with the ABS - not here. --Matilda ^talk 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing POV? Including this?

UN's POV is "Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China"

I thought I was doing the right thing (improving Wikipedia's quality by being neutral) by asking Kransky to use the Wikipedia's recommended term of "mainland China" as it is universally considered to be neutral. It seems that people think I am playing a political game here, which is far from the truth.

If you read the whole discussion, you will see that I actually listed the ABS data above already. I will repeat it here:-

61 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia)

6100 Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia), nfd

6101 China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province)

6102 Hong Kong (SAR of China)

6103 Macau (SAR of China)

6104 Mongolia

6105 Taiwan

If we want to be faithful to the original data, let's just use the original terminology of China (excludes SARs and Taiwan Province) and leave it at that. I actually don't have a problem with that. I just find it quite curious that you don't see a POV.--pyl (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• If we are all happy to stick with ABS terminology - let us leave it at that then. --Matilda ^talk 13:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--pyl (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

New External Link added

I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to stories and images of Chinese Australian families.Eleworth (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

List

How about moving all the articles under "Notable people" into a List of Chinese Australians? Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese Nationalist vandalising talk page

I just noticed back in 2008, a Vietnamese nationalist ip removed comments he deemed "offensive", the comments that he deemed "offensive" were those that noted that ethnic chinese from vietnam were considered chinese. He spammed multiple talk pages and deleted multiple comments, claiming that ethnic Chinese and other chinese groups in china were really "Vietnamese" who were falsely labelled as chinese. I don't know how you guys didn't notice him deleting other peoples comments. [3]Bunser (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The ip I am talking about is 122.109.121.124, whose rants are still visible on the above sections.Bunser (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Indigenous

Can someone explain why multiple people are on the list of chinese australians if they are labelled indigenous? One would presume that they are australian aboriginals, although their names are chinese.Bunser (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

History Section Bias

The history section is entirely NSW biased. This could do with some cleaning up. This is meant to be the history of Chinese in Australia of which NSW is a part. I will attempt to clean this up over time but this is a rather large job to collect the appropriate sources some help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Langan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to do some work on improving and deleting a lot of the content in the chronology section. I'm not really convinced that the format is all that good too?Sir Langan (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would advise against deleting much material. If you feel it is too NSW focused, you can move some of the content to a separate article about Chinese in NSW. --99of9 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already moved it all to the History of Chinese in Australia page. I don't want to delete anything really. Now that it's on that page though we probably don't need this much history on this page anyway. It says at the start its a brief chronology but it's hardly brief.Sir Langan (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds about right. --99of9 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The contents of the old chronology section can now be found on the History of Chinese in Australia page. I am continuing to work on it to improve and add more information. I've now made a history section on this page which provides a brief overview of the topic. Sir Langan (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chinese Australians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Booian Australian importance more than 100,000 Australian residents declared their place of birth on the 2006 Australian census as being China hence its rating as Demographics-importance = top --Matilda talk 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chinese 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 Chinese 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 "Census Ethic Media Package":

• From Italian Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (Excel download). Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 June 2007. Retrieved 14 July 2008.
• From Malaysian Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (Excel download). Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007-06-27. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
• From French Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (XLS). Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 June 2007. Retrieved 14 July 2008.
• From Scottish Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (Excel download). Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007-06-27. Retrieved 2008-11-02.
• From Korean Australians: "2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (XLS). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 June 2007. Retrieved 25 March 2016.
• From Dutch Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package". Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 June 2007. Retrieved 14 July 2008.
• From Sudanese Australians: "2914.0.55.002 2006 Census Ethnic Media Package" (XLS). Census Dictionary, 2006 (cat.no 2901.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 June 2007. Retrieved 28 April 2017.

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⚡ 02:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian Chinese are of partial Chinese ancestry too

Chinese Australians should redefined as being of full of partial Chinese ancestry to be consistent with other Australian wikipages such as Scottish Australians, English Australians, Cornish Australians which all contain mixed ancestry notable people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

What you're proposing seems reasonable but we need reliable sources to support any (including our current) definition of Chinese Australians. We cannot just follow other random articles per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If those other articles have sources supporting their definitions then they're probably fine. If they don't have sources, or if you have doubts, you can open a talk page discussion and try to get consensus to fix those articles but the fact they may be broken doesn't mean we should break this article. I'd note that AFAICT, there's nothing in our current definition for this article which excludes people of partial Chinese ancestry anyway so I'm unconvinced the definition in this article needs to change to include those of partial Chinese ancestry since the definition already seems to. As for the inclusion of any particular person, you'd need to sources to support calling them Chinese Australians especially for living persons. These sources should specifically call them Chinese Australian in some fashion rather than just saying they have Chinese ancestry whether full or partial. And again to be clear this applies to anyone in this article or really any article. Note that this article is only ever going to have a small number of names compared to the large number of Chinese Australians, so the inclusion of any particular person in this article is subject to strong amounts of editorial discretion surrounding significance and getting a good cross-section of the community, and frankly is going to be a bit "random" (for lack of a better word). Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No you are not understanding, the problem is that user wrongly removed notable Chinese Australians of mixed Chinese heritage from this article. And those articles are related and already contain sources that proves my point by relation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Chinese Australians simply means Australian citizens with Chinese ancestry. This could be 1% Chinese ancestry of 100% Chinese ancestry. I don't think anyone has denied this? This is consistent across all ancestries in the way the ABS uses data. If you have one Chinese great-grandparent and the rest are Irish, Nigerian and Mexican, you are still Chinese Australian (as well as Irish Australian, Nigerian Australian, etc). I don't see where anyone has tried to define the term in a way which contradicts this in the article...StormcrowMithrandir 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, you are right, on the other hand, reliable source is needed that a person with partial Chinese origin at least somehow considers himself a Chinese. Because by that logic we are all "partly East African" and all people should be listed as Ethiopians and Somalis. Ethnicity is primarily a self-determenetion, not race or who your ancestors were. So I agree with Nil Einne in this case, the other articles are pretty wrong if they automatically include people with partial ancestry in a certain ethnicity against their will. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

(EC) @Rooveaouravevo: if you want to revert TyronMcLannister removals [4] that's one thing, but please stop trying to change other stuff unless sources already used for those sections or which you add clearly support those changes. However even when it comes to reverting TyronMcLannister as I said, you need sources, frankly the whole article is a complete mess since none of the people currently mentioned have sources supporting them being Chinese Australians. We cannot rely on sources in other articles including article on these people, the sources need to be in this article. IMO per WP:BLP for anyone living it would be acceptable to just remove them all until someone bothers to source them although it may be controversial. If you can't be bothered digging up sources, perhaps a middle ground might be to remove all living people until and unless someone sources them, while keeping and adding back anyone who has been deceased for 2 years or more that was removed by TyronMcLannister. Those deceased should have sources too but I don't see any valid reason to remove only some people but not the others for lacking sources. (Whereas there is a valid reason i.e. BLP for removing living persons but not the deceased.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thus I have removed the album with links to biographical wiki articles until the reliable sources can be found. Dead people biographies also need reliable sources. TyronMcLannister (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Asian Australians WikiProject

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians. Let me know if you are interested.

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)