Talk:Violence against Indians in Australia controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This article should be deleted.

This has got to be the most unnecessary entry on wikipedia. What are the reasons for the creation of this page? Are robberies against minorities in every country and on every minority group going to have articles created for them? --Bojach (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.

There is little to suggest that these aren't just normal assaults and robberies with no racial motivation and thus it's not worthy of a separate page. Rsloch (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a special event. Though newsworthy due to disproportionate numbers, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. A history book, maybe, but not an encyclopedia. --scochran4 (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or else the recent Air France Flight 447 crash in Atlantic Ocean wouldn't be featured in here at all. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to quote a Wiki policy that indicates why it should be deleted? I mean there are tons of rules, so surely you had one in mind. I freely admit, I just know how to edit, no clue on the policy Booster4324 (talk)

Strongly Disagree I think that this article has problems, and needs a name change and a more consistant source for figures, but deleting it is not the answer. WookMuff (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about a recent noticeable spate in attacks against minorities. It is NOT a description about a single instance of alleged attack. This may be reworded and improved but not deleted rams81 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The article documents the rise of Indian nationalism, amongst students seeking Australian citizenship, who actively are seeking to trash Australia's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.114.211 (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But is this a spate of attacks against minorities or have Indians just be disproportion victims of crime because of other factors, where they live, them being students, their use of public transport, what they carry on their person, etc?

Run through any crimes statistics and there will be years when one group or another happens by chance to disproportionally suffer from crime so unless a causal link between racism, and the increased attacks on Indians is established this article is pandering to politically motivated hysteria and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the claims are unsubstantiated, the fact that there's a big media controversy over them and the protests makes them worthy of an article, although I would support the article being retitled so that it is about the protests and media reaction, which are definitely real, rather than being about the underlying crime trend, for which we do not yet have compelling statistics, in my opinion. Gregory j (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Having viewed the whole situation as best I can and wading through various media sources and formats, I can only say that it is a total surprise that anyone would suggest deletion of this article. If people want to have a better look then all they have to do is see how many other kinds of catagories where violence is directed towards a group and then subsitite Indian or Curry for that term. They may see things in perspective then. (Racism Watch Australia (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a lousy reason to argue for an article's retention here. –Moondyne 12:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• This article should not be deleted The reason why some people would want this article deleted is that some people do not want the truth exposed. Not everyone likes to admit that their back yard is dirty or overgrown with weeds and has snakes and other vermin hiding in it. But at the end of the day the trfuth is brutal and we all have to face up to it if we wish to continue as a society with morals. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

No one is* suggesting the article be deleted (* please read the dates above and note my use of the word is and not was). As for the your inflammatory tone of this comment and your others page, I advise caution. They seem to make no constructive contribution on how to improve the article, rather, in my opinion they border on rant. I am more than happy to seek administrator advise on your posts if you'd like. Please try to be specific, non-inflammatory, and constructive. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Education aspect

One of the most prominent results of these attacks so far have been the amount of regulatory changes and reviews happening right now in the International students sector. Should that be mentioned?

I remember reading this > http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/an-opportunity-to-learn-from-bitter-experience-20090602-bub5.html and I think that article shifted the course of the Indian Consul General's talk to the media and the government's reaction too.

Rooneyalex49 (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Da amazerxl (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename to: 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia

As not only students, Indian taxi drivers were also attacked [1]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is linked to a general trend, I don't think this incident should be included. A lot of taxi drivers get attacked. I know a Caucasian driver had a noose tied around him and was doused in petrol, although he was not set alight and the perpetrators ran away. This happened 500m from where I live. This article is about supposed systematic attck, but if this is just a robbery.... Unfortunately all taxi drivers in Australia work in an unsafe environment. And from personal experience I used a taxi five times last year and four of the drivers were Indian, so if that is indicative of the proportion of Indians driving taxis, then there will be hundreds of attacks irrespective of targeting. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There have also been attacks on Chinese students.[2] Should we rename the article to 2009 attacks on Indians and Chinese in Australia? A Catholic man was bashed two days ago while walking home from church.[3] Should we rename the article to 2009 attacks on Indians, Chinese and Catholics in Australia? Or perhaps we need a separate article: 2009 attacks on Catholics in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess u guys are still missing the picture. Assuming it is true that the attacks havent increased from "normal" levels, other ethnicities are also attacked in a similar fashion and not racially motivated, it is the coverage these attacks received by the Indian media and reactions from Indian dignitaries and subsequent reaction from Rudd which makes these events notable. --Like I Care 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree - while I don't want to say any attack on anyone is not notable (I know *I'd* think it was notable if I was attacked, bashed, etc), given the lack of hard evidence of something systematic, the coverage does indeed seem to be the most unusual/notable aspect. --Merbabu (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The most notable aspect of these events is the protests in Australia and the reactions of Indian and Australian politicians. The article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - re the heading suggestion, i understand your logic, and it is not a silly suggestion. I'm not so sure. Logically you are correct, but it is a controversial suggestion, and I think it would be more productive to spend our time improving the article's contents rather than arguing over a title. Come back in a few months when the issue (presumably) will have settled down. Then see what the perspective is. Remember, this is still a very current event, and an encyclopedia is thus not the best medium to describe it, although collectively "the community" is doing a good job with the article. --Merbabu (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To Borofkin, again, from an Australian perspective, it is just the protests and from an Indian perspective, both attacks and protests. Both attacks and protests are notable by every definition of the word WP:Notability. To Merbabu, that sounds like a practical idea. everyone may want to just title it just "protests" at that time or who knows. --Like I Care 12:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Borofkin, calling a title "attacks on Indians, Chinese and Catholics in Australia" gets away from the actual trend that is taking place. There's always been a bit of racism in Aussie as there is everywhere. Possibly back in the 90's when Hansen was at her peak there was a growing or developing racial abuse trend towards Asians = Chinese and Vietnamese. Now it's towards Indians so we have to stay on the actual trend and call it for what it really is.. (Marinesuper (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

What evidence is there of a trend towards increased attacks on Indians? If you know of statistics that demonstrate a trend then this should be included in the article. - Borofkin (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indian media and politicians have provided a lot of evidence. Sheeezzz --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

General discussion of racism in Australia

Several editors keep adding the statement that "An 11-year study by a collaboration of Australian universities founded 85 per cent of Australians acknowledge racial prejudice occurs in the nation, moreover one in five has been a victim of racist verbal abuse and related incidents." (which is currently back in the article and referenced to a dead link). While the research is, sadly, almost certainly correct, I don't see how this is directly relevant to the article's topic (note that it's about people acknowledging that at least some racial prejudice exists and whether they've experienced it, and not that it's related to violence/robberies, is worse for Indian students, etc) and think it should be removed (again) and stay removed. Thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It's irrelevant to the article. - Borofkin (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - it is irrelevant and would suggest that racism was the primary reason of the assults. Are there any scholarly articles about drug taking or poor street lighting worth including? Kransky (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"85% of Australians acknowledge racial prejudice occurs in the nation" - so what? --Merbabu (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to the article. Yes there are varying degrees of racism in Australia (as there are in other countries) but it is drawing a long bow to suggest that because a percentage of Australians may be racist that all attacks on Indian students are therefore racially motivated. There are a few "opinions" in this article which are - in my opinion - of similar concern.  florrie  11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least get the article semi-protected. While we discuss it here and all seem to agree, anon editors continue to restore it with no discussion. --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey has semi-protected the article. Thanks YellowMonkey! Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indian students attacking/raping locals

Regards

the article only lists racist incidents. As any white attacking a non White is obviously and only racism, then such attacks should be listed - no need to question particularly if we have an impartial source such as the Indian media or an Indian politician. But how can it be racist if the attacker is not white? Remember, Australia is a racist society while there is no racist Indian. ;-). --Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

false portrayal by Indian media sounds like a reasonable section to include. but your other suggestion sounds illogical and irrational. --L I C 11:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be proactive in rebutting nonsense. All we can do is suppress it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Regards to the above user: One thing to be noted in all this is there seems to be no arrests so far nor any info on criminals being tracked down by the australian police. This clearly supports the recent report of the aussie police enjoying circulating racist images among themselves(what that report did not draw out whether it were pics of an Asian or an African individual being victimised). The above comment is furthur concerning since more important matters regarding the closing down of sham aussie universities or the vicious cycle of aussie agents duping students to fuel their country's third largest industry(the eucation industry)is not being looked into but preposterous ideas like "maintenance of statistics of innocent students committing crimes" are being considered.Seems to be a perfect approach by the aussies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.255.218 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish

I'm sorry, but this sort of hysterical rubbish being added as a verified source is really upsetting. [4] Load of bull. I'd better unwatch this page for a while I think.  florrie  02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add?Keysvolume (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think questioning the use of the Times of India is perfectly constructive. Trying to pass it off as a quality source is an offence to wikipedia. It's drivel. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all. Times of India qualified as a WP:RS despite what Australian apologists say. Secondly, If TOI is "rubbish", then all the TOI articles (including these ones that subscribe to Australian apologia concerning the racial attacks[5][6][7]), are "rubbish" as well. I doubt that Australian racial apologists would like that :) .Keysvolume (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are new to wikipedia. First and foremost, you need to stop referring to good faith editors as "apologists" and their actions as "racial whitewashing".[8] This contravenes the WP:AGF policy, one of wikipedia's most fundamental. If you continue, then I shall seek administrator advice - indeed, I know they watch this page. on the other hand, if you wish to continue with such remarks, then you could perhaps report the "bad behaviour" to WP:ANI. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A spade is a spade. Good faith cannot be assumed when the Australian editors are only too happy to use a source when it publishes an anti-India article, but trashes the very same source when it is critical of their country. This clearly is a violation of good faith, and no amount of Wikipedia gang warring will change that reality.Keysvolume (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never used a Times of India article. Once again, WP:AGF demands you assume good faith, and that you report bad faith. And, is your attempt to associate myself with Sydney gang rapes a sign of your own good faith? Please clarify. thanks--Merbabu (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - I'm referring to the Times Now references. I hope that clarifies the issue. --Merbabu (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times Now references are a real concern. I'm not familiar with this publication, but it appears to be most tabloidy to say the least, hence my above questioning of its use. --Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The OP refers to this article [9] critically. This is an article from "Times of India" rather than "Times Now". Are we talking about two different publications here? Did I miss something?Keysvolume (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes - we are talking about two publications. I've apologised above for my error and the confusion caused. --Merbabu (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. If you question the validity of the Times Now article, I suggest that the Reliable Sources noticeboard is a better place for that.Keysvolume (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the article talk page is far more immediate and relevant in the first instance, particularly when the sources have been recently added. RS noticeboard can be a good place for a further hearing. Times Now has been used 7 times in this article. Each instance should be checked. Seems like appallingly partisan and subjective journalism though. The Fox News of India??? --Merbabu (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not an appropriate analogy. Fox News is controlled by right-wing ideologue Rupert Murdoch, and has faced allegations of right wing bias in their journalism favoring the US Republican Party. All of the English language media in India is neoliberal in political position (the vernacular media tends to be right wing) and aggressively pro-west (there was even one times now special focusing on Huntingtonian ideas of the clash of civilizations). I'm afraid that some more concrete evidence is needed regarding your allegations of partisanship and subjectivity AGAINST a western country (or, in this case, quasi-western).Keysvolume (talk)

My doubts about Times Now have nothing to do with Australia, let alone its status (or otherwise) as a western country. The source alone is enough cause for concern, or "evidence" as you suggest:

TIMES NOW asks

- Aussie cops call it a routine probe. Are we to believe race attacks are routine in Australia?

- Aussie cop demands proof but aren't the victims' versions not good enough?

- Will locals risk social ostracisation by standing witness in court?

- Why hasn't the police released the CCTV footage in connection with the case?

That is not the writing of a reliable source. If the information used in this article is both notable and reliable, then it should not be hard to find it in another, superior quality, publication (either Indian or Australian). --Merbabu (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Times of India article cited above is not biased. While it may give undue promenence to one side of the story in this article, in other articles it has been more measured. Certainly here the facts are second hand reports. It is citing the views of relatives of students who were beaten. And you can hardly complain if a distraught mother doesn't give an objective, impassioned account of what has happened.

The reference to the elderly Australian ladies joining the mob does makes me wonder... Kransky (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the claim made about "elderly ladies" sounds bizarre, but that claim is not being touted as unequivocal fact by the reporter, but merely reported as the testimony of the victim. Obviously, such a claim should not be stated in the wikipedia article (unless additional sources verify that the elderly participated in the attack, which frankly does not seem likely). Nonetheless, the base assertion that IS being touted by the reporter can be stated in the wp article using the toi article.Keysvolume (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There was an interesting full page article in yesterdays newspaper (The Advertiser Sept 19 page 5) about racism and in particular Indian students. It had statistics such as that in 1999 only 20% of foreign students wanted to stay permanently but it is now 70% (2009). Some 41% (NSW) and 37% (Vic) of these students do stay in Australia permanently after graduation (they qualify for residency if they can get a job that uses their degree). The article included interviews with Indian students who stated that apart from from some employers who saw language fluency or culture differences as a problem there was "hardly any racism" in Australia. The TOI leans towards protecting it's people much the same as any countries media does. This means they see the negatives too negatively so to speak giving "racism" too much prominence. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Combined Incident Discussion

I have combined all the incident discussions into one section in the order the sections appeared.

Agreement was reached to change the word incident for loaded word attack To summarise the issues raised with a incident section.

• privacy
• unencyclopedic
• not adding information
• original research implied by grouping
• implies connection between attacks
• concerns that if we point out only those
• should be rewritten in prose
• non -reporting is seen as censorship
• reporting only of those incidents where Indians attacked Indians is seen as selective
• NPOV issues
• Useful
• Incidents should be associated in some way with the controversy
• The attacks and murders are not the FOCUS of this argument, the controversy is
• maybe as pat of a chronology with those incidents that were linked to protestsWakelamp (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where to now with the incident section ? Do we have

• no incidents
• add back only those incidents that are identified as causing protests ,
• those that are murders. Wakelamp (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Privacy of victims

I've removed the names from the list of attacked students. This seems like a significant WP:BLP violation. As I see it, the victims of these events don't need to be named, whether or not they are also mentioned in reliable sources, as it seems to add nothing encyclopedic to the article while risking invading their privacy. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Attacks" section is synthesis/original research

I believe that the "Attacks" section of this article is synthesis and possibly original research. The section lists about 15 attacks. The list of attacks was collected by Wikipedia editors, and listing the attacks together implies a connection between the attacks. This implied connection between the attacks is unsourced. Has a reliable source listed these attacks? Has anyone outside of Wikipedia specifically referred to these attacks when discussing racism against Indians? If not, then the section is original research. - Borofkin (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the section is very concerning as a reader. A list of crimes, with no explanation except that they are "attacks". There is nothing to indicate that this is a list of racially motivated crimes, or that they are in any way related. It seems that the list is simply a 'selection' of crimes, from the hundred thousand-odd assaults and robberies that occur annually in Australia - a selection based on the race of the victim and the fact that a news article is available as a source. If that is all it is, I think you would need a very good reason to publish such a list on Wikipedia.

On a side note, what distinguishes "attacks" from violent crime anyway, except that it is a word favoured by the Indian media? It is a loaded word that seems to imply some kind of war, and hardly appropriate for something that 'might' be nothing more than a selected component of day-to-day violent crime in an increasingly dangerous city. Are the other 99% of assaults, which occur against non-Indians, also "attacks"? Fswan4 (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidents? --Merbabu (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For that particular section, I'm not sure what the title should be. I would suggest that the whole section be changed from its current form, perhaps to focus solely on the initial incident or incidents that sparked the media storm in late May 2009. I seem to remember there were multiple stabbings within a short time, around the time the whole thing reached critical mass, such as the screwdriver stabbing. Those might already be in the list, before editors started adding every other crime that made the news. If we can focus the section on those specific incidents, I think that would make a useful section for understanding the background of the whole saga, but it would not be a very long list. As for the word 'attacks' itself, it is a wider problem than that section because it appears throughout the article and in the title. I just think other, more accurate words should have been used - crimes, violence, robberies, assaults, etc, rather than something that implies there is some kind of violent campaign going on. A counterargument is that the word 'attacks' seems to have been accepted by media in Australian as well as India, whether it is fair or not. Fswan4 (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "attacks" is not a neutral term. The focus of the article is not the crimes themselves but the protests and controversy. The crimes are a part of this, but the article should really only refer to crimes that have formed part of the controversy. To use Google News to find a large number of previous crimes against Indians (as appears to have occurred here) is not appropriate. - Borofkin (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "crimes" - hopefully making npov synthesis. ;-P --Merbabu (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I later realised that “crimes” was also problematic as it implies convictions of perpetrators. Hence, I changed it to “incidents” but this was subsequently changed back to “attacks” without explanation. I have since returned it to “incidents”. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the synthesis as well - at least, this needs to have some clearly defined inclusion criteria. Right now, we have an incident from 2010, incidents that did not involve Indians, and incidents which don't involve students. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The list should only include incidents specifically mentioned by Indian media or unambiguously attributed to racism by Australian media. Wayne (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

List of attacks (moved from article)

Incidents involving South Asians from 2009-2010 include:

• "David", a 21 year old Indian student, was beaten unconscious in the Melbourne suburb of Pascoe Vale on 4 May 2009. Four men had surrounded him, the one from behind smashing a bottle over his head before continuing to punch and kick him.

• On Saturday May 9, An 21 year old Indian hospitality student was assaulted and robbed by teenagers on a train while traveling to his home in Werribee in Melbourne's western suburbs in May 2009. He said his attackers asked "Why the f--- did you come here? and Kiss my foot"

• A 25 year old student was stabbed in the head with a screwdriver in May 2009 while he was partying with three other Indian students.

• An Indian graduate living in the Sydney suburb of Harris Park, had a petrol bomb thrown through his bedroom window on 24 May 2009. He received burns to 30 percent of his body and the blaze was extinguished by his Indian housemates. One housemate said that they had no enemies and he did not know the reason for the attack. The housemate also said that the area was not safe, and that he knew neighbours who had been robbed.

• A 25 year old Indian student was stabbed in the abdomen near Carnegie railway station in Melbourne on 25 May. One of his two attackers laughed during the assault.

• A student was badly beaten by a group of fifteen people on Chapel Street, Prahran, Victoria on 30 May.

• On 2 June, a 21 year old Indian student was slashed across the chest with a box-cutter knife in Frankston. The incident occurred a day after a Sikh temple in Shepparton was vandalised.

• On 8 June, Indians were attacked in Harris Park, allegedly by a group of Lebanese men, which sparked a street protest. The local police superintendent said there was no suggestion that these incidents were racially motivated.

• On 8 June, a 23 year old man was beaten unconscious while walking home from the St Albans train station. In the suburb of Springvale, an Indian student's car was torched.

• On 11 June, a 22 year old old Indian student was assaulted in Rundle Mall in Adelaide. The fight, which resulted in the student's nose being broken, began when the attacker struck at his turban.

• On 13 June, a 24 year old man was attacked by three people in Melbourne as he was about to enter his car. He was punched directly in the face by one while another hit him over the head from behind rendering him unconscious. He reported that they stole his mobile phone, wallet and car keys.

• On 15 June, a 20 year old man was attacked by two men as he was entering his car in Boronia. He claims the men slammed the car door on his hand, punched him in the head and stomach, then racially abused him, calling him a "----ing Indian c---". He also identified one man as white and one appearing to be of African descent.

• On 29 June, a 22 year old Sikh man was attacked at Dandenong station when a group of six teenagers tried to remove his turban and cut off his hair. Two of the attackers were later arrested by Victorian police.

• On 9 June in the Melbourne suburb of St Albans, two Indians allegedly stabbed a man in the neck who they said had used racial slurs.

• At the end of September, a 28 year old Indian repeatedly hit in the head, possibly with a baseball bat, in St Albans. Police stated that the attack was unlikely to be racially motivated, as the victim was wearing a hood at the time, and this would have hidden his identity.[10]

• On October 5, at Meadow Glen International Stadium in Epping, Melbourne, a skateboarder shouted "F--- off you black c---" at Indians who were inside their car, and then smashed a window of the car. The Indians were on their way home from a Kabaddi match at the stadium and retaliated by attacking the skateboarder and his friends, leaving the sakeboarder in hospital. [11]

• On Sunday 25 October, 22 year old Indian from Yarraville was attacked at a bus stop next to Epping railway station, Melbourne. [12]

• On December 9, a 28 year old Indian was stabbed outside his girlfriend's house in Brunswick West, Melbourne, [13][14]

2010 attacks

• 21 year old accounting graduate, Nitin Garg, was stabbed in Cruickshank Park in West Footscray, Melbourne, after 9:30pm as he was walking to work from Yarraville station, he died later in hospital on 2 January 2010.

• Three Indian students were fighting and two of them died. Running total this year - 3 dead Indians, 3 Indian murderers of Indians, one or more unknown murderer of Indians. Greglocock (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of attacks

It is not appropriate to create a large list of attacks -- this is original research. I have moved the list to the talk page. Please rewrite the "Attacks" section in prose, only mentioning significant attacks that are related in some way to the June 2009 protests. It is not Wikipedia's job to conduct an investigation into violence against Indians in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But, no doubt this won't pass without partisan controversy. --Merbabu (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not original research! So many Indians have been killed, blinded, or disabled in these racist attacks! 211.26.205.186 (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When each entry is backed by verifiable citation, it is not an original research. I came to wikipedia to read about the death of Nitin Garg. I'm rather disturbed that details of individual cases reported in media are censored out in wikipedia. Vapour (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The OR comes by grouping them together. There is no question as to whether or not Nitin Garg was murdered. So there's no OR in claiming that he was. But drawing paralels between his death and other instances of violence against Indians would be OR unless those parallels were drawn by reliable sources. In this case they have been drawn, but it isn't necessarily the case with the others in the list. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merely listing attack on Indian students which were reported by media is not OR. Had the content claim without attribution/citation that all of these attack were racist or coordinated, then it would be a OR. Mere existence of list make no such statement. I'm o.k. with adding to uncited case, followed later by deletion. Moreover, deletion of verifiable content is specifically against wikipedia policy so the deletion of the list itself seems unwarranted. Vapour (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have confused OR with verifiability. What is being argued is that the list is synthesis. There is no problem with lists per se, but there needs to be a criteria for inclusion. What is the criteria for inclusion of an entry on this list? - Borofkin (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt this argument will carry. Aside from the fact that the list of relevant cases is common in wikipedia, putting cited fact in proper context such as summarization or putting a cited fact in one section but not in other section is not a synthesis. If the article is titled "racist attack on Indian student", then putting any attack on indian student in the list would amount to extra interpretation. For example, in Missing White Women Syndrome article, all cited case are mentioned as a (possible) example of MWWS by at least one media outlet. The list section is specifically designed to collect the reported case of attack on Indian student in Australia. "Indian reaction" section, on the other hand, state cited report of Indian reaction. These are not synthesis, IMO. Anyway, given that these listed cases are reported by media outlet, what alternative way of presentation would you suggest? Vapour (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that a list is appropriate. I think that the criteria for inclusion in the list should be that the incident be associated in some way with the controversy. We shouldn't just include every attack on Indians in the last three years. - Borofkin (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also do agree that certain limit should be placed. Maybe the list should be limited to attack from 2009 onward. I doubt this controversy will extend beyond 2010. Vapour (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the criteria for inclusion should be that the act of violence is associated in some way with the larger controversy. For example, this attack is on an Indian in 2009, but in the source there is no suggestion that anyone linked the attack to the broader issue. The attack is only in the list because Wikipedians found it using Google. - Borofkin (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that the wikipedia and other encyclopedias do contain lists, Example include list of whales and its level of endangerment in whaling article or list of cases mentioned in media as an example of Missing White Women Syndrome. "What wikipedia is not" say that wikipedia is not a link farm or list of facts. This doesn't appear to mean that we can't have list. Rather, it mean that the article should contain more than a list. I personally would find list of attack cases to be quite useful as I came to this article looking for the detail of a particular case. Vapour (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My problem, I guess, is that a "List of attacks on Indians in Australia" is valid, in one sense, but serves little enclyclopedic value, and may well hit significant problems per NPOV. However, a discussion on the 2009 attacks which led to protests and the ongoing issues between Australia and India, especially in regard to students, is encyclopedic. The latter is the direction that I gather this article is taking. Given that, it doesn't seem useful to that end to simply add every attack against Indians in Australia here, but instead to include only attacks related to the broader topic. That relationship will need to be established through reliable sources, of course. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I found the lack of list to be unhelpful and uninformative. Secondly, the verification policy not only ask that content being verified, it also ask not to remove verified content. Use of list is a convenient and common way in wikipedia to observe verifiability while allowing the main article free from distraction of listing every cases or details. Making a connection and interpretation from each individual citation would be synthesis. However, merely putting verified content in a list or a section is not. Otherwise, anything except cut&paste in separate segment would amount to synthesis. Should we remove every section which use cited facts? After all these facts are contextualised. Does that amount to OR?

I came to this article after reading a newspaper article about the near 50% drop of Indian student application, which happen to mention about the murder of Nitin Garg. I'm not Australian or Indian and this was a development I wasn't aware of. So I naturally came to Wikipedia to get the further detail. I was rather annoyed to discover that not only such detail unavailable, "Incidents" section, oddly, doesn't mention the incidents of attacks. When I clicked the talk page to find out what is going on, I was further disturbed to see that someone removed the list of individual attacks, most of it having proper citation. The current article give an impression that it was all the fault of Indian hyping up the issue. Vapour (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Meribau just removed the list of signifigant incidents and quoted that consensus had been reached to remove. The opposite is the case. What next ? Wakelamp (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 24 May 2009 attack with the petrol bomb is unsolved, but it escalated into violent confrontations between Indian and Lebanese communities and later the Sydney protests. The May 2009 attack with the screwdriver is impossible to tell what the exact situation was. The attacker was under age (17) and can't be legally identified. I wouldn't be surprised if the victim knew the attacker, and I believe I heard that they (party crashers) may have been fellow students (the interview with one of the friends was hard to follow due to audio quality). The May 9 2009 train attack was committed by at least one youth of Indian descent (police confirmed), and several of Asian origin. There was 1 white boy caught on CCTV footage (viewable online) amongst them, but he is at the exit of the bus and not participating in the bashing. Nitin Garg's murderer is underage, and according to one article he was Caucasian, but police have ruled out racism being the motive. I believe, but I'm not sure, the motive can't be disclosed at this time because it will reveal the boys identity and thus violate Australian law regarding minors. These are just some examples, and probably the most serious attacks there. It is nothing but anti-Australian propoganda to automatically call these attacks 'racist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.199.140 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do be careful trying to turn this into a total denial. I don't have details of any of the attacks, but I do work with Australian teenagers on a daily basis. I can assure that a part of their language is the term curry bashing. I hope you can work out what it means without further explanation. While such terms exist, we have racism. And we have attacks. Yes, it would be wrong to draw conclusions, but no more wrong than the total denial some want to hide behind. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Tally of victims so far

I think that we need to keep an up to date page with the current tally of bashing or stabbing victims and a section for the up to dater tally of deaths as well. There's nothing wrong with awareness. What do you think ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinesuper (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not appropriate for the article as per discussion at Talk:Violence_against_Indians_in_Australia_controversy#List_of_attacks - Format (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New Incidents section

I'm concerned that the inclusion of three new incidents, all from 2010, skews the article too far in one direction. As the list of incidents was removed earlier, we now have a problem where the only incidents mentioned in detail are the three which have been shown to be non-racial in nature (two by Indian nationals, one as insurance fraud), one of which, the two recent killings, has not been connected to the overall controversy (possibly because the identity of the attacker was found so soon). The other two attacks were related to the general controversy, but it seems to me we either cover all significant attacks connected with the controversy equally (or at least according to due weight), or we leave the coverage general and don't provide coverage of specific cases unless there is a particularly important reason for doing so. Either way, I'm not comfortable with the current version. - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Background section, immediately above the abovementioned section listing the 2010 incidents, also lists a few 2008 attacks on Indians. I am not sure why they remained when the other incident were all removed? The scope of this article seems to be creeping. The smattering of attacks that are listed seems skewed. Format (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the background section may need rewriting, and it probably needs to be updated to have some coverage of 2009 and 2010 attacks. Generally, I figured the article was about the controversy, rather than the attacks, but as such some coverage of the attacks is going to be required in order to provide sufficient context. How much is, I suppose, the difficult question. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all the information should be restored and expanded upon. The introduction in particular needs to reflect the fact that many of the racist-attack-theories have been rather strongly discredited. This article's scope is not to discuss perceptions of racism in general, but these incidents in particular. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the controversy, not the attacks. The rather limp wristed approach taken in the Australian black-armband media, accompanied by a dearth of good statistics, and the spinelessness of the politicians, all add up to a situation where the Australians are being rolled by a hysterical Indian media who are blithely ignoring the rather more significant problem that Indians just love topping Indians. I think the 2010 stuff is unduly emphasised now, and would have thought a terse note that runs along the lines of "In 2010 66% of murders of Indian students in Australia were committed by Indians" would be enough. Of course adding numbers up and dividing them is probably WP:OR, and to be fair I think predicting a trend on the basis of three events is daft. Greglocock (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is about the incidents, so they need to be touched on too. This is several highly relevant and well-referenced sentences, not an article's worth of long winded minutiae, there is no reason it oughtn't be included. Two of the three incidents previously included took place in 2009, and were quite central to the controversy, the third has now been removed. I have restored the intro, cutting it back a little. What's the problem with the quote? —what a crazy random happenstance 08:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There continues to be a weight problem with only including those two incidents in the lead - they are relevant now, but not particularly important in the controversy as a whole, and selecting those two for the lead definitely skews it in one direction, especially given that many attacks did seem to have a racial dimension. This is a different issue about including them in the body, of course. You've fixed the problem with the quote, though: in the earlier version it wasn't clear that the quote only referred to two cases, rather than the problem as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but rather than removing the information about fraudulent attacks, perhaps information about real attacks should be added to balance it? —what a crazy random happenstance 08:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidents - Jaspreet Singh and Ranjodh Singh - why are those two in particular included? I repeat, this article is about the controversy, not the facts. Greglocock (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've lost you entirely. How does an encyclopaedia cover anything, but through facts? Would you prefer the entire contents of this article be replaced with just two sentences summarising each side's position with fifty sources each? I think the good people enforcing WP:SYN would have a problem with that. The actual incidents themselves, and the falsification/misrepresentation of some of them are a major part of the controversy. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The attacks and murders are not the FOCUS of this argument, the controversy is. All I'm asking for is your rationale for including those two incidents alone in the main article. Greglocock (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Jaspreet and Rajodh should be discussed, because they are examples of dishonest and hysterical reporting and soapboxing by the media and Gautam Gupta YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The murders should probably be included, but the lead section still needs to be fixed. The last sentence appears to attempt to cast a shadow of doubt over the entire subject. Those two incidents are important but let's give due weight here. I think it should not be mentioned in the lead at all and the Incidents list should be expanded beyond just two to include a few more from 2009 that were in the article before. Cheers, Amaher (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I edited the section, leaving a sentence about the two incidents but removing the quote. I agree the incident should be expanded, though in prose. liquidluck✽talk 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about the controversy, not the attacks. Central to the controversy is the fact that Indians tend to murder Indians, both in India and Australia, whereas the hysterical Indian media persists in blaming the racism of non-Indian Australians, and the spineless Australian media and politicians are disinclined to disagree. We are using murders as a surrogate for all attacks because the investigations are of higher quality. Greglocock (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying what the controversy is? Sadly, humans murder humans all the time, often humans of the same race/heritage. I'm not sure that the fact that Indians have killed other Indians is worthy of an article. liquidluck✽talk 03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So you've been editing this article while not understanding what it is about? Oh well that is not unusual for wikipedia. The controversy is that the Indian media allege that the attacks are racist, and that each new attack is treated by them as racist until proved otherwise. In contrast the Australian authorities claim that the attacks are not racist for the most part, but mainly arise because Indians tend to live in poorer areas and work at odd times, leaving them more vulnerable. Neither side has much credibility in my opinion, but are shining beacons of honesty compared with the rabble rouser spokesman for the Indian students.Greglocock (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I can't say that I'm very involved (I'm in the U.S., so the issue isn't pertinent to me; I've only edited the article about 3 times), but from what I've read in newspapers and such I believed the issue was notable because of the protests, not because of the violence itself or the media hype. The last time I read this article it did focus on the protests, but it seems to have lost that center since. I don't believe shifting the focus entirely to media sensationalism is appropriate, but can you link to an RS describing the controversy as such? I understand 2 of the attacks were not racially motivated, but I was under the impression that the majority were not. liquidluck✽talk 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we are 2.4 months into 2010 and so far all three Indian violent deaths have had Indian protagonists. Admittedly if you are from the USA that probably sounds like an average day down the mall, number wise, but it is a big deal here. I don't see how protests can really be controversial- why wouldn't people protest against assault robbery or murder? Anyway I suggest you google Indian attack Australia controversy.Greglocock (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of how loopy it all is http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2809464.htm . There are quite a few subtexts- basically many colleges based in Melbourne(Victoria) are offering rather dubious vocational training to overseas students which more or less gets you a visa at the end, so this lucrative industry faces severe trouble if the attacks continue. At the same time the Federal government is keen to close the visa loophole, which is one of the big reasons why Indian student numbers are dropping. Overlaid on that is the rabble rousing by some indolent bearded git who gets far too much TV time. Another piece of the jigsaw is that if I were a Lebanese gang looking for easy pickings, I wouldn't be mugging little old Vietnamese ladies and their kung fu nephews, I'd go for iPod-wearing Indian students. The racism cuts both ways, and the police do nothing to help matters by covering up the races of those involved. The impression in the Indian media is that Crocodile Dundee is chasing Indian boys and girls with his machete, the truth is that one set of poor immigrants is beating up a richer set of less well organised immigrants. You can insert religion into that mix if you like, Hindu vs Moslem, always good for a row in India. Greglocock (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incident removals?

I haven't been to this article in a while, but it looks like several of the incidents have been removed, and the specific incidents left are the ones by Indians against Indians. I haven't checked around much, but this Time article lists two related incidents from 2009 which I believe were once included but aren't any longer. Is there are a reason they were taken out, or should they be added? liquidluck✽talk 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed above under the following headings:

• 10 "Attacks" section is synthesis/original research
• 11 List of attacks (moved from article)
• 12 List of attacks

Have a look there. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm apparently blind! Thanks for the reply. I can understand why the list was pulled, and I'll help re-add incidents directly related to the protests through prose. liquidluck✽talk 00:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great if you could do that. The incidents section really does need something about the incidents which triggered the protests. - Borofkin (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reactions India

The current edit, as 01:26, 14 October 2009, makes a number of statements in the first paragraph that are not supported by the sources it provides. None of these sources actually talk about Australia's media coverage of the incident, so I don't see how the statement "Australia's media coverage and reactions to these attacks have been viewed by India as denialist" can be supported. [15] [16]

The stuff about similar issues in Britain is very interesting, but not pertinent to reaction in India to this specific issue.

The paragraph directly after that appears to be a reference to a specific event in Australia, specifically the bashing of four Indian people by a mob in a car park in Melbourne, circa September. This should probably be included in the Attacks section of the article, as it received quite a lot of media attention in India. But the paragraph needs cleaning up, as it is not very coherent, in that it's not immediately evident what it's referring to. - Netvegetable (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore Keysvolume. Look at his edits. A POV-pushing account YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A more urgent issue might be WP:BLP - ie, this edit. Bolt is paid to be controversial, but I think the edit summary needs removing. The SPA could also look into assuming a bit more faith and stop labelling respected editors as anti-Indian, apologist, and bias. It's unacceptable behaviour. Sort that out, then we can discuss the actual article. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to ignore him. Just concerned about the quality of the article. You can't provide sources that don't back up what you say It's 101 stuff. --Netvegetable (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This section concerns commentary, so the most commonly expressed views representing different sides to this story should be mentioned here. There have been several commentators (Indian as well as Australian) who have linked this issue with the question of caste and religious diversity in India, so I cannot see why this view would not be notable. Kransky (talk) 09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means note it. But you can't cite sources that don't back up what you say, because that's just whack. --Netvegetable (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Needed

This paragraph appear to have died the "death of a thousand edits". Could some nice editor try to make sense out to it? It's in the 2009_attacks_on_Indian_students_in_Australia#Australia section. Actually reference [73] may be the quickest way of finding it. Good luck, as I have tried to decipher it without success. Perhaps 2 or 3 sentences have been badly combined?

"Bruce Haigh who served in Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1972 and was in contact with members of the black South African resistance, including the Black Consciousness Movement in 1976, Australia is racist and that it is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practiced with some guilt and in polite company circumspection. He cited many cases which speak of itself about how much racism prevails in Australia [73]"

Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)