Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Archive 1

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


earlier comments

(copied from Kransky's talk page) Hi To take things from the specific to the more general would you be interested in a wikiproject? I have started to draft one at User:Matilda/draft wikiproject to cover demographics of Australia. There seems to be some inconsistency across the various articles listed on Template:Ethnic groups in Australia. There are perhaps issues about classifying people by ethnicity as per Chris Watson at Chilean Australian and previous discussions on African Australian. A whiole lot of issues might be clarified by a centralised approach. What do you think? Regards --Matilda talk 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matilda. Absolutely agree, and I am glad to see some initiative being displayed. Kransky (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope

I think the scope as presented lacks a clear definition ("all matters specifically relating to Demographics of Australia"), and should suggest covers a broad but clear context. I would prefer something on the lines of

"all matters concerned with the size, composition and distribution of the human population in Australia, in the past, the present and into the future"

Kransky (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes OK but excluding Indigenous Australians because they are covered in a specific wikiproject ...? --Matilda talk 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • no. You could be placing a rod against your back by making specific exemptions (or by being too specific about what is included, as it could imply anything else is excluded). Other community groups may have their own projects (ageing in Australia, immigration, Greek Australians etc) - it shouldn't be too difficult to accomodate this. Kransky (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmmm - appreciate fully your point. Need to note that we will work closely with the other project and I think our issues will be different from theirs. We are talking demography and their scope is much broader. It did cross my mind that it could be dangerous territory to exclude one group --Matilda talk 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above proposed suggested change of scope may in fact be a shift from demographics to demography. Demography is, also, a worthy project .. though I understood the emphasis of the first is on profiling .. whereas the second is describing and projecting whole populations, population movements etc into the future?!!

The ethnicity of sections of the population (see launch of project idea on Noticeboard), may be more within the scope of demographics emphasis than demography emphasis?? Maybe I'm mistaken about this demographic/demography distinction .. though I do like things to be clear and conceptually neat!?? Bruceanthro (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Demography refers to the discipline of studying population; demographics refers to population characteristics. Both terms can be used interchangably in the context of immigration, ageing, settlement patterns etc. If you are concerned about definitional issues, call this project "ethnic groups in Australia" if this is the only aspect you are interested in. Kransky (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely there is a way of organising the project that it can actually accommodate the two - demography and demographics if there is a need to do so - I sure hope for the sake of this project that this is not a Peoples liberation front of x vs The Liberation peoples front of x type Monty Python sketch like dialogue - its up and running it has been set up SatuSuro 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that all I was hoping for was improving some articles because there are a heap of inconsistencies in our approach. I can live with a scope of all matters concerned with the size, composition and distribution of the human population in Australia, in the past, the present and into the future but I would rather tackle some issues - see below --Matilda talk 23:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Category tag

Do we have a category tag yet? SatuSuro 00:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Template:WP Australia‎ has been amended to allow for the parameter Demographics=yes . See Talk:Demographics of Australia as an example. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia#Version 1.0 assessments you can see various categories have been populated as in no longer red links under Category:Demographics of Australia articles by importance and Category:Demographics of Australia articles by quality. Is that what you meant? --Matilda talk 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you for clarifying well SatuSuro 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • is the pretty picture I have chosen for the category tag to liven things up. It is a Map of Australia, population, grouped and graded, from the 1921 census data. Alternative suggestions for identifying the project welcome. --Matilda talk 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorporating categories

I believe that Immigration to Australia category belongs within the project and have added - do we need to see what other categories might belong as well? SatuSuro 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cats:Fooians of Booian descent

Resolved
 – articles to be named in format Booian Australian no hyphen , no plural Matilda talk 21:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth having a discussion about naming conventions of articles. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 28#Argentines, Czechs, East Timorese, Ecuadorians, and Danes by ancestry / national origin which is a continuation of a series of recent nominations made to rename 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' . I feel this renaming has relevance also for the articles dealing with Australian Fooians, ie those at Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia (which currently have no naming convention applied - bit higgledy piggledy. Is there support for renaming the articles and associated categories found at Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin to Australians of Booian descent? --Matilda talk 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#renaming 'Cats:Booian(-)Fooians' to 'Cats:Fooians of Booian descent' and also renaming articles to the same naming convention I have raised the same issue. There is some push back so it might be bettter to try and sorth the Australian articles anyway. We have at Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia a whole range of names. For example:
Afghan (Australia), Australians of Sudanese origin, Maori Australians, Romanian-Australians, Russians in Australia, Thai Australian, Ukrainians of Australia
I think Fooians of Booian descent is indeed preferable to rethought my views - see below Booian(-)Fooian(s) or Booians in Fooia or Fooians of Booian origin or Booian (Fooia) all of which are represented in a category of size merely 39 pages. --Matilda talk 02:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As per comments at the category for renaming debate I have changed my support to object to rename because it would allow for the category to become too broad. For example I am of Huguenot descent. I could therefore be categorised as an Australian of Huguenot descent but not as Huguenot Australian - the descent is too far back and the latter would not be an appropriate categorisation. Renaming the categories thus does not increase precision, rather the opposite. Similarly I think the articles should all be be Booian Australian not Australians of Booian descent or any other variation --Matilda talk 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow in the depths of the cats now - I would argue consistency of usage in the OZ project is the primary aim - we look like a dogs elevenses if we maintain inconsistent titling - whichever way it would be easier to see consistency across the oz project would seem to be the important matter - the ethnic groups articles need to be made in one form fopr a start SatuSuro 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Aiming for accuracy and precision, I believe:
1. Booian(-)Fooian(s) ought be retained, but restricted only to articles that profile Booian-Australian 'nationality' (as opposed to 'ethnicity');
2. Fooians of Booian descent ought be retained, but restricted only to articles that profile Booian-Australian race (as opposed to ethnicity).
3. Booian people ought be favoured and promoted at the most appropriate nomenclature for all ethnic groups .. and each Booian peoples ethnicgroup infobox would include estimate of their population numbers in Fooian and any number of other nations.
I believe this may be one of the clearest, simplest, most accurate and demographic nomenclatures that this project might encourage and support ... effectively seperating out from each other nationality, race, and ethnicity (apples, oranges, and lemons).
I also note a nomenclature such as this will work very well (and even reflect emerging convention) for Indigenous Australian articles ... and it ought to work very well across the board?? Bruceanthro (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Understand clearly what you are proposing. Would we have separate articles on Chinese Australian and Australians of Chinese descent ? While dual nationality is now becoming possible it didn't used to be the case. I think you would find very few say German Australians of a certain age as I know for a fact that becoming nationalised Australian meant giving up German citizenship. You can now get it back again and the Australian government doesn't mind. I don't see anybody counting these figures and I am sure that the common understanding is at the very least people born in Germany and now Australian citizens = German Australian. I don't think it makes a difference whether or not they have gone through the paperwork to get back their citizenship of their birthplace. I think the terms Chinese Australian and German Australian have well understood meanings and the definition you are proposing is stricter than the ordinary sense. The issue becomes whether we have additional articles to cover the descent issue. I suspect maybe start these topics within the Booean Australian articles and see if it needs to be broken out.
Having slept on it I prefer the common term Booean Australian for article names but I think the category name of Australians of Booean descent covers a broader perspective when it might be needed and covers Booean Australian too.--Matilda talk 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Recommend .. accepting all your thoughts, and your preferences above ... perhaps this project might agree that Booian Australian profiles those Australians (citizens) who, in Booia, are also eligible to be Booians (citizens). Such a standard would require project members to also research/detail Booian citizenship criteria, to determine whether ABS demographics such as 'place of birth' and/or ancestry .. possibly even 'language!' might best be used, case by case, to estimate population sizes. distributions etc. Bruceanthro (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Separate question - Should the articles be in the form Chinese Australian or Chinese Australians and with or without hyphens - even standardising that much would be an improvement :-)--Matilda talk 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A personal preference (havent trawled any mos guidelines for this) 's' and no hyphens SatuSuro 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No hyphens, but no 's' either. Titles for Wikipedia articles are generally not plural. Kransky (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry issue - improve articles within Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia similar to the material used for Chilean Australians?

Resolved
 – we should continue to use Country of Birth and ancestry data, but have caveats (including in the info-box); promote most ACCURATE and PRECISE descriptions of population characteristics as is possible; use citizenship statistics where possible --Matilda talk 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the first issues I would like to see this project tackle is consistency in approach for describing demographic characteristics of ethnic groups in Australia. These articles I expect are all classified in Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia. We have just had an extensive discussion at Talk:Chilean Australian. We came up with

According to the 2006 Australian Census, 23,305 Australians were born in Chile[2] while 25,439 claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry.[1] However the ancestry figure may not accurately represent the Chilean-Australian population, since persons of Chilean descent often chose to identify with other, sometimes older ancestries. The Australian 2001 Census reports that 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry.[5] According to demographer James Jupp the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could have approached 40,000 in 2001, but he noted we do not have accurate figures.[3] One 2006 estimate of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, is as high as 45,000.[6]

The largest Chilean Australian communities were in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result)[7] and Melbourne (6,530).[8]

A Chilean government study conducted by the Chilean National Institute of Statistics in 2003-04 and published in 2005 found that 33,626 first and second generation Chileans were living in Australia. This figure was gathered by combining the population reported in the 2001 Australian Census and the National Registry for Chileans living abroad.[9][10][11]

References were:

  • 1 ^ a b 20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved on 19 May 2008.
  • 2 ^ a b ABS 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Australia.
  • 3 ^ a b Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press, pages 195-7. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved on 17 May 2008.
  • 4 ^ Nationbynation.com
  • 5 ^ 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003 : Population characteristics: Ancestry of Australia's population. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved on 19 May 2008. “On the other hand, people arriving in Australia from the same birthplace may have different ethnic and cultural affiliations. For example, the ancestries of East Timor-born people living in Australia were Chinese (61%), Timorese (40%) and Portuguese (10%). Of people born in New Zealand, 14% stated Maori as their ancestry, while English (52%) and New Zealander (21%) were the most common responses. As with those born in New Zealand and Australia, ancestries given by those born in some other countries often include a national ancestry and one associated with a colonial power. Thus, a large proportion of those born in Chile reported their ancestry as Chilean (63%), but Spanish was also relatively common (29%).”
  • 6 ^ a b Chilean Immigration. Chilean Community. Embassy of Chile in Australia (2 June 2006). Retrieved on 19 May 2008.
  • 7 ^ 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Sydney
  • 8 ^ 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Melbourne
  • 9 ^ (Spanish) http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/chilenos_exterior/registro_chilenos_exterior.pdf //10 ^ (Spanish)http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050816/pags/20050816125322.html //11 ^ (Spanish) http://www.chile.com/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=68730

References 1,2,3,5,7,8 all would be equally relevant to other ethnic groups and I believe could be applied to improve most of the other 38 articles in the category. Any views? --Matilda talk 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Australians

  • Note that the issue has been raised at Talk:Chinese Australian#About 'Hoa','Sino-Vietnamese', and the question of identity where the editor has stated

    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

We certainly would benefit from a position on the use of ABS statistics and appropriate qualification.--Matilda talk 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics are reliable; people who use them sometimes aren't. I think we should continue to use Country of Birth and ancestry data, but have caveats (including in the info-box). How somebody chooses to define themselves with a limited number of choices is still relevant. Kransky (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Issue 1: Ancestry Issue

I would like to respond to your query, above, about how this project might agree that ABS statistics documenting ancestry, ought most properly be used or applied.

I wish to respond first by suggesting, as a matter of principle, perhaps the demographics project members should seek to promote most ACCURATE and PRECISE descriptions of population characteristics as is possible.

I next wish to observe that, strictly speaking, one can only be an Australian if one is a citizen of the Australian nation. Similarly one can only be Chinese if one is a citizen of a Chinese nation. It is not possible to ACCURATELY or PRECISELY measure or determine anyone's citizenship by either their ancestry or their place of birth.

I must therefore conclude that the only appropriate and relevant ABS statistic to use in describing any segment of the population of our continent as Australian .. is the Australian citizenship statistic ... and the only appropriate and relevant statistic for describing someone as BOTH Chinese AND Australia .. is the dual citizenship statistic (if there is such a thing?)

The Demographics of Australia Wikiproject ought discourage articles (and editors?) who seek to use either ancestry statistics or place of birth statistics to estimate numbers of Chinese Australian's etc..as this confuses biological ancestry etc with nationality!!

Finally .. as a standard .. should editors wish to use ABS ancestry or place of birth statistics to create articles describing segments of Australia's population .. I believe we should promote, encourage and if necessary merge and move articles urging those editors to more exactly (accurately and precisely) label such articles .. perhaps labels like "Proportion of Australia's population identifying as having Chinese Ancestry", or "Proportion of Australia's population born in China".

This, is also a principle that could be applied to ISSUE 2 - identifying individuals as Chinese Australian etc below ie an individual is only Chinese Australian if a verifiable source documents him/her as having dual citizenship. Alternatively a person can simply be described as having been born in China (with reliable, verifiable source), or as having one or more parents, and/or grandparents etc who were Chinese citizens (again with verifiable source)

I've responded and gone to the trouble of outlining my thoughts on the issues you raise .. as I believe such a standard to describing segments of Australia's population and/or individuals can be simple, unambiguous accurate, precise and .. of course .. demographic!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Response - Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that we should promote promote most ACCURATE and PRECISE descriptions of population characteristics as is possible. However, I concur with Kransky that we should continue to use Country of Birth and ancestry data, but have caveats (including in the info-box). The ABS is without question in my mind a reliable source and we would do the reader a disservice to not use their statistics. I think we need to qualify their statistics with useful footnotes to assist with proper interpretation of the statistics.
I do not think citizenship defines ethnicity in any usual definition. Just as a point of example, how would you define somebody born in Hong Kong before 1997? - they were not a citizen of China. The Chinese diaspora is not a straightforward matter of linking to Chinese citizenship. I think also there would be Mongolians and Tibetans who would qualify as Chinese citizens but might well define themselves differently.
I note that the ABS states in relation to the ancestry question for the 2001 census the purpose of an ancestry question is to capture current ethnic or cultural affiliations, which are by nature self-perceived, rather than to attempt to document actual historic family origins. [1] We need to convey that sense.
to take the way we handled the Chilean Australian issue and apply it to Chinese Australians we could get (my first draft and will benefit from collaborative editing!)
According to the 2006 Australian Census, 206,591 Australians were born in China (not including SARs or Taiwan), 71,803 in Hong Kong and 2,013 in Macau ( Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China ), and 24,368 in Taiwan: a total of 304,775 or 1.5% of those counted by the Census.[2] Chinese ancestry was claimed by 669,896, either alone or with another ancestry, and Taiwanese ancestry was claimed by 5,837 persons.[1] The Australian 2001 Census reported that Chinese was the sixth most common self-reported ancestry.[5] Just under 40% of those claiming Chinese ancestry were born in China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; 26% were born in Australia.[5]
for convenience I have used the same note numbering as for Chilean Australian article to show the common use of the sources
Note 1 = "20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia" (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-19. Total responses: 25,451,383 for total count of persons: 19,855,288 - <ref name="ABS Ancestry">{{cite web| url = http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=POLTD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true& | title = 20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia| format = Microsoft Excel download |publisher = [[Australian Bureau of Statistics]] | work = 2006 Census| accessdate = 2008-05-19}} Total responses: 25,451,383 for total count of persons: 19,855,288.</ref>
Note 2 = "20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Australia" (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-27. Total count of persons: 19,855,288 - <ref name="ABS Country of Birth">{{cite web| url = http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?action=404&documentproductno=0&documenttype=Details&order=1&tabname=Details&areacode=0&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb=POLTD&&collection=Census&period=2006&productlabel=Country%20of%20Birth%20of%20Person%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&producttype=Census%20Tables&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&topic=Birthplace& |title = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Australia|format = Microsoft Excel download |publisher = [[Australian Bureau of Statistics]] | work = 2006 Census| accessdate = 2008-05-27}} Total count of persons: 19,855,288. </ref>
Note 5 = "4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003 : Population characteristics: Ancestry of Australia's population". Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-19. The 2001 census found that: Due to the historic migrations of people from China, especially to Southeast Asia, Chinese ancestry was associated not only with Australia (26%), China (25%) and Hong Kong (11%) but with several other birthplaces, such as Malaysia (10%) and Viet Nam (8%). The ABS states in relation to the ancestry question for the 2001 census the purpose of an ancestry question is to capture current ethnic or cultural affiliations, which are by nature self-perceived, rather than to attempt to document actual historic family origins. - <ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/af5129cb50e07099ca2570eb0082e462!OpenDocument | title = 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003 : Population characteristics: Ancestry of Australia's population |publisher = [[Australian Bureau of Statistics]] | accessdate = 2008-05-19|quote = The 2001 census found that: Due to the historic migrations of people from China, especially to Southeast Asia, Chinese ancestry was associated not only with Australia (26%), China (25%) and Hong Kong (11%) but with several other birthplaces, such as Malaysia (10%) and Viet Nam (8%).}} The ABS states in relation to the ancestry question for the 2001 census ''the purpose of an ancestry question is to capture current ethnic or cultural affiliations, which are by nature self-perceived, rather than to attempt to document actual historic family origins.''</ref>
I haven't used any material from James Jupp's book - there is much there - including immigration from the 1850s, a lot of information state by state, ... but let us stick with the current time for this discussion at the moment and work later on past immigration figures.

--Matilda talk 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable Australians of xyz ethnicity

The other topic I would like to see this project discuss is the inclusion of notable people of xyz ethnicity or ancestry. I believe we should have certain standards of sources cited to justify inclusion. Sometimes inclusion may violate WP:BLP. The matter has been challenged several times. See Talk:Irish Australian re Merle Oberon and John Howard, Talk:Chilean Australian re Chris Watson, Talk:African Australian#Notable People list --Matilda talk 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to follow what is carried out for the United States (List of English Americans, List of Indonesian Americans etc). Kransky (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly notability is important but I would like to see verifiability overt as well to save disputes. I thought it might be useful to have more detail for example a table which set out who, when (ie dates of birth and death), what notable for, connection to Australia, connection to Booia. So in the case of Chris Watson at Chilean Australian we would have:
Chris Watson // 1867-1941 // 3rd Prime Minister of Australia // moved to Sydney, Australia, in 1886, ie at age 19 // Watson's father was a Chilean citizen of German descent, Johan Cristian Tanck, and Watson was born in Valparaíso, Chile
for Peggy Antonio, another notable Chilean Australian, we would have:
Peggy Antonio // 1917-2002 // Australian women's Test cricketer // born, lived and died in Australia // father was a Chilean of French and Spanish descent
The reader can then decide for him or herself the degree of Chilean-ness and Australian-ness. I don't think the sections need be lengthy but filling it out would certainly sort whether Marcia Hines is or is not an African Australian, making overt the process of verification. If we have no exceptions I think it would be an improvement to say you always have to verify and make overt that verification, not just sometimes when the fact is challenged.--Matilda talk 00:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

category rationalisation ?

We seem to have Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin as well as Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia. The former holds a lot of sub categories and makes sense for that purpose but it also has a couple of articles against it which make less sense, for example: African Australian, Anglo-Celtic Australian, Asian Australian' and Latin American Australian all of which I thought would have belonged in the latter category.--Matilda talk 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought "African Australian" could have fitted into either category. I think that one of the categories should be merged into the other. Kransky (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Citzenship vs Ethnicity

The ABS census asks of Australia's population, whether or not they are Australian citizens. This would seem to be a solid, reliable demographic.

It seems, from this demographic, that a large majority percentage of the immigrant populations living in Australia (ie people who identify themselves as Chinese, Chilean etc) are not in fact 'Australians'?!

The ABS has also announced that starting with the 2011 census, it is their intention to also collect data on participant's citizenship in other countries, so that post 2011 dual citizenships will be identified and counted

Out of all the people who may identify themselves as having Chinese or Indian ancestors etc, or been born in China or India, or as as having immigrated from China or India .. out of all those people it seems less than 40 percent actually become 'Australian' .. and this introduces a significant potential source of error in articles using ancestry and/or birth figures to estimate the size of the Chinese Australians, Indian Australian etc populations? Bruceanthro (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading the information. The ABS does ask for Australian citizenship status. Yet they also ask for ancestry data, and people are free to define themselves as they wish.
It is not at all improbable for somebody of Chinese ancestry to have Australian citizenship. Indeed citizenship take-up rates are highest amongst (I believe) Iraqi born persons and are quite low amongst New Zealanders. You might want to look at their reasons for takign/not taking citizenship - New Zealanders have work rights here, while Iraqis see safety in their possession of an Australian passport.Kransky (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please point me to the table of citizen status by ancestry? I would be happy to use it as additional information as per kransky's note it could be quite interesting even if we don't venture into original research.--Matilda talk 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, on this page here there is some summary tables and information on citizenship by birthplace. You'll also find on this page the following demographic:
In 1991, 60% of overseas born residents were Australian citizens
What this statistic means (to me) is that in 1991, 40% of the Australia's oversea's born population (quite a large population) participated in the census and would have also identified their ancestry.
Very roughly (or crudely) speaking, then, this means 40% of all Booians living in Australian on census night, are not Australians but are just plain Booians. In an article, Indian Australians, then .. up to 40% of those born in India, with Indian ancestry, are just plain Indians NOT Indian Australians.
It is for this reason that I raise concern about using ABS ancestry and/or place of birth figures (without qualification) to quantify and/or estimate the size of any Booian Australian 'ethic group' (if there are such ethnic groups!)
On first blush, it would seem the only reliable census figure that can be used to descirbe the Booian Australian poulation .. is to do as the ABS seems to do .. and that is restrict Booian Australain commentary to the numbers of people who were born in Booian, immigratedto Australia, and became Australians

Bruceanthro (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the link. The thrust of your argument I think is that somebody who is a resident of Australia and not a citizen is not an Australian. I am certainly more than happy to qualify any articles clearly with the distinction and if there is comprehensive data to even substitute citizen Australian Booian statisitics for resident Australian Booian statistics - I think the census only counts residents and I haven't seen a table of citizens by birth or citizens by ancestry - still looking. The link you provided with the analysis is to data based on the 1991 census - 17 years old :-( . The series 4102 has more recent updates and it would be good if the ABS had done some similar analysis on more recent data which we could use - I ma looking through it. This ABS document on Migration: permanent additions to Australia's population does have commentary about where permanent additions are coming from and would be worth referencing in articles on the areas mentioned - specifically: United Kingdom, Ireland, Oceania, New Zealand, Asia, China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iraq and the Philippines.--Matilda talk 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added the data on the top 5 countries of 2005-06 who are a source of migration to Australia. Obviously this is just a start --Matilda talk 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Booian Australians as opposed to Booian People

  • Query .. if Booian Australians is to be the preferred standard for all 'Australian' nationalities, races, plus ethnic groups .. then, to be consistent and be consistent .. perhaps all the indigenous Djabugay people, Yirrganydji people etc ethnic gropup articles will need to be renamed Djabugay Australians, Yirrganydji Australians etc?? I, like SatuSuro like consistency, and must admit preferring to rename Maori Australians, and Category:Sicilian Australians as Maori people and Sicilian people .. (which, by the way, would be the most accurate, national boundary free way of describing and profiling these groups)!! Bruceanthro (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the hierarchy is Booian People is a primary article and below that one might have various articles on the diaspora, eg Chilean people is a primary article but the article on the Chilean diaspora as represented in Australia is Chilean Australian. There needs to be a primary article to do with Māori ie Maori people and followed by the diaspora article of Maori Australians. The info box at Māori does that primary article link quite well. I think the links in the box should be to the diaspora articles rather than the country. In general I suspect there is enough to have broken out Booian Australian from Booian People articles.
In the case of the indigenous Australian people articles, I think they are the lead articles for those people and do not need to be renamed. If there were significant populations away from their indigenous place and it was worth breaking the topic out then it might be an article on say Wiradjuri Sydneysiders or some such but I don't believe we are at that stage yet. certainly that topic needs to be raised at the Indigenous peoples of Australia Wikiproject if we were going to take ti further. For the moment I believe the topic would stay within the articles on the Indigenous Australian ethnic groups at present but perhaps with sub sections.
I don't think overall the topic has been resolved properly yet. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Hierarchy Definition --Matilda talk 00:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

inclusion in Booian Australian profiles of Aust citizens eligible to be Booian citizens

  • ... perhaps this project might agree that Booian Australian profiles those Australians (citizens) who, in Booia, are also eligible to be Booians (citizens). Such a standard would require project members to also research/detail Booian citizenship criteria, to determine whether ABS demographics such as 'place of birth' and/or ancestry .. possibly even 'language!' might best be used, case by case, to estimate population sizes. distributions etc. Bruceanthro (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed that Booian Australian would be improved by any such data where available. I also think that Booian Australian profiles would benefit from a section on Australians of Booian descent to differentiate from those Australians where the Booian link is not as direct as born in Booia or a parent born in Booia or direct links not apparent - eg as in ancestry discussion where for example Chileans describe their ancestry as Spanish ... Matilda talk 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rating of Importance of articles to the project

 for medium , high and top Booean Australian articles identified under this process plus some missing articles identified and highlighted at Article requests on the project page --Matilda talk 07:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - we are making some progress with tagging of articles to the project. The main advantage of article tagging is to identify areas for improvement. It would be useful if we could agree on a standard for importance. It doesn't have to be too rigorous but rather an indicator. The assessment department has agreed on the following convention which is consistent across wikipedia:

Need: A measure of a subject's importance, regardless of its quality
Top {{top-importance}} Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia.
High {{high-importance}} Subject is exceptionally important.
Mid {{mid-importance}} Subject contributes a depth of knowledge.
Low {{low-importance}} Subject fills in important details.
NA {{NA-importance}} Subject importance is not applicable.

We need to rate importance from this project's perspective. That perspective maybe different from other perspectives.

I was thinking that for articles concerning Booian Australians my rating suggestion would be high for those articles concerning major demographic groups. For example the following all had responses of > 100,000 as declared ancestry (ranked order):

Australian, English, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, Chinese, Greek, Dutch, Indian, Lebanese, Vietnamese, Polish, New Zealander, Filipino, Maltese, Croatian, Australian Aboriginal, Welsh

the next group had <100,000 but more than 20,000 respondents:

French, Serbian, Maori, Spanish, Macedonian, South African, Sinhalese, Hungarian, Russian, Korean, Turkish, American, Danish, Austrian, Portuguese, Japanese, Samoan, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Egyptian, Swedish, Thai, Canadian, Swiss, Khmer, Chilean, Malay, Assyrian/Chaldean, Iranian, Mauritian, Czech, Finnish, Norwegian, Latvian

I suggest that the first group (ie > 100,000 respondents for ancestry) are of high importance and the second group ie < 100,000 but more than 20,000 respondents claiming ancestry) are of mid importance from the perspective of Australian demographics. The remaining articles on Booian Australians are of low importance - ie they fill in important details ...

The situation changes slightly for birth (which is interestig in itself). The following had place of birth > 100,000

Australia, England, New Zealand, China (excluding SARs (Hong Kong and Macau) and Taiwan Province), Italy, Viet Nam, India, Scotland, Philippines, Greece, Germany, South Africa

I think all these articles are of top importance - ie a must-have --Matilda talk 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance ranking for articles not on ethnic groups

The comment I have to follow this
  • this is specifically looking at the ethnic groups - I think there are probably a range of subjects/articles that do not have ethnic associations in titles - they need to be thought about within the hierarchy of articles as well - government acts, policies and actions that have impact upon the demographics/demography of the country - they too could have levels of importance
  • so with the specific groupings being weighted by population - there are some rather stickly evaluative judgements regarding the impact of some groups within the population that might not equate to their numbers - but media exposure or governmental actions and policies might have given some populations.
I hope that hits a mark somewhere SatuSuro 07:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I know where you are coming from but I think importance is about what topics you would expect to find and then perhaps how developed they are. What I propose is a minimum rating. Importance ratings could increase because there is a lot of press coverage, so somebody would expect to find more info ... and the article is more important
I haven't started to cover souch topics as legislation, visas, ... but yes they are all of some importance - how important to be refined :-) --Matilda talk 07:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I was trying to suggest that the pot is multi dimensioned and coloured and at times odd shaped - definitely not as simple as stubs in wp oz places - whatever happened to it - oddly importance wise 0 I would be more interested in the history of why and how parliament got to the various decisions just after federation, and during the 2nd ww regarding various population issues - the exclusion and preferences of the decision makers has such a long term trickle down effect as to why some of the nationalities are more respresented than others SatuSuro 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the minimum rating of a Booian Australian can be increased for some reason and/or of course the article can include more than the bare minimum.
The Immigration history of Australia needs heaps of work and through that work we might start to cover some of the issues you mention. There had been a propopsal to merge the Immigration history of Australia article with Immigration to Australia. Both of them need work but they could easily develop separately.
I found the issue of Kosovar Australians interesting. I did a little research into them to expand the stub and found they weren't counted on the census (wonder if that is a literacy thing or they identify as Albanian or Serb or ?) but found that the Government had invented a special visa class in order to ensure that they would be repatriated rather than get permanent residence status. Our Canadian cousins apparently treated the matter differently.
I agree that there are heaps of articles other than those directly on Booian Australians which are of interest to the project. However I just wanted to get a sense of progressing the 'Booian Australian's on some sort of consistent footing. To progress this issue I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Booian Australian importance --Matilda talk 21:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Demographics_of_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=514075681"