Talk:Asian Australians

Asian Australian demographics
OK. Here I am. Now, what was the issue with the information I added again?


 * Firstly, this is the place where you need to tell us all about the change you want to make, especially if it's a major one. (And yours was.) Tells us what it is, why, and what sourcing you have. Then await others' responses. Allow a discussion to occur.


 * Secondly, let's get some better Wikipedia etiquette going here. Can you please electronically sign all your posts on Talk pages by typing ~ at the end. That's what I'm about to do here. See my signature...-> ? HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing to extreme i just wanted a source more dependable than some vague BBC article. Journalists aren't known to do deep research, so i wanted to hear from an expert in the field. Bernard Salt wrote multiple books on Australian demographics, so his work does seem to have more authenticity. You can check out some of his work on youtube. Szekszter (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But it WAS extreme. Your edit reduced the number of Asian Australians by almost a half. That's a big change tp the article. Obviously some definitional aspect was involved. Is it about Indians not being Asians? HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is what it is. 10% of the population have full or partial Asian ancestry. That's just 2% less, than the previous. I didn't view that as extreme. Szekszter (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the edits I reverted that first got you arguing are shown here. That shows a reduction from 2.4 million to 1.228 million, or 12% to 6%. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the number of FOREIGN BORN asians. On the other hand, 10% is the total number of foreign Born + asians born to parent(s) that immigrated to Australia after the White Australia policy was repelled. That is why I added(including partial asian ancestry)Szekszter (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But can you explain why the number halved? HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The numbers didn't halve. They were never that high to begin with. 10% is like 2.1 million including Aussie and foreign born. 6% is only the foreign born. Szekszter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you have extensively restructured the text. I am beginning to see. And you claimed it was a minor edit. LOL. That's why it needed to be discussed here FIRST. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to see your definition of 'extensive' is different to mine. It's not like I added a whole new paragraph. I just corrected the existing data with the newest information available. Szekszter (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Asian Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050615004252/http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/wiki/index.php/Centre_for_Asian_Societies_and_Histories to http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/wiki/index.php/Centre_for_Asian_Societies_and_Histories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Classification under Australian law
Thsi edit, a reversion, caught my eye. What particularly caught my eye was the edit summary:

I'm curious what particular bit of Australian law is being referred to here. I see that the article says: "Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG) has grouped certain ancestries into certain categories, including [...], citing in support. I also see in that cited source: "The classification is not intended to classify people, but rather to classify all claims of association or identification with a cultural or ethnic group".

Color me confused. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Me too. I saw that edit and also wondered how to respond. Thank you for bringing it here. The only formal measure of ancestry in Australia is the five yearly national census. A detailed discussion from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of the ancestry question in the most recent census, including an image of the question itself, is here. Respondents could choose up to two options from a list of seven common ancestries, or had the option to write in answers. None of the seven listed options uses the word "Asian". Obviously people could write that in, but there is no restriction on how they might qualify it. I do wonder what Australian law that editor was referring to, and what they really meant by that Edit summary. Unfortunately, it was the only edit ever from an IP address. I have put a message there asking them to respond here, but don't hold high hopes for a response.
 * Hello, I'm the editor that made that edit. I should have not used "Australian law" because that doesn't make sense. I was referring to the Australian Bureau of Statistics which is part of the Government of Australia. What I'm trying to say is that the inclusion of West Asians in the sentence does not make sense in this context because West Asians are not considered "Asian" as per the ABS and this article does not discuss West Asians who are classified separately. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:FC0C:8BD5:9CAF:4E7 (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. Can you provide a link to something that says "West Asians are not considered Asian as per the ABS"? I went looking, and couldn't find anything myself.HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Here's a source from the Parliament of Australia website. Under the section "Source Countries And Migration Streams Source Countries", it explains the way the official definition of the term has evolved in Australia and says, "Since 1990, arrivals from the Middle East (including Lebanon, Turkey, Iran and Iraq) have not been counted as 'Asian". (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:FC0C:8BD5:9CAF:4E7 (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC))
 * Ah, so our government has decided that a lot of people who come from Asia aren't Asians. Well, that IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently so. The source mentioned above says so, and cites this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'll ever get my head around that idea. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys, it's simply that the Australian bureau of statistics, where the censuses and official demographic statistics coming from, have middle eastern as a SEPARATE category - not included under Asian or European ethnic groups. They simply have their own category. See Australian Classification of Ethic Groups, the relevant ABS standard. Stormcrow Mithrandir  09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's quite illogical to say that some people who come from Asian aren't Asian. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah definitely no one is saying they're not Asian, just for the purposes of the ABS's ASCSEG statistical classification people from the continent of Asia are split into 2 categories (Asian ethnicities and Middle Eastern ethnicities) and the within those categories further subcategories. This is also reflected quite well in day to day parlance in that the middle east is very distinctly its own region and countries there are generally referred to as "a middle eastern country" rather than "an Asian country", "middle eastern food", etc. In fact Asia is so much larger than the other continents that it's amazing you have regions much more populous than a Europe for instance and much more different from each other than many of the other continents such as South Asia, northeast Asia, southeast Asia all within the one region. I wouldn't overthink the classifications as the lines/subcategories etc will always need to be demarcated somewhere and there will be certain subgroups that think they should have their own distinct subgroup etc but at the end of the day it's just a statistical matrix to assist in presenting and analysing statistics. Stormcrow Mithrandir  12:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I recall when "Asian" first came into use as a descriptor of people. It was after the Vietnam war, when we realised that we had to stop using nasty names like Chinks, Slopes and Gooks for people with slanty eyes. It was politically correct, but never a precise term. Now, in trying to make a politically correct term have a precise meaning, it's becoming even sillier. Racism so often leads to illogical conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Asian Australians WikiProject
Hi,

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

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Asian Australians in K-pop
Hi, I understand that NewJeans and Stray Kids have Asian Australian members. I would like to include them as well, does anyone know more about reputable news websites and sources that state these outright. I keep finding fan blogs when doing a cursory Google search, not really reliable sources for Wikipedia. Also members should probably have their own articles, rather than just linking to the K-pop group. Also you can't just add photos to the article without writing a bit about who features in the photo in the article. AverageFraud (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)