Talk:Chilean Australians/Archive 3

Embassy of Chile is a reliable source - comment by Selecciones de la Vida
~The Embassy of Chile is a reliable source and the following updated link in Spanish explains current research that they have conducted in regards to the Chilean population in Australia.

http://www.embachile-australia.com/community/chileans.html

They have concluded an independent research study titled Chileans in Australia Project along with a commission that involves Chileans living in Australia. The National Museum of Australia in Canberra and the Chilean Embassy also presented a book about Chileans living in Australia titled Under a Southern Sky. To simply dismiss the Embassy of Chile as non-reliable would be a disservice. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The manner in which the Embassy of Chile is reliable, and for what purposes is a matter of context. The embassy does not meet the basic criteria of an academic publisher or similar source reliable for the results of scientific research, so clearly we cannot take it as de facto reliable for information that should come from "scholarship," or scientific research. The webpage in question cannot be considered reliable without the type of information that you have just provided.  Can you please help us by citing estimates from this study itself, or from the book that has been published?PelleSmith (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Yes according to you it is unreliable, I see no indication to say this at the policy and guidline I have read. Itsmejudith also lead me to believe otherwise before I even read the policy and guidleline. So PelleSmith this is just your opinion. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The same page is available in English :-) http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/chileans.html and states The Chilean community in Australia comprises some 43 thousand people, including second and third generation Chileans. it still does not say how it got to that figure which disagrees with http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/migration.html which states The latest Australian Census in 2001 recorder 23 370 Chile-born persons in Australia. The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons.  I do not understand the rationale for taking a census figure and doubling it more or less to establish an ancestry figure.  Perhaps this rationale is explained in the book or in the independent research study.  Even if those sources are not on-line they can be cited if you have access to the information.  As per the above wording proposed by Kransky in question put by Pelle Smith, Jupp gives 40,000 in 2001 and is in my view a reliable source - scholarly published book.  As per my comments below in the section Arbitrary break - more replies to TeePee 19 May - what is still your problem? :
 * I will allow their estimate to be used as a 3rd estimate in the terms proposed by Pippu ... The Chilean embassy's page as per Aussie Legend is very poorly set out (another reason why they are not a very reliable source) and it did look to me as though they were using Nadine Botzenhart as their authority due to layout. I did in fact read her paper and they did not derive their information from her paper - hence my assertion they have not explained how they arrived at the figure and why we can therefore on wikipedia not repeat it as clearly authoritative.
 * As user PelleSmith said below:
 * AussieLegend, I understand why you read the entire page as being attributed to Nadine, and I did so myself at first. Then I had a closer look at how it was set up and I'm pretty sure that stylistic aspects of this page suggest otherwise. I believe the embassy meant only to attribute to her the executive summary under the title and then of course to link to the whole report she generated. However, I also admit that this is not unequivocally clear, and agree with you that it could be read either way. The fact that the full report makes no mention of the statistic, I think is the strongest evidence that the entire page is not meant to summarize her report. Yet the fact that it is unclear leads more support to my basic assertion that what we are trying to attribute to either the embassy or Nadine is itself very unclear and less than ideal. I find it hard to understand why TeePee, after all this discussion and his claim to have read our RS and V guidelines has again reinserted "factual" sounding language into the entry about the 45,000 figure that is not attributed to either Nadine or the embassy, and that does not accurately reflect the fact that it is no more than an educated guess.
 * You can't just assert the embassy is a reliable source when it does not meet the guideline (see Reliable sources ) in the following ways: it is not scholarly, it is not from a news organisation ...  I believe, somewhat reluctantly, it comes under the guideline Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves - see WP:SELFPUB.  I have concerns because it does serve the embassy's interests to overstate the number of Chilean-Australians and there is a reasonable doubt about how the figure was calculated.  At the very least it is a questionable source WP:QS as the site is promotional in nature.
 * However we have said it can be used as a third string to the assertion but using Jupp first - see section below in Jupp reference. I take the opportunity here to note I did not find that reference - it was found by User:Selecciones de la Vida - I merely formatted the cite and drew attention to it here. --Matilda talk 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assert the Embassy as a reliable source as there is nothing in the policy and guideline to say otherwise. This new information which you admit you did not find the reference makes a whole heap of sense now because you still don't understand what you are arguing about, but now you know for sure that an expert who is the most reliable source in every sense of the word is agreeing with the Embassy's estimates. Which quite evidently I can see is frustrating you. It does not come under the guidline as selfpublished, there is no indication of this. I believe you are just trying to hang on by a thread now and are basing your comments on me and not the source at hand. The source has always been reliable as it is from the Embassy not the intern, it is greatly supported by the demographer Jeff Jupp's estimate and is the most recent source available. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

~The Embassy of Chile best serves as a secondary source that supports what Jupp wrote in the scholarly publication. There is absolutely no argument that the Australian census is the primary statistical source, yet, it is important to note that it is also not free of criticism. The Chilean population in Australia may be larger than originally reported.

It would be highly beneficial if the studies made by the embassy were offered online since it would assist us in providing the most up-to-date information. As of now I have been unable to obtain the information electronically.

The following link published in 2005 is from a Chilean on-line newspaper article (La Nacion). According to the article they report that the Chilean National Institute of Statistics which is a governmental agency state that there are 33,626 Chileans living in Australia.

http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050816/pags/20050816125322.html

The information provided is different from the Australian census giving us a higher number and different from both Jupp and the Embassy of Chile by providing a lower number. They also include in their calculations that there are 113,394 Chileans living in the United States a figure that is higher than the information gathered by the 2000 U.S. Census. Three out of four sources are reporting that the population figures are higher than the one provided by the Australian census. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

~This is the PDF document from the Chilean National Institute of Statistics that was mentioned in the newspaper article mentioned above which states that there are 33,626 Chilean residents in Australia. Their sources are derived from each countries official census and the national register of Chile.

http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/chilenos_exterior/registro_chilenos_exterior.pdf Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right, there is no argument that the ABS data shouldn't be used as a primary source so quite frankly I am getting frustrated when Matilda and Kransky both continue to raise this as an issue. The reason they continue to argue this point is they don't understand how the Census works and that we are not infact conflicting with the information provided on it. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pippu: Thanks for the link. Very informative.  Does the Chilean Government estimate define what is a Chilean Australian?  This estimate shows the number of Chilean citizens in Australia, (including short term visitors (?)) but does it include second, third etc generation Chileans?  I doubt that any foreign Government Census body can easily provide exact numbers of multi-generational nationals, especially those living abroad.  The Australian Government does not even publish the number of first Generation Australians abroad, except in general terms.   Kransky (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Concern
I have not read the links PelleSmith has provided to me yet, but if what he is saying is true, the Embassy is not a RS and this whole article needs to have a major editing revision because upon learning this you will find out that most the article is referenced by the Chilean Embassy, even the parts in Kransky's revision. So if it is not a RS like he says, even though Itsmejudith has lead me to believe otherwise, then a whole major revision on the article is needed with new sources provided. Which really to me seems like it would not improve the article at all and instead worsen it a great deal. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry I have read the policy and guideline myself and there is no indication that the Embassy is not a reliable source. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I am glad you finally got around to reading the guidelines and policy I disagree with your assertion - please see my comments immediately above. If you want to assert it is a reliable source please say how it is against the points made in the guideline - what is it in the guideline that allows you to make this conclusion? --Matilda talk 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See my relies made to you above. What is in the guideline that does not allow it to be used as a reference? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Numerous times I have asked for a valid reference
Kransky: "FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT)." 11:36, 22 February 2008

Me: "If this is true like I said earlier reference it, as I cannot find it." 13:23, 22 February 2008


 * Kransky: "There could be several reasons why the number of Chilean-born Australians has declined. Many may have joined the President in returning back to Chile, now that democracy has been restored. Also note that the main wave of Chilean migrants came in the 1970s were probably aged in their 30s; now in their 60s many like other migrants may be returning home to spend their retirement" 10:38, 24 February 2008
 * Me: "Yes very true, but as I said earlier reference it so we can get rid of the 2001 census figures." 13:04, 24 February 2008


 * Kransky: "has been referenced" 01:21, 25 February 2008
 * Me: "Sigh. No it has not." 06:12, 25 February 2008


 * Kransky: "I politely asked you to explain what problems you had with the ABS data" 12:21, 6 May 2008
 * Me: "And I have politely told you repeatedly what problems I have had and most of them we have been able to resolve and incorporate into the article except the one constant point you continually try to re-add without a reference. So I am going to try my best to make this extremely clear to you as I have been telling you since early february, repeatedly! You must provide a reference to the 2006 data you constantly add to this article. You have failed to do this repeatedly and even after I have told you, you still continue to add it. Not only have you been unreliable in providing a reference but something I have noticed in having to re-read everything that was said months ago, is you have not even been consistent in the numbers you have provided! Let me quote you for clarity.
 * This is what you said at 11:36 on the 22nd of February:

"FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT)."
 * And this is what you have been saying since 00:07, 4th of May until this point in discussion:

"Chilean-born persons resided in Sydney (10,909), and a further 6,530 were in Melbourne." 13:45, 6 May 2008


 * Kransky: "I already have references to the 2006 ABS Census stats on ancestry and country of birth (twice!)." 09:06, 7 May 2008
 * Me: "Sigh, yeh I think maybe we should get a third party invovled because I have tried to make it as clear as possible to you but you still don't seem to comprehend that the information you add to this article is not in your reference, thereby making your reference invalid!" 16:52, 7 May 2008


 * Kransky: "I think the crux of your argument is that the ABS statistics are faulty" 09:56, 8 May 2008
 * Me: "Kransky, no that is NOT the crux of my agrument, the crux of my argument is you DO NOT provide a reliable reference to the information you edit in!" 16:24, 8 May 2008

Other times I have made reference to this
My reply to Matilda: "Also if you read the dispute you can see what data I am opposed to Kransky adding, data which is unreferenced. Simple." 15:21, 16 May 2008

My reply to all users in general: "For the 50, GAZILLIONITH time Kransky has snuck in this unreferenced information "The largest Chilean Australian communities are in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result) and Melbourne (6,530). " Please, please, PLEASE read through the discussion on this talkpage and you can see this has always been my major issue with him!" 16:43, 16 May 2008

My reply to Kransky: "You have once again referenced information with invalid references so I will revert the edit back to the one I have always been keeping and ask people to view it and address what problems there are." 15:42, 17 May 2008

In my reply to everyone: "especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months" Different times on 17 May 2008

And if you are still not clear
Where in this reference can you find the following information "Sydney (10,909), and a further 6,530 were in Melbourne"?

Like I have already said as you can see by reading, I am happy to add the updated statistics concerning distrubution from the 2006 Census over that of the 2001 Census, only if it can be referenced appropriately. Simple enough? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * actually TeePee has a point here - the link goes to a spreadsheet for Australia, not for the specific cities. I will revert back to my current version, and add links to the two sources on the ABS. Kransky (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow maybe I should make a new section everytime I need to explain something to you. Seems like it would save me alot of time. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to excessively numerous comments by TeePee

 * Firstly it is really hard to respond if you run off as you have done in excessive numbers of edits in recent times. In my view the James Jupp reference is absolutely authoritative.  Please read the guideline on reliable sources at WP:RS - it is an academic work published by a reliable publisher.  The Chilean embassy is not a reliable source as they do not provide a methodology for how they got to the figure.  The ABS data is reliable but needs to be read with caution.  We  all agree that proposition and Kransky has come up with some wording as to how to do that.  As above I support that wording.  I do not under any circumstances support the ABS data not being used - I do support it being interpreted as long as that interpretation contains no original research and is verifiable.  See WP:NOR and WP:V.--Matilda talk 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: It is not hard if you do what is expected and read! Simple. Yes he is most certainly reliable in my view too and I have read the WP:RS. The Chilean Embassy is reliable as they provide as much methodology for how they got to the figure as Jeff Jupps does. The ABS data is reliable and only needs to be read in caution to those who do not understand, this should not be explained on this article as it has no place and should be explained on the ABS wikipedia page, if there is one. As above under PelleSmiths comments for support, I most certainly do not support the wording based on the issues I raised. So read them and reply, remember judgments are to based on information and not editor. Be very clear in addressing the points I make as this has not been done in the past. I also do not support the ABS data under any circumstances not being used and in the revison I supplied, is quite clearly used. So once again take the time to read my replies and address all points I raise. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TeePee - I think you should be at least happy that we've reached the 40,000s! I don't think you should be arguing that we don't need the Jupp reference, because to my eyes it seems to lend a reasonable amount of credibility to the Embassy figure.  I have to say that I do see the same shortfalls as some of the others in relying solely on the Embassy figures.  You must accept that that isn't an option at the moment for the reasons already conveyed.  On the other hand, I would have thought that an Embassy, with presumably some access to relevant data, would be in a reasonalbe position to come up with a half decent estimate, but - embassies exist primarily to serve the interests of their government, they clearly don't have the same independence and scope of activity as an academic institution.  But I do wonder this:  is there anything wrong with mentioning that the population, including the 3rd generation of Chilean-Australians, might be as high as 45,000 acording to some estimates? (with reference to the Embassy)  Afterall, let's all be honest, it wouldn't be the first time a wikepedia article has grabbed info from a website - and I could think of a lot worse sources of info than an Embassy!  I know that ends up being three sets of figures, but all of them have a different meaning (all entirely reconcilable) and I can't see how the article would be hurt by that, indeed, surely it expands it in an appropriate manner?  I'll be honest, I'm not going to vote because everything we need to finish off this debate is actually all sitting there before our very eyes.  πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply:Yes thankyou Pippu I am glad you do take the time to read and reply. I'm also glad you are not jumping on the bandwagon and are just brushing this off like the other editors simply because you do not want to spend any more time dealing with it or don't think it's worth the headache. As you can quite clearly see from the new section I made up until 00:51, 18 May 2008 it still provided invalid references, which Matilda chose to ignore in her decision to support the revision it was at before posting her comment in support! And as you can see from my opposition to support it above you can quite clearly see the many flaws still attributed to this article, and one more flaw which I will raise now is the cite error in references! And as I have mentioned it does lend a significant amount of credibility to the data provided by the embassy, but as I also mentioned even though it is a highly reliable source, it is not needed due to the Embassy's data. It is not needed as it is outdated by the Embassy's research which occured 5 years later based on the 2001 Census compared to Jupps data published in 2001 based on the 1996 Census. Now if I can get other users to listen to what I am saying and address the points I am raising we can have a productive conversation moving towards a final revision in which we can all agree upon. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong in my view with  mentioning that the population, including the 3rd generation of Chilean-Australians, might be as high as 45,000 according to some estimates? (with reference to the Embassy) - what I am concerned about is TeePee's concern to remove material that is cited and replace it with a less reliable source. We need to have the ABS data, qualifications (with no original research - ie provide cites for the qualifications from reliable sources) then Jupp then perhaps the embassy data tacked on.--Matilda talk 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that's precisely what I'm getting at - hard to argue with what you have written. What do you think TeePee and Kransky? πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all responses. I just a few problems, Pippu.  45,000 is not the embassy's estimate so we cannot credit it to them - it is Ms Nadine's own estimate.  And the estimate is a rough extrapolation from Jupp's 2001 estimate which he says is only approximate.  If we are going to use Jupp's estimate we should say what he thought it was in 2001, not what Nadine thinks it has risen to be.  As for saying "third generation Chileans", I suppose it could be added in as I demonstrate below (but I think it is redundant)
 * According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries[6]. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry[7]. The true number of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation Chilean-Australians, could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp[8]. Kransky (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Matilda and Kransky I just ask you to read. Pippu I am sure you have seen that I have already addressed both their concerns numerous times in my replies. Once again I am not removing any data apart from what is not needed in this article. both the birth, ancestory and now Kransky has finally provided a reference, population distrubiton ABS data will be used. The Embassy's estimates have been used, not Nadine's! And the POV interpratation provided by Kransky does not make sense. Again, I have already addressed these concerns in my comments! You know what maybe I should make new sections specific to these points highlighting my comments, it seems to have worked with the invalid reference Kransky was adding. What do you think Pippu? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NO problem with adding the embassy figure if you can attribute and frame it properly. I'm not sure I agree with Kransky about who made this guess.  Nadine does not mention 45,000 in her paper, so the only attribution we can make is to the "embassy." On the other hand the figure seems to be based on an extrapolation from the 2001 census, and there is no indication that is has anything to do with the year 2006 as TeePee suggests.  Nadine makes reference, in her paper, to a claim by the embassy that there are 40,000 "Chilean nationals" in Australia and dates this claim to 2006.  But the only reason it is so dated is because that's when she retrieved the information from their website, and we do not know if it represents a claim from that date.  One should add that the specific link she provides is no longer working, and that Nadine either misunderstands what a foreign national is, or this figure isn't even apropos here.  My guess is that she has misused the term foreign national to mean something less specific than what the term usually means-- foreigners who do not yet have the legal right of permanent residence.  Of course who knows the real answer to this?  Here is a very good illustration of why the embassy figures, in conjunction with Nadine's should be used with caution.  It is unclear where they come from, how they were arrived at, and really even what they are in the first place.  If you put them up please do attribute and frame them as clearly as possible.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Kransky still does not comprehend that it is data provided by the embassy and not Nadine the intern. Where here in her whole paper can you find the following quote "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."? Answer is no where as it is not provided by Nadine the intern! Sigh, how many times must I repeat myself before the message gets through! Or maybe it has got through and he just continues to say it in a hope you have not been reading my replies and respecting the requests I have been asking you all, so he can further strengthen his argument based on false information. On the other hand this is taken from the 2001 Census and there is suggestion to say otherwise which is "Last updated: June 2, 2006". And why have you came back to add your opinion? Like I made mention of earlier, if you are not going to listen to all sides of the argument and have a biased opinion, then don't include your opinion in these discussions. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You said, "Where here in her whole paper can you find the following quote "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."? Answer is no where as it is not provided by Nadine the intern!" and yet, strangely, in your most recent edit you've written "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons" and the reference that you've used in support goes straight to a page titled "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006". Isn't she the intern?
 * Wow, I need to repeat myself once again it seems. It does not go to a page title "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006", it goes to a page on the Embassy's website titled "The Chilean Community Today - A Glance" and if you go to the home page and click the sub-heading "Chilean Immigration" under the heading "Chilean Community", it will take you to the same page. The section at the top of that particular page titled "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006" provided a summary of that report which you can view in full here. This section is entirely different than the two following sections, as this section is provided by Nadine and the two following are provided by the Embassy. Now do you understand why I had pleaded with all you third parties to read thoroughly before providing your opinions? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you don't need repeat yourself but your somewhat confusing explanation reveals that you might need to learn to cite properly. The link you've provided does indeed go to a page on the website titled "The Chilean Community - Today A Glance" but the document displayed at the top of that page is most definitely "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006" so that is what you are using as a reference. If you want to refer to something else on the page then you need to note that in your citation. In this case you need to make it obvious that you want people to refer to the section titled "The Chilean Community Today - A Glance" and you haven't done that. That said, the page is set out in such a way that the implied author of the whole page is Nadine Botzenhart because that's the main heading and there is really nothing to separate the sections. There's also nothing in the section that you're relying on to explain the methodology used to arrive at the figure of 45,000 and because it differs from the ABS figures so drastically it becomes a questionable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made it as clear as I can to you but you still do not understand. There was nothing confusing in what I just said to you, so I suggest you re-read it or no longer participate in discussions as your opinion is based on limited knowledge. I have tried to explain to you, Kransky and Matilda but you all seem to have the same problem in that you don't fathom what I am saying. Pippu does, it looks like PelleSmith now does that leaves you three and who ever else that does not understand. Please someone else explain to these three what I have said numerous times as I think they are having mental blocks due to this information coming from me as an editor. Maybe if someone else as an editor explains it to them there will not be a block as it is someone else. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your explanation was confusing. A large portion of it was irrelevant and tangential. All you really needed to say was that the reference refers to the section on the page titled "The Chilean Community - Today A Glance". Explanations as to how to get to the page from other pages and arguing that the reference doesn't go to something that you then admit that it does go to was unnecessary. Tangential arguments and attacks on other editors who are simply trying to point out the error in what you have written will not help your case. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL for some guidance. I'd also suggest you re-read what you've written. Admitting that you and one other person understand but nobody else does should give you a clue that you've not made yourself clear enough. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, I understand why you read the entire page as being attributed to Nadine, and I did so myself at first. Then I had a closer look at how it was set up and I'm pretty sure that stylistic aspects of this page suggest otherwise.  I believe the embassy meant only to attribute to her the executive summary under the title and then of course to link to the whole report she generated.  However, I also admit that this is not unequivocally clear, and agree with you that it could be read either way.  The fact that the full report makes no mention of the statistic, I think is the strongest evidence that the entire page is not meant to summarize her report.  Yet the fact that it is unclear leads more support to my basic assertion that what we are trying to attribute to either the embassy or Nadine is itself very unclear and less than ideal.  I find it hard to understand why TeePee, after all this discussion and his claim to have read our RS and V guidelines has again reinserted "factual" sounding language into the entry about the 45,000 figure that is not attributed to either Nadine or the embassy, and that does not accurately reflect the fact that it is no more than an educated guess.  TeePee you are the only person who disagrees with Kransky's version.  The rest of us were trying to figure out how to insert the language from the embassy, but that was peripheral to the fact that we all think the basic version of Kransky is OK.PelleSmith (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said upon requesting third party assistance for you all to thoroughly read before coming involved. Because you have all mistakingly done the exact same thing as Kransky and not understood what you are reading. None of the two following sections after the summary of Nadines report can be found in her whole paper. Do the research yourself and you will be able to certify this. You all disagree because you all have not understood the full facts or still continue not to. This is not my problem this is your own problems for not reading carefully. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - more replies to TeePee 19 May - what is still your problem?

 * I can indeed read but I find your excessive comments (review the edit history and see how many times you have contributed) unclear. I object strongly to the Chilean Embassy page.  They do not explain their methodology.  They do not meet reliable sources in my view.  It has been explained above why not.  I will allow their estimate to be used as a 3rd estimate in the terms proposed by Pippu - what remains to be your problem?  All I see is personal attacks on me and Kransky - no articulation of your problem despite numerous edits. As per Aussie Legend - you need to learn to cite properly if you wish to escalate a discussion about sources.  The Chilean embassy's page as per Aussie Legend is very poorly set out (another reason why they are not a very reliable source) and it did look to me as though they were using Nadine Botzenhart as their authority due to layout.  I did in fact read her paper and they did not derive their information from her paper - hence my assertion they have not explained how they arrived at the figure and why we can therefore on wikipedia not repeat it as clearly authoritative.--Matilda talk 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You would not find my comments unclear had you taken the time to read them thoroughly. This is something expected of you as third parties to do before you become involved and is all I have ever asked, and you missing keypoints to my argument is what happens when you do not make sure you aquaint yourself with the full facts. I have also explained that the Embassy provides as much methodolgy as Jeff Jupp's does in his estimation, except the Embassy's number outdates Jupp's number. All you see is personal attacks is because you are taking what I say to heart instead of reading and understanding what I say to you. Why is it that I have not needed to explain myself the way I have with you, Kransky and AussieLegend to Pippu? It is because he does understand and I can quite clearly see from his replies that he is reading mine. I do not need to learn how to cite properly there is nothing wrong with my citation. You need to learn how to read properly and thoroughly and not have such a quick tongue in this matters. Again don't take this to heart and hear what I am saying to you. Thanks TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

19 May - current form of proposed words and status

 * Right now the article reads :
 * The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia, although in the 2006 reference this number dropped slightly to 23,305.[2] The 2006 distribution of this population by major cities revealed the largest numbers were situated in Sydney with 10,909[9], followed by Melbourne with 6,530[10], Perth with 1,172[11] and Brisbane with 1,087[12]. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons.[7] where reference 2 = ABS 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Australia, ref 9 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Sydney, ref 10 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Melbourne, ref 11 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Perth, ref 12 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Brisbane, and ref 7 = Embassy of Chile.
 * current words proposed by Kransky and PelleSmith at 17:18, 17 May 2008 are:
 * According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries[4]. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry[5]. The true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp[6]. where ref 4 = Australian Bureau of Statistics 20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia, ref 5 = Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Social Trends, 2003, ref 6 = Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press, page 197. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved on 17 May 2008.
 * this form of words was inserted by Kransky after a show of support . That was revised by TeePee with no reference to the consensus building on that page and with the edit summaryKept the newly found information about the location of Chileans in Sydney, and restored reference back to the Chilean Embassy source. (See talkpage) .  To me Teepee's edit made little sense, either by itself or in view of the talk page conversation.  For example I do not understand why he has removed the subsection on demographics (which dealt with the present time and added info about the present to the bottom of the history section I note he added not exactly the same info and reintroduced the contentious Embassy of Chile reference - several people have pointed out several times why it does not meet WP:RS.
 * moving along we now have regional stats sourced from the ABS. We do not have Jupp's reference in the demographics section but do have it used once above to state most Chilean-Australians live in western Sydney.  I propose we have a section on current demographics.  My proposal is based on the discussions above.  Sub sub section introduced for ease of reading--Matilda talk 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes that revision was added as a show of support from users who still did not understand the consequances of their show of support. In that revision there was the invalid reference, the citation error, the unecessary caveat due to Kransky's POV on not understanding the census and the adding of an unecessary demographics section which has already been appropriately discussed under the infobox, introduction and history of the article. Chilean Australians only compose of around 45 000 out of a population more than 21, 000 000 in Australia, we are not a big enough population to warrant a demography section especially when other much larger groups do not contain one. As I have already said all necessary information on our population is addressed. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section on demographics as at 19 May

 * Proposed wording:
 * According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries.[a] At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry.[b] The true number of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation Chilean-Australians,could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp.[c] 2006 estimates of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, are 45,000.[d] where the references are as follows:
 * a =
 * ie use   to format ref to provide comprehensive citation
 * b=
 * use for ref  
 * c =
 * use   as he is already cited with correct citation format
 * d =
 * use  

--Matilda talk 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again read, as I have already replied to you on the issues. Need I quote myself?! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments above for proposed wording

 * Suppport
 * 1) I support--Matilda talk 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) PelleSmith supports at 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) & 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC) "It would be safe to say something like: "the Chilean Embassy estimates an even higher figure of 45,000 Chilean Australians based upon their own guess work and the 2001 census." But as I have already stated I don't understand why anyone would want to add this with the demographer's estimate already in there."
 * 3) AussieLegend 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)(but not necessarily the use of the Chilean Embassy page)
 * 4) Kransky - yes but maybe not the use of the Embassy Page?
 * I oppose the use of the Nadine/Embassy estimate, no matter how authorship is phrased. I however support the use of the Chilean Government estimate Pippu has provided.


 * 1) Pippu d'angelo 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) TeePee stated he opposed at 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite clear to me but I think supports
 * 1) Selecciones de la Vida does support the use of the Embassy of Chile page 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) and again stating "The Embassy of Chile best serves as a secondary source that supports what Jupp wrote in the scholarly publication." 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have captured the views of all recent contributers. If I have captured this right so far we can move on and archive the rest for clarity. Comments below please (and in chronological order - ie latest comments at bottom would really help readability--Matilda talk 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Matilda has done a very good job, and TeePee I really think we should run with it. Two important points about the three figures:  1.  they are all referenced; but most importantly  2.  they do not conflict with each other once they are explained, they are entirely reconcilable and the information provided is useful.  We really have to run with this.  πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  04:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.PelleSmith (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee's assetion that not all views are captured

 * Reply to Matilda: You have not captured everyones views and are just trying to sum this up so you don't have to deal with it. Read all my replies and do not quote people out of context. I am sure Selecciones agrees alot more with me then he does you as there is still no indication wether you understand how the Census works or that the information is supplied by the Embassy. All of which I have repeatedly, numerous times tried to explain. Pippu go and read all my replies to all the comments you have all posted I have not missed one comment or one user, so make sure you read all the points I raise and reply to me accordingly. This issue will not be swept underneath the carpet. As I have already mentioned numerous times there are many issues to the revision Matilda has agreed upon and if you read my replies you will see all this issues. I would also like to add the current revision has no conflicting information at all so stop saying this Matilda. This is an issue you always seem to raise, but quite clearly the ABS data is used and does not conflict with either of the sources saying the same things! So I suggest you read my replies thoroughly as I have explained how the census works, then once you have a grasp on the cencus read my replies thoroughly as I have explained why it is not provided by the intern Nadine. Then once you have a grasp on this read thoroughly the rest of the points I have made in addressing what you raise. Unlike yourself I have replied to every comment and have addressed the points raised. This debate is still wide open. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TeePee - I really can't see anything wrong with what Matilda has proposed, for me, it's all there, it's all transparent, I'm no longer sure what the problem is. πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay Pippu looks like I need to quote myself so you can address the specific points. Hang on a second, I will do what I did with the invalid reference Kransky was providing to make it clear. Stand by...TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * TeePee, I don't see the problem with including the Jupp number. It's quite consistent with the other numbers quoted and ends up backing the Embassy number - it all fits nicely together.  Why would you have a problem with that?  πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  07:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the new section I have created. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC) And I would also like to add I have never had a problem with adding it. I just don't think it is needed. Simple. See my new section for clarity. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to TeePee - sorry this debate is no longer wide open. I will allow User: Selecciones de la Vida to speak for him or herself on the proposed wording but even without his or her views we have strong support for the change.  I have referenced the support of all others using time stamps which can be found in the history and on this talk page.  I have noted when they do not agree with the inclusion of material from the Embassy of Chile in Australia.  The count is 5 in favour of the words proposed to 1 oppose (user:TeePee) and 1 yet to state support or otherwise.  I am not satisfied with the wording in the article at present - that is why the change is being proposed.  I and others have read and re-read TeePee's comments - he neds to express clearly and concisely where there is an error, either because the reference provided does not support the assertion it is matched against or becuase it is in some way unreliable.  --Matilda talk 07:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Matilda - sorry all debates to all articles are wide open to contribution, you do not own this article and do not decide who and who cannot make edits to it. I have shown all the flaws attributed to the revision provided by Kransky you were wishing to keep and have higlighted there is still no evidence that you have listened to both me and PelleSmith and aknowledged that the source is the Embassy and not the intern Nadine! The count is invalid as three of the users before showing their support (including yourself) did not or still not continue to understand this simple fact. And the count is not even tallied correctly as I have already mentioned to you in my reply on your talkpage that Pippu did not say he would vote, and three other users have not commented. Even if all your shows of support for that particluar revision with its numerous flaws was in fact valid, the tally would still be closer to 4 in favour propsoed to 4 against. But as I have already mentioned all articles are always up for contribution and you have know right voting to get rid of this issue and sweep it under the rug. If you cannot add your opinion appropriately on RfCs then take your name off the third opinion category, your goal is not to get rid of a dispute on the RfC page, your goal is to come up with a solution which has been agreed upon by everyone and a concensus reached. You must address my point and must not behave inappropriately. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Matilda's revision and would like to note that there is nothing in it suggesting that Nadine came up with that figure instead of the embassy. I don't see what the problem is, and it has become clear some time ago TeePee, that you are a lone wolf here.  The rest of the people commenting on this page would like you to drop it so we can move on.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if it is me against the world, all points need to be addressed and replied to. You don't see what the problem is because you do not read. Once again I will repeat myself in saying I have made mention to the numerous flaws in the Kransky's revision you all supported and yes I know you would like to drop it and move on but I wont allow you as all issues raised need to be addressed, you can not sweep this under the rug. This is not the goal of third parties! "your goal is not to get rid of a dispute on the RfC page, your goal is to come up with a solution which has been agreed upon by everyone and a concensus reached"! If you want to do this then your opinion is not notable, as fairness and thorough checking of the full facts must be in practice! This is not an issue you will tick off on that page as if you do not take the time to read, understand and address all points I raise I will keep requesting third party views! Cheers TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I further note that TeePee has stated a show of support from users who still did not understand the consequances of their show of support - I am sorry this is in effect calling us stupid. You may not do this - you have to take our commetns at face value and assume good faith--Matilda talk 07:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I further note for you not to put words in my mouth and breach civility. I am sorry but your interpratation doesn't warrant you to do this. I was in no way calling you stupid, I was merely mentioning that three editors showed an opinion for support without viewing the full facts as once again at the time of showing support none of them realised the source was the Embassy and not the intern's! You may not do this Matilda - you have to to remain neutral, read and assume good faith on my behalf. If you read you will see not only have I tried to explain this concept numerous times, but now that PelleSmith understands, he has also tried to explain this. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another source to be taken into account
~This source also needs to be taken into accout.

http://www.gobiernodechile.cl/chilenos_exterior/registro_chilenos_exterior.pdf Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This source is a 245 page pdf in Spanish. I have done a search on "Australia" and found on page 11 it states Cuadro Nº 2 CHILENOS: LOS 10 PRIMEROS PAISES CON MAYOR NUMERO DE CHILENOS, NACIDOS EN CHILE COMO EN EL EXTERIOR - Australia is ranked 5th (after Argentina, Estados Unidos de N. América, Suecia, Canadá ) with Población total of 33,626 .  On page 13 the paper states De acuerdo a los datos recogidos hay una mayor proporción de mujeres que de hombres en la población de chilenos en el extranjero. Los países con una mayor proporción de mujeres son: Italia con el 59,0%; Perú con el 55,0%; Argentina con el 50,8%; Australia con el 50,5%; y, España con el 50,2%.  I don't know what this means.  Page 16 seems to be referring to the 1970s.  Page 17 I think says that Australia has more Chileans than the rest of Oceania.  On page 18 there is a table Cuadro Nº 5 CHILENOS: RESIDENTES EN OCEANIA POR PAIS where the Australian figures are País Australia Población nacida en Chile 23.420 Hijos de los nacidos en Chile 10.206 Población Total 33.626  Which I think is saying that of the 33,626 residents in Australia with Chilean ancestry  23,420 were born in Chile and 10,206 are children of those born in Chile (I don't speak Spanish!).  Page 22 has similar figures with reference to census 1996 y 2001 but the bornn to parents born in Chile seems to have dropped from 10,206 -> 10,018 giving a total of 33,438.  I can't understand enough to understand the difference why though assume it is to do with the source of the data.


 * At this point I haven't the time to wade through this source. So please User:Selecciones de la Vida clarify why it needs to be taken into account, what information does it have that is different.  Note that the policy Verifiability states :
 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.
 * Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.


 * This source is offering data different from data we have available in English. I do not dispute that it is of good quality and will provide useful additional facts for the article.  Those of us who do not speak Spanish need help by the identification of facts which are proposed to be used - please provide proper citation of the source using page numbers.  Please also provide translation and/or quotation so that "readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material " --Matilda talk 07:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for preferring the Chilean Embassy to Australia's estimate
I will be quoting all the times I have provided my reasons:

"Yes Matilda this is also a good reference and futher supports the Embassy's view. But this 2001 reference does not need to be added as the Embassy's 2006 reference has already been verified. You still don't understand that this is the Embassy's data and not the interns. So I plead to you to actually read my replies so you can see I am not making up facts. Please just read. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * "I'm sorry if I come across ungrateful or disrespectful about Matilda finding that reference. But it has the exact same issues that the Embassy's figure has. I did not need this reference Matilda provided to convince me of the number of Chilean Australians as I was well aware that 45,000 is correct as seems you Pippu, Itsmejudith and maybe PelleSmith of this fact. About the only thing this reference does is explain it simpler in less formal language by using the word "children". The embassy does the exact same thing except it says "second and third generation". If people will just realise the Embassy has provided this and not the intern which I have already said in my replies, then there would be no issues as the Embassy's information does not conflict with the ABS data at all and instead quoting Itsmejudith, "adds another dimension". The reason for the 5,000 number difference is the reference provided by matilda was published in 2001 where as the Embassy published their data in 2006, something else which I alluded to in my previous comment. At least now all this other people who don't understand will have an easier time understanding as there are now two valid references saying the same things. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)" (Now I know you didn't find this reference, so thankyou Selecciones de la Vida)
 * "I have now read both links you sent me and there is no indication at all that the Chilean Embassy is not a reliable source based on both the policy and guideline I have read. Jeff Jupps estimate is out of date and the Embassy's estimate is more recent. I am positive if Jeff Jupps himself could be involved in this matter he would also agree with the new number provided by the Embassy 5 years later. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * "From the RS guidline: "although some material may be outdated by more recent research" The Embassy's not the interns research outdates Jeff Jupp's reference. Jeff Jupp's reference was published in 2001 based on the 1996 Australian Census. The Embassy's reference was provided in 2006 based on the 2001 Australian Census." TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "That's because she did not provide it the Embassy did! Seriously how many times need I repeat myself? Honestly someone read these discussions and count them on your two hands, I'm quite positive you won't have enough fingers! And PelleSmith as I have already said, the reason being is they are both essentially the same thing except the Embassy's estimate is more up to date based on the Census taken 5 years after the Census which Jeff Jupp's based his estimate on. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008"
 * "Yes according to you it is unreliable, I see no indication to say this at the policy and guidline I have read. Itsmejudith also lead me to believe otherwise before I even read the policy and guidleline. So PelleSmith this is just your opinion. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)"

"The Chilean Embassy is reliable as they provide as much methodology for how they got to the figure as Jeff Jupps does. " TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "And as I have mentioned it does lend a significant amount of credibility to the data provided by the embassy, but as I also mentioned even though it is a highly reliable source, it is not needed due to the Embassy's data. It is not needed as it is outdated by the Embassy's research which occured 5 years later based on the 2001 Census compared to Jupps data published in 2001 based on the 1996 Census. Now if I can get other users to listen to what I am saying and address the points I am raising we can have a productive conversation moving towards a final revision in which we can all agree upon. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * "...have also explained that the Embassy provides as much methodolgy as Jeff Jupp's does in his estimation, except the Embassy's number outdates Jupp's number." TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can clearly see
I have gave my reasons numerous times in which no one has directly replied to. Now please read and reply to these points I am quite clearly making! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys - I didn't provide any link to anything - this discussion is way, way out of control! Most wikipedians would know that any time a discussion page gets 4 or 5 (or more) times bigger than the actual article, we are generally talking about something that no mere mortal can rectify.  If we can't accept Matilda's well worked option, which I can't really fault, then maybe we ought to call in Jesus Christ (who I flippantly referred to in my very first post on this subject).  πιππίνυ δ -  (dica)  10:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Clearly I need to repeat myself, " The paragraph you quoted is not needed in this article and the revision I have provided is an alternative. It does not need to be provided as only people like Kransky who did not understand how the census works would have trouble relating the two numbers together. Also the wording is not good, it isn't an undercount, how exactly is it? Kransky still does not understand and that is why he is adding his POV saying it may be an undercount. Chilean born Australians are quite right in saying there ancestory to be something other than Chilean. So there is no undercount. And then he adds the "true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp" this statement implies the two sources conflict, just like he thinks the source of the Chilean Embassy conflicts with the ABS. None of the two conflict with ABS so again his wording is not the best. And why does the demographer need to be mentioned? I don't think I have ever seen a demographer mentioned on a wikipedia article in any articles similar to this one. So these are all the reasons why it should not be kept in the revision Kransky has provided, plus what I have already mentioned numerous of times and on your talkpages as you can see. That is, he has once again snuck in the reference which is invalid to the data he is editing into this article. Problem not solved TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)" and "In that revision there was the invalid reference, the citation error, the unecessary caveat due to Kransky's POV on not understanding the census and the adding of an unecessary demographics section which has already been appropriately discussed under the infobox, introduction and history of the article." All these things you are able to quite evidently see as faulty with the revision Matilda supported! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think even he could help. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, assume good faith in Jesus Christ! ;) TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We can accept Matilda's proposal. Its time to implement the sensible proposal, ignore the rouge disruption and move on.PelleSmith (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories are included in Wikipedia, albeit with diminished weight. I would have no problems with Matilda's proposal, as long as the 45,000 estimate is written to appear unauthorative.  Kransky (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jupp's 40,000 was qualified: "Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today" --Matilda talk 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to change it. At this point I would prefer if we moved on --Matilda talk 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have repeated myself in reply to Pippu above showing what issues I have with the revision you all chose to support and will now fix any problems you have made to the article from my last revision. I have also started a new section for three users to contribute to as this issue is still looming. If I don't hear from you three I will make sure to leave you messages on your talkpages to come here and answer. Cheers TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky, Matilda and AussieLegend
Who provides this information: "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons" - The Embassy of Chile to Australia or the intern Nadine Botzenhart? Each of you reply underneath preferrably in dot points so it is clear for all other editors involved in this matter. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Embassy of Chile and the reference makes that clear--Matilda talk 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)