Talk:English Australians

Nude model picture next to an Australian soldier killed in action?
Does anyone else find this comical? Who the hell dug up that picture of that woman? Why not take a picture of her that ISN'T a nude one? Is there any reason for nudity whatsoever?

What a total mess!
''English Australians are Australians of English descent, the largest ethnic group in Australia after "Australian" (which contains an unknown number of English and Irish Australians). In the 2006 census, 6.3 million or 32% of respondents identified as "English" or a combination including English, such as English-Australian[3]. The census also documented 860,000 residents of Australia as being born in England.[4] Most of them are descendants of English settlers from colonization and the first English settlers here were from North America.''

What is this article about, exactly? Because, if it is, then it should be title Australians of English birth
 * Is it about people who in the latest census cited themselves as English Australian, or English?
 * is it about all the people who are actually of English descent, because if it is, then the "the largest ethnic group in Australia after "Australian" (which contains an unknown number of English and Irish Australians)" is total nonsense! Obviouusly if this is what is mmeannt, then a llarge number of the so-called "Australians" are part oif thhe same ethnic groups- in fact probabbly the mmajjoority of them are.
 * the first English settlers here were from North America This is a vandalistic addition which has been ignored by other editors, evenn though it is glaringly horribly and stupidly wrong and miisleading! Why has iit been iignored?
 * Beneath it, in the paragraph about colonisation,, the same vandal added a blurb on the Mayflower pilgrims going to America.. They even put in a pic. So someone came alonng and deleted the piic, but lleft the stupid misleading information. Pleeeease someone, fix it!
 * Don Bradman.... English Australian? WAS he? His biography on the wiki pages doesn't say so! So what does it mean? It all depends on the definition, doesn't it? Are you "English Australian" if you ancestors arrived on the First Fleet? I don't know when Bradman's fammily arrived, but I Do know he was born in Oz, so howzabout we find a better example. I don't think the Brits would claim him as their own, even if they would like to!

So, 1. Decide on the defintion. I would go with "born in England" rather than "by descent" 2. remove the vandalism 3. Find a better example than Don Bradman Amandajm (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is stupid, stupid, stupid. The term English-Australian is not in the Australian vernacular. (And even if it was, no doubt it would be Anglo-Australian??) Such hyphenated ethnic descrpitions belong only in American culture. And The inclusion of Don Bradman is simply incitement. DMC (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

An Australian-English has won the Tour of France today. Alas this page is still a dog's breakfast of original and spurious research.Mastershallow 03:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A person does not have to be born in Australia to be English-Australian. A much larger number are Australians born and raised in Australia who are of English ancestry. Jim Michael (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Adjustments
I made some adjustments:

.I got back the information the information that User Otkdna is always deleting. I don't know why is doing this, this information is true, needful, interesting and give you a betterand deeper understanding about the history of the Anglo-Australians. It is true that some of this have no external links (although some have), but lacking links is not a reason to delete this information (We are not Scholastics), it does not have to have external links to be true. Besides, it has a lot of essential facts that can not be ignored and you do not have to be an Australian History genius to konow that they are true. I think that Otkdna does not read the changes other user make and delete them without considering whether are true or not.

.I made some changes in the Famous English Australian section.

.I got back the Prime Ministers of English descent's complete names.

212.128.169.114 10:33, 16 May 2013 (GMT)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English 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/20140529194052/http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf to http://www.omi.wa.gov.au/resources/publications/LocalGovernment/The_People_of_Australia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of English Australians as % in Australia
Hi there

Just thought i'd show a link which gives the figures and percentages of the Australian census 2016.

https://profile.id.com.au/australia/ancestry

This shows the number of people of each ancestry and on a state/city base. It shows that the numbers shown in Wikipedia are wrong by around 2-3% in some cases.

Has anyone found this website before?

Tdgower2 (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi - on wiki we take the figures from the primary source, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tables from their Community Profiles series (census data). ID is a secondary source and I am familiar with these tables. The problem with the ID source which accounts for why there are a few % points difference is that if they are calculating a % for a specific ancestry, they will divide the number of people reporting that ancestry by the TOTAL population which is not the logical or internationally consistent way of doing it in terms of statistics. The stats on wiki from the ABS tables use the number of people reporting that ancestry divided by the total number of people who REPORTED THEIR ANCESTRY (ie the number of people who answered the ancestry question). There is always a small percentage of people who do not answer that question, so it is not appropriate to use the total population to determine a proportion - like any other optional question, you use the total number of people who answere the question to work out the percentage. Stormcrow Mithrandir  02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Thankyou for you information. It makes a lot of sense to use that source rather than the one I posted. Didn't realise. I found a statistical atlas for the U.S.A. as well but that uses the same system as the one I used for Australia.

Tdgower2 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes the USA is more difficult again since they only ask about 'race' in their census rather than ancestry - so you have official statistics on 'black'/'white'/'latino' but ancestries such as English, Italian, Chinese come from surveys that they do. I'm glad we have the question on the census. For the USA as well, it is interesting that English-Americans usually make up about 10% of the population with German-Americans being the largest group where in reality Engliah-Americans are the largest group by a long way. They have a tendency to nominate the most 'recent' ancestry so a lot of English-Americans go unreported when if you look at the 1981 census when they asked the ancestry question in the US and allowed two ancestry responses, probably a plurality or majority of white Americans have a good amount of 17th-18th centry English ancestry.-- Stormcrow Mithrandir  23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)