Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Demographics of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This non-article page is supported by WikiProject Demographics of Australia. |
 Archives |
| /Archive 1: Scope . Category tag and incorporating tags . Cats:Fooians of Booian descent . Ancestry issue - improve articles within Category:Ethnic groups in Australasia similar to the material used for Chilean Australians? .Notable Australians of xyz ethnicity .category rationalisation ? . Citzenship vs Ethnicity . Booian Australians as opposed to Booian People . inclusion in Booian Australian profiles of Aust citizens eligible to be Booian citizens . Rating of Importance of articles to the project . Importance ranking for articles not on ethnic groups |
[edit] Article improvement - minimum - WP:V and WP:NOR - suggested next step
- progress has been made on ranking for importance and the table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Demographics of Australia articles by quality statistics shows 74 articles ranked - none assessed for quality higher than B at present. (The quality scale is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment#Quality scale ) Of the articles currently assessed as being of top importance to this project, 3 articles are assessed as being of B class, 9 are assessed as start class and 3 as stub. Some of the quality assessments are not consistent and/or need to be revisited. However I think what is clear is that all these articles are candidates for improvement. My suggested next step is reviewing assertions made and checking that they are referenced would be a great start; if not referenced tag with {{fact}} or find the reference. I am concerned that top class articles meet the wikipedia core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR and I suspect that this may not be the case --Matilda talk 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Articles - Residency is neither necessary nor sufficient to be Australian
It is great to see how busy Matilda had been .. Apologies for not being able to make an equally productive contribution to date!
I see three new 'stub' articles created. Great! I note, with concern, however that Booian Australians are being defined as those residents of Australia who have Booian ancestors (alla of Booian descent
Please, please might we simply agree (as demographically and/ior statistically inconvenient as it may be) .. that people DO NOT become Australian simply by living here (ie by being residents of Australia)!!.
To be classed as an Australian, one MUST be a citizen of Australia, not just a resident .. irrespective of one's ancestory. Residency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to being Australian ..
As previously discussed, back in 1991, approx 40% of residents born in Booian, were just plain Booians and could not be properly classed and ought NOT be mistakenly/inaccurately classed Booian Australians.
If it's agreeable to you, without changing any of the ABS statistics quoted in the stubs .. I'd like to amend the defintions to read something like this:
Booian(Nation) Australians are citizens of Australia who were born in Booian or otherwise qualify to be citizens of Booian
I suggest this kind of definition particularly for all articles dealing with 'nations', such as South Africa, and even China which are themselves, made up of a multitude of ethnic groups and identies!!
This kind of definition is not only more accurate .. but it also deals with the vagaries of multiple generations of ancestory (ie with ancestry doubling from 2, to 4, to 8, to 16, to 32 possible ancestoral claims .. and how far do we go back??).
I hope you agree and find the above suggested amendment agreeable?? Bruceanthro (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi - it isn't that I don't hear you (or read you) my problem is being pedantic about reflecting the stats which we have to hand and we are using. I am also constrained a bit by the effect of common usage which is a bit broader but I note that born in Booian or otherwise qualify to be citizens of Booian is broader and a long way there.
- Because the stats count residents and I want to use them I match the definition to what is being counted. Pause to gather thoughts There must be some way around this. I am happy to use the old stats on citizens from 1996 (which we discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Archive 1#Citzenship vs Ethnicity|Citzenship vs Ethnicity ) but I want to use the more up to date 2006 census which doesn't seem to have tables matching the infor at [1] This is a more recent documetn[2] but note it refers to permanent residents rather than citizens.
- I am not sure if you remember the case of Robert Jovicic, born in France to Serbian parents, lived in Australia since the age of 2 but did not gain citizenship and was deported to Serbia in 2004 and now (Feb 2008) granted permanent residency [3] [4] - he wouldn't fit the definition you gave but I think we would ordinarily count him as a Serbian Australian.
- So - I would be delighted with any form of words you can come up with that allow the use of the census stats and allow for the ordinary understanding in relation to the case of Robert Jovicic (he wasn't the only one - I am sure there was someone deported back to Italy too) but not sure that we are quite there yet and I can't think of a better alternative myself :-) Matilda talk 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article on Australian people? Scope?
Currently we have no article on the Australian people - the blue link is a redirect to Australia. There are other people articles. However I note that say for Japanese people it has the dab header This article is about the ethnic group. For the group of people holding Japanese citizenship, see Demographics of Japan. Similarly English people has his article is about the English as an ethnic group and nation. For information on the population of England, see Demography of England. The article on Canadian people redirects to Demographics of Canada. I am not sure I find the organisation of the US demographics a useful model - see for example Template:Demographics of the United States - there is some good bits but some of it is not yet thought through I think. Should we. like the Canadians, redirect to the Demography of Australia article or is there an article on Australian people that has a different scope.? --Matilda talk 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
