Talk:European Australians
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theEuropean Australians article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
To clean up the page, I've created a single image containing the faces of 12 European Australians for the info box. Previously, there were 18 images of irregular size in a very messy arrangement in this position, pushing the information contained in the box far down the page. I'm sure no-one's going to complain about the tidy up, but asCymruman, already has done, I expected complaints about the people I included.First of all, I'd like to say that it wasn't my intention to include predominantly Australians with Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, (and for the record, Sidney Myer has a Russian Jewish background.Of the 12 people I've included, 10 were already on the page. I added first PMEdmund Barton and longest serving PMRobert Menzies (both notable enough for inclusion) so that the image would not be dominated by contemporary Australians.Here is the list of people who were included on the page before my edit, and the reasons I have removed certain images.
Most of the time when I've said that the image was of poor quality, it is because the face of the person is difficult to see, which in an article on ethnicity, is an important thing.
Feel free to disagree with any of the choices, and I'll be happy to replace any of the portraits I've selected with a photograph of equal or better quality containing an Australian of equal or higher notoriety, especially if they're not Anglo-Celtic in heritage.
Glennnnn (talk)12:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Australian English is a major language among European Australians - but there are also over 1 million UK-born and over 400 thousand NZ-born Australians, so it stands to reason that there would also be hundreds of thousands of Australians who would be classified as speakers ofBritish orNew Zealand English. Because of this, I'm replacing "Australian English" with just "English.saɪm duʃanTalk|Contribs08:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an Australian citizen: he surrendered his citizenship as a condition of gaining the American citizenship necessary to buy American newspapers.— Precedingunsigned comment added by203.3.64.1 (talk)04:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Asian Australians make up 12% of Australia's population then that means that no more than 88% of that country's population is non-Asian. So how can whoever it was that edited the Article claim that European Australians make up more than 91% of Australia's population?! Obviously that person has also to take the number of, for example the indigenous peoples of Australia. Also, the person that edited the article claims that even the 91% is too little as it doesn't include persons who chose "Australian" ancestry in the census. Well, surely there were many people of non-European ethnic background who choose "Australian" ancestry in the census. Surely many, if not most or all Asian, Indigenous and other Australians of non-European ethnic/racial backgrounds feel at least as "Australian" as European-Australians. Thus I believe the "Australian" category in the Australian census does not or should not refer only to Australians of European ancestry and I am deeply offended by the actions of whoever it was that entered the figure of 91%+ and said that if people who selected "Australian" ancestry were included that this figure would be even larger (implying that people of non-European ancestry living in Australia were not really Australian or not Australian enough). I feel that the person who edited this article is showing very little or no regard and possibly even contempt for Australians of non-European background and I feel that whoever it is very racist.HS123 (talk)17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your source for 12% Asian Australian? And no one cares if you're offended, go back to China if you don't like it- but then you'd have to live in the third world dystopia that is China so obviously you're going to stay in Australia and bawwww about racism.64.189.66.225 (talk)07:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian population was 94% white in 2001, 94% of 19 million is about 18 million people. During the next decade the population would have grown by at least 1.5 million taking births and immigration into account, so there should be nearly 20 million white Australians.
The Lebanese and other non-European whites are negligible in terms of total population, so how is it that there are only 18 million European Australians?64.189.66.225 (talk)07:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even better yet, you go on the White American page and tell them they have to merge it to European American.203.51.161.90 (talk)21:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to merge the two items do not make much sense. Being white is not synonymous with European. Also Arabs and people from the Caucasus are white (so regarded even by US Census Bureau) and many people of the Americas, being them mostly in countries such as USA, Canada, Argentina or Uruguay are also white (and although mayority them are of European descent, many are also of Arab descent). I'm North African - not European - and I'm white.--Isinbill (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Agree. I noticed that someone removed the link about Arab and Asian people being regarded as white and left only the European links. Then why don't we remove White American page and merge it to European American?203.51.161.90 (talk)21:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to include some information. Most of the information on the page currently makes no reference toEuropean Australians, and also there are few references.Nhjkut (talk)08:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onEuropean Australians. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed to let others know (documentation at{{Sourcecheck}}).
NAn editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the|checked= totrue
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online14:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding these two changes (here andhere) to the percentage of Australians of European ancestry, IP 123.2.192.167, please note that "The World Factbook" is not deemed to be areliable source for ethnicityWP:CALC. Yes, it is used in other articles on ethnic groups, but is being phased out by theWikiProject Ethnic groups editing community unless used to back up reliably sourced content.
What is needed is a reliableWP:SECONDARY source for such ethnicity-based breakdowns, or the actual 2016 census breakdown (which I haven't had time to work through as yet). While I have no doubt that there's been an increment to non-European citizenship and residency, there's nothing substantive enough to assume that there's been an entire 10% increase. It also doesn't do to change reliably sourced figures maintaining something else altogether as if those sources support the figure you have changed. --Iryna Harpy (talk)22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onEuropean Australians. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)23:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I created a disambiguation page forWhite Australian (disambiguation). It is designed to resolve the issue of what the word means in different contexts. It does not necessarily mean European Australian. If there are no major criticisms, then I will redirectWhite Australian to this disambiguation page or merge the two pages.Travelmite (talk)09:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is the redirect page still operating, and the new disambiguation page. It's time to discuss them being merged. The merge will mean that when someone types White Australian into Wikipedia, they are not given a definition that not everyone agrees with. There is no specific definition of a white Australian. It may refer to the convicts and or the colonists, it may refer to those Anglo person's under the original White Australia policy, or it may refer to some race concept, or a reference to the majority group or it may refer informally to European Australians. Clearly it's then a matter of context and the reader can then decide further what they want to read.Travelmite (talk)18:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow why the discussion was started here. Please continue this discussion onTalk:White Australian. Thanks,wbm1058 (talk)01:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to merge the two items do not make much sense. Being white is not synonymous with European." and then the sock boldly redirected in spite of the objection. This was adeletion by redirection; no content was merged.wbm1058 (talk)18:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging creates aredirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, withsome or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." Yes, the page wasredirected in July 2014, butthe edit history ofEuropean Australians shows no content merged at that time. I don't considerthis edit to be a content merge andall the edits for the rest of July 2014 were reverted as vandalism. Theedit summary on the redirect "
neologism based on American definitions of white, pointless" implies that the redirecting editor didn't consider the content to be valid for merging.WP:NOTNEO says "
Articles onneologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." You have said that the content of the article, which I haverestored and tweaked, is unsourced (or poorly sourced), and, as such, maybe itshouldn't be merged. Redirecting implies thatEuropean Australian is theprimary topic for "White Australian", but if it is, then, perMOS:DABPRIMARY we would need a link at the top ofWhite Australian (disambiguation) stating that "A [[White Australian]] is a European Australian." (or something similar) – I don't think either of us want to do that. That's why I (boldly) modified your proposal to take this article out of the loop. The only mention of the term "white" in the current version of this article is in a link to theWhite Australia policy. –wbm1058 (talk)13:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
White Australian is an ambiguous, undefined term. It's meaning depends on the context".White Australian can either be a broad-concept article that explains all of the contexts, or, lacking adequate sources for such an article I suppose we can settle for your disambiguation page being moved to the base title, as a stopgap until an adequate broad-concept article can be written.wbm1058 (talk)13:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
European is a geographical term. It is not a national or ethnic term. It is also not a pan-ethnic term. But this article refers to European Australians as a pan-ethnic group. That claim, not surprisingly, is unsourced. How could it be when there is no evidence that there is such a pan-ethnic group? What evidence is there that Australians with Albanian ancestry feel some pan-ethnic connection with those whose ancestry is Norwegian or English? None, of course. That's why the subgroups listed do not include any actual ethnic groups (but simply Australians with a particular ancestry). That is not a pan-ethnic group.
That being the case, the article is fundamentally broken.
It's also the case that the source for the population of 'European Australians' uses the term to refer only to those with a certain cultural background. Again, there is no evidence of pan-ethnic identification. Furthermore, the Australian census page that is cited later states "Ancestry is an indication of the cultural group that a person most closely identifies with."[1]
So is the article supposed to be about a cultural group or a pan-ethnic group? It is obvious that like the other pages dealing with Australians, it has a sort-of identity crisis. Ironic.
There are double the number of Google hits for White Australians as there are for European Australians. Given that is what people are obviously searching for, the article should be renamed and a link to the disambiguation page placed at the top. The link may say something like 'This article is about the Australian cultural group. For other uses see the disambiguation page.'
There is still no article on Wikipedia that deals with the Australian people as historically understood and referenced in numerous articles, newspapers, and books between the 1840s and 1940s. Those people strenuously rejected any identification with Europeans but were not considered fully British by the British government, resulting in claims that the British government discriminated against Australians.— Precedingunsigned comment added by106.69.226.158 (talk)12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The percentage in the infobox says 75%, but it does not seem to be based on a reliable source - it fails to take into account the ABS's statement that most people who put "Australian" on the census are Anglo-Celtic. The body of the article says estimated percentages range from 85 to 92 - one of these numbers would be much better.StAnselm (talk)15:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that australians of european descent make up 75+% of the population. Big cities hold the majority of the population, unless there are a lot of "white" people working from home and never leaving the house, people of european descent are clearly a small minority in big cities in australia, especially the cities with the largest populations like sydney and melbourne. A more realistic estimate of "european" australians would be about 30- 40%— Precedingunsigned comment added by1.157.221.139 (talk)07:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)09:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a good source for Europeans causing the Australian Aboriginal genocide:
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/australian-aborigine76.174.235.156 (talk)04:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, people who have ancestry entirely or predominantly from Europe are referred to as White, White Australian, or White people, not "European Australians". The phrase "European Australian" is not used in the media, or in public discourse. Why then is this article titled "European Australian" and a search in Wikipedia for "White Australian", the common term, redirects to this article, a virtually non-existent term?
By way of illustration, here are some articles using the term "White Australian":
https://theconversation.com/paul-hogan-and-the-myth-of-the-white-aussie-bloke-124281
By contrast, one is pressed to find any use of the term "European Australian" in public discourse, news articles, or in the citations to this article.
Which begs the question, why is it the title of this article? Relatedly, "White Americans" is an article on wikipedia (also locked such as this one). Obviously "European Americans" is not a term that is used, and "European Australians" is in the same category.125.209.133.102 (talk)15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
02:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg)
