Talk:Chilean Australians

message: The question has been asked in an edit comment " Are there multiple such estimates?"  Yes - the Chilean Embassy also has 43,000 at another page - http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/chileans.html .  The reference being discussed above in the section Another source to be taken into account - the 245 page pdf has different figures which seem to me to be 10,000 lower in its estimates.  As above: 
: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.  
I assume the difference is the inclusion of third generation Chilean-Australians.--Matilda talk 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us forget about the Jupp estimate, and its questionable use by Ms Nadine.  The Chilean Government estimates of around 33,000 sound to be credible, and I would rate the source to be reasonable.  Kransky (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jupp is the second most reliable source we have other than the ABS.  I don't think we should forget it.  Perhaps we use the ABS self-declared ancestry, the Goverment figure, and the Jupp estimate.  The embassy figure should be considered the least reliable.  Note, for instance, that the embassy has also estimated 43,000 on another page.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm still not sure how the second and third generation Chilean Australians weren't picked up by the 2006 census. After all, they had to fill out a form just like everyone else. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demography - multiple estimates 

message: As above I would support the inclusion of the extra figures from the Chilean Government but in a separate paragraph.  I can't speak Spanish but can see enough to understand that they are authoritative.  I think they need explanation - and we need to make sure we are clear what are the problems.  The Chilean government seems to be using ABS data.  I don't think we serve the reader well by having varying figures out there in cyberspace which are from  a reliable source that don't reconcile with our article. Obviously we have to avoid original research in explaining the differences.
We currently have According to demographer James Jupp in 2001, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today, but he noted we do not have accurate figures.[3] One 2006 estimate of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, is as high as 45,000.[6]  If we add the sentence - The Chilean Government has estimated in 2003-04 there were at least 33,626 residents in Australia with Chilean ancestry: 23,420 were born in Chile and 10,206 are children of those born in Chile.[ref - cite using template  the pdf pages 18 and 22 and note that the figure is calculated on the basis of the Australian census figures and the register of children born overseas who have been registered by their parents who are Chilean residents with the nearest Chilean Embassy or consulate]--Matilda talk 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding in Chilean Government data

message: The removal of Chris Watson as having been born in Chile to a Chilean father was rather abrupt. Even more incredible is the undeniable fact that this article actually provides references. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think Watson should be included, especially since there are clearly various ways to define "Chilean Australian," and since the entry makes it clear at this point that there may even be contemporary people born in Chile, living in Australia, who do not self identify with Chilean ancestry.  That said, despite posthumous proof to the contrary, Watson himself claimed another lineage, and there may be some editors who want to include more detail about that.  I do not think removing him altogether is the way to go, however.PelleSmith (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I note also that the National Archives only state "probably born in Valparaiso, Chile"  although the Australian Dictionary of Biography is more definitive on the place it is also quite clear his parents were intinerant ... was born on 9 April 1867 at Valparaiso, Chile, son of Johan Christian Tanck and his wife Martha, née Minchin (or Skinner). Tanck was chief officer of the brig Julia which had arrived at Port Chalmers, New Zealand, from Talcahuano, Chile, on 24 December 1865; he married Martha at Port Chalmers on 19 January 1866; they departed in the Julia for Guam on 2 February. On 15 February 1869 at Waipori, New Zealand, Martha Tank [sic] married George Thomas Watson; her son Chris became part of her new family.  Of the other refs cited, note 3 states probably (it is the archives again); note 4 - the trade union archives seem merely to be an abbreviated version of the ADB;  similarly note 5 - the National Library and Note 6 the national Museum.  Note 7 is a paper presented to th 11th Biennal National Conference of the Australian Historical Association Brisbane 3-7 July 2002 and discusses identity - the paper states  Throughout his life Watson concealed the fact that he was born Johan Cristian Tanck in Valparaiso, Chile, in 1867. His father, a ship’s officer, was a Chilean citizen of German birth; his mother was a New Zealander of Irish descent. In their recent biography of Watson, The Man Time Forgot, Grassby and Ordonez highlight this concealment, although historian’s have known of Watson’s unconventional genealogy since the publication by Bede Nairn of a note on this subject in 1967. (10) Watson’s father appears to have died while Watson was only a few months old; by 1869 his mother Martha had returned with the young John, or Johan, to New Zealand and remarried, to George Thomas Watson, by trade a miner and by ancestry Irish, although his family had settled for a time in Scotland before George emigrated to Australia. John Christian seems to have been readily assimilated into the family created by Martha and George (they had nine other children) in Oamaru, in the Otago province in New Zealand’s south island. (11) Grassby and Ordonez suggest that Watson ‘…held close his secret of Johan Christian Tanck’, particularly during the First World War, when his loyalties may have been questioned. (12) They extrapolate from this concealment to an overstatement of the significance of Watson’s Chilean background and Australia’s links with Chile. Nonetheless there are some aspects of Watson’s birthright that are worth considering, even if they involve a degree of speculation. Firstly, Watson’s parentage posed an obstacle to his political career. As Jupp observed in a recent article, Watson might well have been successfully challenged as a member of the House of Representatives under s.44 of the Australian Constitution, on the grounds of his ‘dubious’ nationality – non-British subjects were ineligible to stand as candidates for the Australian Parliament. (13) This begs two questions: did Watson know the truth of his parentage, and did he actively seek to obscure public knowledge of it? I suspect that Watson knew of his real father, and his real name; but what’s interesting about this story is the investment that Watson and his contemporaries make in Watson’s legendary identity, an investment made in Watson’s face value. The paper is quite clear that the author believes Grassby and Ordonez ... extrapolate from this concealment to an overstatement of the significance of Watson’s Chilean background and Australia’s links with Chile. Al Grassby of course had a multicultural agenda to push.  On the basis of the sources cited I believe it is wrong to describe Watson as a Chilean Australian.  In fact the most comprehensive source on Watson's identity quoted as an inline reference rejects the assertion and I think would outweigh any other source. --Matilda talk 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think the sources you cite confirm historically another dimension that is also exemplified by the disagreement here, that there is controversy surrounding Watson's ancestry.  Unfortunately I don't agree with your assessment about what the sources say.  Yes the paper you quote is clear in believing that two other authors overstate the ancestry, but then it goes on to say that there "are some aspects of Watson's birthright that are worth considering."  This is followed by an explanation of why he most likely concealed his ancestry. I think there is a very adequate middle ground that is possible here.  To simply and uncritically refer to him as a "Chilean Australian" is not helpful, but to mention him, and to explain the controversy is both helpful and interesting.  Is it possible to do it that way?  I believe that would also be a compromise between Matilda's and de la Vida's positions.  How about it?PelleSmith (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes that would be the best source for an additional sentence perhaps addressing this.  I do note that the mention of Watson is oddly placed at the moment.PelleSmith (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A little quick on the trigger - Chris Watson

message: Selcciones de la Vida, I would suggest that you please stop adding references for the exact same fact that is not disputed by anyone.   One reference is enough, since there is no dispute over the fact that Watson was born in Chile, when he was born, or to whom he was born.  These many references just clutter the entry, and the quantity doesn't add anything positive.  Also we wikilink to him main entry where this is all presented clearly as well.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that would be the best source for an additional sentence perhaps addressing this.  I do note that the mention of Watson is oddly placed at the moment.PelleSmith (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many references

message: Nationbynation.com would not appear to meet the guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable sources - no authority for assertions - seems to be plastered with advertisements. --Matilda talk 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the reference in, but I agree it appears to be dodgy (I would not consider the presence of advertising to be an issue).  The most reliable references I see state "95% of Chileans are either of European or Amerindian background", which is not the same as saying 95% of Chileans are mixed.   Some statistics on Demography of Chile could be used - but really, is this relevant to Chilean Australians?Kransky (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious ref Nationbynation.com 

message: ...but I miss TeePee Kransky (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  call me peverse or masochistic... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chilean 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/20110901002347/http://www.chilesomostodos.gov.cl/descargas/cat_view/50-registro-de-chilenos.html to http://www.chilesomostodos.gov.cl/descargas/cat_view/50-registro-de-chilenos.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chilean 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/20080622010408/http://www.chile.com:80/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=68730 to http://www.chile.com/tpl/articulo/detalle/ver.tpl?cod_articulo=68730
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) 06:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified