Talk:Chinese Australians

message: Is Jackie Chan listed as Chinese Australian solely because his father worked in Canberra for a while? The link seems tenuous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.49.20 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Removal

message: I would much prefer it if this article were called Chinese Australian -- better to be singular. Enochlau 13:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Page moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision

message: I am not sure it is 100% appropriate for TT to be included in the list of notables here.  Tereance Tao is a great guy - his stature in the mathematical world is immense but it looks as if he has not been around Aus for a while and he might not be back.  Including him in the list of notable Chinese Aussies does not feel quite right. novacatz 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were to take the definition of a "Chinese Australian" literally, he needs to be an "Australian", i.e. an Australian citizen. So, the question then is whether he has taken up US citizenship now. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh yes of course. Where did you read that he's not an Australian citizen? He would've been to start off with since he was born in Adelaide... enochlau (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Doire, for your edification -- if someone chooses to be naturalised as a US citizen, one of the steps is a pledge under oath renouncing their existing citizenship.  novacatz 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Novacatz, for your information -- if an Australian national takes an oath renouncing their existing citizenship in a naturalisation ceremony in the United States it has no bearing whatsoever in Australian law and they remain an Australian citizen regardless.Doire 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is NOT TRUE!  The answer from here  to question one states that a citizen can lose their citizenship if they renounce their Australian Citizenship (as required by the US naturalisation process).  You may be confused with the April 2002 changes which allow an Australian to acquire a citizenship without automatically losing Australian citizenship (this is a change from the previous rules; it is pertinent where someone wishes to acquire citizenship in a country which does not require renounciation).  HTH, HAND.  novacatz 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you are confusing an OATH of renunciation for rhetorical purposes of a CEREMONY in the US with ACTUAL renunciation BY APPLICATION ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN LAW. Very few applicants for US citizenship bother to renounce their other citizenship - that's why you have dual citizens who have US passports. Same in Australia before 2002. One of the reasons the law had to change was because the Australian Government had no way of knowing whether its citizens had obtained other citizenships. The only country to inform it was Italy, and the Italian Government had ceased to do so by the 1990s. Doire 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess we are both right in a way.  You are right - renouncing Aus citizenship is a matter of filling in the form (and paying a fee!?!?).  Part of the ceremony for US naturalisation is an oath that other citizenships have been renounced.  Do people do this? Probably not if it is disvantageous.  Can the government check? It is really hard.  Does the government want to check? From my understanding the US govt doesn't want to open this can of worms... but for others (China) they will treat a former-Aust as just that - no longer a Aust. citizen with no right of recourse to Aust. consulates inside of China. novacatz 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree. Glad we sorted it out. The Chinese Government, of course, considers all those with Chinese ancestry to be Chinese citizens only, even in cases where the ancestry is somewhat distant. At least that's how I understand PRC citizenship law.Doire 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Enoch, I have never heard of Terence Tao myself, so I have no idea where he was born or what citizenship(s) he holds. However, searching for prominent Chinese Australians on Wikipedia came up with his name, so I popped him in the list. If he's an Australian citizen, good on him. If he isn't, then pull him off the list. By the way, birth in Australia does not automatically entitle you to Australian citizenship unless one (or both) of your parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Doire 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Dragging this discussion back on topic -- TT is still an Aussie <- this tidbit from his CV on his website.  So I guess he stays on the list. novacatz 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool. enochlau (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, on him winning the Fields Medal, says that he is. Jpe|ob 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Judging by the usual approach to "Aussieness" in the Australian media, anyone who's ever set foot within 200 meters of a kangaroo anywhere on earth is Australian. --Sumple (Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terence Tao

message: omfg not enough info on teh history bit i cant reach my 1k word limit for my phuckin history assignment and Duel me
*This comment was added at 22:36 AEST by User:Duel me.  I reverted it at 22:40 with the comment "write your own assignment; don't plagiarise - revert gratuitous comment".  User:JSIN chose to reinstate the comment twice (User Blnguyen also removed), the second time the reinstatement was with the comment "revert - it commented that there wasn't enough info in history and suggested that editors expand it".  I think User:JSIN is being excessively charitable in his remarks.  Wikipedians priorities are not driven by the needs of high-school wanna-be plagiarists, or at any rate mine aren't.  User:Duel me's remarks were not in good faith or constructive - they are not a useful addition to this talk page but I will accede to the wishes of User:JSIN that they stay here. Note I still think the  message to User:Duel me was warranted - we do not want irrelevant messages on talk pages. --A Y Arktos\talk 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page suxorz 

message: The section on Chinese Australian communities today is poorly expressed, in particular using cliches and stereotypes.  Reliable sources are required.  I have provided comments visible in the edit view as to what I found difficulties with - assertions about Hanson triggering political involvement, scholastic achievement, focal points of the community, ...--A Y Arktos\talk 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? what's wrong with Chinatowns being a focal point of the Chinese community?? I'd like to see some evidence to the contrary! --Sumple (Talk) 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what is a "focal point" - does the term mean anything?  I am not proposing evidence to the contrary, I am requesting sources.  "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."--A Y Arktos\talk 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *To assist in consideration of what a "focal point" might or might not be, see Focal point dab page, and Focus.  Wiktionary does not help much at wiktionary:focal point with definition 2 as "the centre of any activity".  I assume this definition is what is intended in this article but it shows how vague the term is - "any activity"?!?  Certainly not all activities, nor even many activites that might provide a focus for the community, for example politics or schools.  To be used meaningfully you need to say what is in scope - focal point for eating out by the community, banking, ...?  Generalisations need to be avoided - for example, do Chinatowns across Australia incorporate these activities as a focus for the chinese community in that city?--A Y Arktos\talk 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see some referencing too, as most of that section seems to be info obtained from gross generalisations. For example, Chinese kids are good at school. Most Chinese immigrants can't speak English etc etc. French line 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging of the section on Chinese Australian communities today 

message: in the section Prominent Chinese Austalians, it is a mix of famours and notorous figures - see below:
Andrew Chan: drug lord, sentenced to death 
Victor Chang: heart surgeon 
Si Yi Chen: drug smuggler 
...
I'd suggest to take out teh notorous ones or at least separate them from really prominent ones - i.e. people who have made contributions and not destructions to the society.
: "prominent" means "sticking out". I'd say andrew chan is quite prominent. --Sumple (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: famous means well known; it does not necessarily mean virtuous.  Calling somebody a "drug lord" is too informal; "convicted drug smugger" is more appropriate Kransky 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: use of the word "Prominent" in describing some notorous figures

message: I noticed the phrases Chinese-born and Australian-born used in the article. Isn't that a grammatical error? If anything it should be china-born and australia-born because it's referring to locations of birth instead of cultures. French line 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teminology 

message: This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:
1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.
2.Implies that Taiwan is part of China. The reality is that Taiwan is **NOT** part of China and will never be for the foreseeable future. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han ethnicity. Therefore, to call Australian citizens who came from Taiwan 'Chinese Australian' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.
3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.
The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).
Information that really belong to Wikipedia articles like 'Hong Kong Australians', 'Taiwanese Australians', etc must also be taken off this article NOW.
If this article is not fixed by 21 March 2008, 00:00 UTC, this article will be **NOMINATED FOR DELETION**.
Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.142 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at Talk:Overseas Chinese. —Umofomia (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ** THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME A RACIST JOKE ** 

message: Because the article and this talk page consistently contains untrue and offensive material, and remain so after repeated warnings, this page has been declared UNTRUE AND OFFENSIVE and will be DELETED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.118 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '''**THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION**'''

message: Please note that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by immigrants from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; the 'Hoa' are considered 'Vietnamese'. In light of this, I urge all editors to check that this and all related articles reflect the said classification. 122.109.98.81 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about the situation in Australia, but this is definitely not true in North American. Roadrunner (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Attention all editors''' 

message: I have just one crucial question to ask: at the page Vietnamese Australian, it is acceptable to define Vietnamese Australian as 'an Australian either born in Vietnam or is an Australian descendant of the former.' But try doing something similar at Chinese Australian and the statement is met with an extremely hostile reception. Why is it the case that a concept that has been accepted for use in an article on some other minority ethnic (or civic) group not been accepted for this article? Are there any fundamental differences so as to warrant defining 'Chinese Australian' in a way that is not in common usage but which seems to have been adopted by Australian academia? Or is this just another blatant attempt to impose the label of Chinese ethnicity against people who are totally opposed to being labeled as such? 122.109.98.81 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition revisited 

message: I moderate the Culture Victoria website and have added an external link to stories and images of Chinese Australian families.Eleworth (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New External Link added 

message: How about moving all the articles under "Notable people" into a List of Chinese Australians? Mar4d (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I just noticed back in 2008, a Vietnamese nationalist ip removed comments he deemed "offensive", the comments that he deemed "offensive" were those that noted that ethnic chinese from vietnam were considered chinese. He spammed multiple talk pages and deleted multiple comments, claiming that ethnic Chinese and other chinese groups in china were really "Vietnamese" who were falsely labelled as chinese. I don't know how you guys didn't notice him deleting other peoples comments. Bunser (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnamese Nationalist vandalising talk page

message: Can someone explain why multiple people are on the list of chinese australians if they are labelled indigenous? One would presume that they are australian aboriginals, although their names are chinese.Bunser (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous 

message: The history section is entirely NSW biased. This could do with some cleaning up. This is meant to be the history of Chinese in Australia of which NSW is a part. I will attempt to clean this up over time but this is a rather large job to collect the appropriate sources some help would be appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Langan (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to do some work on improving and deleting a lot of the content in the chronology section. I'm not really convinced that the format is all that good too?Sir Langan (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise against deleting much material.  If you feel it is too NSW focused, you can move some of the content to a separate article about Chinese in NSW. --99of9 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already moved it all to the History of Chinese in Australia page. I don't want to delete anything really. Now that it's on that page though we probably don't need this much history on this page anyway. It says at the start its a brief chronology but it's hardly brief.Sir Langan (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that sounds about right. --99of9 (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Bias 

message: Substituted at 18:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Chinese Australians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Census Ethic Media Package":
From Italian Australians: 
From Malaysian Australians: 
From French Australians: 
From Scottish Australians: 
From Korean Australians: 
From Dutch Australians: 
From Sudanese Australians: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Chinese Australians]] 

message: Chinese Australians should redefined as being of full of partial Chinese ancestry to be consistent with other Australian wikipages such as Scottish Australians, English Australians, Cornish Australians which all contain mixed ancestry notable people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're proposing seems reasonable but we need reliable sources to support any (including our current) definition of Chinese Australians. We cannot just follow other random articles per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If those other articles have sources supporting their definitions then they're probably fine. If they don't have sources, or if you have doubts, you can open a talk page discussion and try to get consensus to fix those articles but the fact they may be broken doesn't mean we should break this article. I'd note that AFAICT, there's nothing in our current definition for this article which excludes people of partial Chinese ancestry anyway so I'm unconvinced the definition in this article needs to change to include those of partial Chinese ancestry since the definition already seems to. As for the inclusion of any particular person, you'd need to sources to support calling them Chinese Australians especially for living persons. These sources should specifically call them Chinese Australian in some fashion rather than just saying they have Chinese ancestry whether full or partial. And again to be clear this applies to anyone in this article or really any article. Note that this article is only ever going to have a small number of names compared to the large number of Chinese Australians, so the inclusion of any particular person in this article is subject to strong amounts of editorial discretion surrounding significance and getting a good cross-section of the community, and frankly is going to be a bit "random" (for lack of a better word). Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese Australians simply means Australian citizens with Chinese ancestry. This could be 1% Chinese ancestry of 100% Chinese ancestry. I don't think anyone has denied this? This is consistent across all ancestries in the way the ABS uses data. If you have one Chinese great-grandparent and the rest are Irish, Nigerian and Mexican, you are still Chinese Australian (as well as Irish Australian, Nigerian Australian, etc). I don't see where anyone has tried to define the term in a way which contradicts this in the article...StormcrowMithrandir 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the one hand, you are right, on the other hand, reliable source is needed that a person with partial Chinese origin at least somehow considers himself a Chinese. Because by that logic we are all "partly East African" and all people should be listed as Ethiopians and Somalis. Ethnicity is primarily a self-determenetion, not race or who your ancestors were. So I agree with Nil Einne in this case, the other articles are pretty wrong if they automatically include people with partial ancestry in a certain ethnicity against their will. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

text: (EC)  if you want to revert TyronMcLannister removals  that's one thing, but please stop trying to change other stuff unless sources already used for those sections or which you add clearly support those changes. However even when it comes to reverting TyronMcLannister as I said, you need sources, frankly the whole article is a complete mess since none of the people currently mentioned have sources supporting them being Chinese Australians. We cannot rely on sources in other articles including article on these people, the sources need to be in this article. IMO per WP:BLP for anyone living it would be acceptable to just remove them all until someone bothers to source them although it may be controversial. If you can't be bothered digging up sources, perhaps a middle ground might be to remove all living people until and unless someone sources them, while keeping and adding back anyone who has been deceased for 2 years or more that was removed by TyronMcLannister. Those deceased should have sources too but I don't see any valid reason to remove only some people but not the others for lacking sources. (Whereas there is a valid reason i.e. BLP for removing living persons but not the deceased.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Chinese are of partial Chinese ancestry too 

message: Hi,
I am looking for members to join  WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians. Let me know if you are interested.
Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian Australians WikiProject