Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 19 May 2008

Australia Start‑class

Chilean Australians is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Template:RFChist

Changes to article (February 2008)

Changes to article:

• Why not use 2006 Census data? The stats guys waste your time for one evening every five years, so best that the stats are put to good use. Go to www.abs.gov.au, click on Census and you should be able to generate maps and charts. Cool stuff.
• The composition of the article can be improved. Paragraphs on the third wave can effectively be combined together.
• I certainly would not call Pinochet's tyrrany "neo-liberal" (at least in the correct sense of the word) or "neo-colonialist" (which country had Chile colonised?). We are not debating Chilean politics; "Pinochet's strangehold" is enough to explain why people left.
• Talk about the middle class fleeing to certain preferred countries is not referenced. Add a source or remove it
• The article by Nadine Botzenhart, a former intern at the Chilean embassy in Canberra, makes for interesting reading, but I don't think her extrapolation of the number of second/third generation Chileans is correct. At the 2006 Census only 25,439 residents declared a Chilean ancestry.
• FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT).

Kransky (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:

• Because I have not been able to find references in the 2006 census for country of birth. If you can you a free to, and should replace the 2001 stats.
• Why fix something that isn't broken? I think the compostion of this article is fine, and as it is a complete reference it does not need to be changed.
• What do you mean you would not call it neo-liberal? Fact is it was, it is even on his wikipedia page. Just because you don't agree with how it is worded doesn't mean it is false. Why do you even want this changed? Just because you think it's wrong, doesn't make you right. "Pinochet's stranglehold" isn't enough to explain it, because people have no idea who he is, and this is some helpful background information. And in answer to which country had Chile colonised, Spain colonised much of Latin America for centuries.
• What exactly are you referring to here? I'm pretty positive everything is referenced on this article.
• I am pretty sure she just added the numbers, and as she was apart of the embassy, she would have had most likely better access on the exact numbers than any other civillian.
• If this is true like I said earlier reference it, as I cannot find it. It's weird that less chilean born people are living in Australia than five years before as an observation though.

TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re to Re:

• 2006 by country stats are here: Feel free to use it for any other articles.
• The article could still be made more professional and better composed. It is a shame when interesting and important facts are not well written.
• I am seriously opposed to the idea of calling Pinochet's regime "neo-liberal" or "neo-colonial". Do you really know what these words mean? Neo-liberalism simply means a free market exists; it does not necessarily imply that the country therefore is a bloodthirsty dictatorship. Chileans did not flee because their telephone company was privatised; they fled because they did not want to be shot. As for your claims of neo-colonialism - Spain colonised Chile centuries ago and there were Amerindicans oppressing white Chileans and vice versa - it all depended if you were in the army or not. And mentioned, the nature of the oppression is irrelevant to the topic - adding these weasel words here is wrong.
• The sentence The middle class were represented only in the minority here. Political elitists and intellectuals from the left were also small in numbers, due to their preference for Western Europe and socialist nations in Latin America. is unreferenced. As are many others.
• You are "pretty sure she just added the numbers"? Predicting population growth in a sub-population is devilishly complicated process - not even the ABS tries to do this. Do yourself a favour and use the ancestry figures.
• There could be several reasons why the number of Chilean-born Australians has declined. Many may have joined the President in returning back to Chile, now that democracy has been restored. Also note that the main wave of Chilean migrants came in the 1970s were probably aged in their 30s; now in their 60s many like other migrants may be returning home to spend their retirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Re:Re

• Done
• It is ashame when someone constantly tries to shove his opinion down other people's throat's.
• Sigh. Go read about neo-liberalism on wikipedia and you will see Pinnochet is noted as an example. I am well aware of the atrocities he committed during his regime over Chile, but once again POV is not accepted and just because you are "seriously opposed" does not make you right! What makes you such an expert on this? If you were such an expert you could most probably reference a published work of your's on this subject, but you're not.
• It is not referring to the middle class, it is referring to "Political elitists and intellectuals from the left".
• Yes I agree, but obviously it has been done by this Embassy of Chile intern and why should I do myself a favour and use the ancestry figures?
• Yes very true, but as I said earlier reference it so we can get rid of the 2001 census figures. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response:

• Glad there is something we can agree on
• Wanting to reedit a paragraph so that ideas follow in a logical sequence and is devoid of subjectivity is not shoving an opinion down your throat.
• Yes, I had a look at the Neo-liberal article. There is a single line which says that one person (journalist Naomi Klein) has argued neo-liberalism is linked to "Pinnochet"'s human rights abuses. This is not the same as Misplaced Pages endorsing the link, which is what you are suggesting. Chileans fled Chile because of the human rights abuses, not because of the economic policies. I will revert this the last time, and if you continue to argue I will seek arbitration.
• ok...then provide a reliable reference to this
• you make life hard for yourself relying on dodgy data.
• has been referenced.

Can I also add that you seem to adopt a aggressive attitude in your dealings with other Wikipedians. I don't mind debate, but when you start to get personal, don't listen to counter-arguments and remove text from discussion pages it goes against you whenever complaints are investigated. Kransky (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re to Response:

• Ok
• Wanting to reedit a paragraph when it's ideas already follow a logical sequence and it's composition is quite ok, is trying to have it made to your personal preference.
• Ok now I understand exactly why you want this edited out as it reduces the impact of the atrocities he committed during his regime. Even though after he committed all of these mass muders and serious abuses of human rights and implemented neoliberal policies, it does not have any merit in reference to refugees fleeing Chile. I'm sorry for this edit war on this point, but I did not completely understand where you were coming from and I was trying to keep this as least POV as possible. That's why I chose to keep it exactly how it was in the reference.
• I did not write this the intern did that's why she is referenced.
• Sorry mate, but her data is most certainly less dodgy then your own.
• Sigh. No it has not.

No you can not also add. Don't judge me when you have no idea. You based all your insults on one tongue in cheek comment I made because I thought you would be cool and not react the way you did, but unfortunately for me you're a snobby square. Make a complaint and we will see, I am only here to help and I don't wish to get into petty fights over nothing. The things I will have going against me are that there seems to be alot of oversensitive people on wikipedia who are unable to establish the difference between a joke and something serious. They're also seems to be alot of squares and they might not agree with my sense of humour. But other than that I don't feel like I would have anything going against me. Look buddy you're not perfect so don't think you are! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Calling me a racist was supposed to be a joke. I guess I am not cool enough to tell the difference. In Misplaced Pages people often don't know if somebody is being sarcastic or not, so we try to avoid anything ambiguous when we have a difference with somebody we don't know. For the same reason why I avoid making big arm gestures if somebody is pointing a gun at mr. Anyhow, I appreciate you listening to my concerns about the way how the Pinochet regime was written, and the character you have just displayed in acknowleding the misunderstanding.

On your point about the ABS ancestry data versus the intern's figures (I am not contributing any data myself), she only says Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. She does not explain how she estimated the number of second or third generation Chilean Australians. How many of the first generation had children, and how many did they have? How many have died or emigrated? Alternatively we can rely on Census statistics based on actually asking people where they were born and what ancestries they have. I would think most people would believe the professionals more than the intern. I would reinsert the ABS data (with references), and respectfully ask that you accept my change.

Yes there are a lot of "snobby squares" on Misplaced Pages, but Misplaced Pages is about writing objective well-written articles, and I don't think I have been over-zealous in pursuing these principles here. If you want people to think you are a comic genius or change the tenor of Misplaced Pages, it is best not to piss them off first. Kransky (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I thought you might be dense that's why I said "nah jks". Sigh. "Professionals" you say, and what exactly is the Embassy of Chile? You fail to see that this whole report was an investigation into Chileans and Latin American migration to Australia. And when you do a report you don't just go making up facts, you make sure it is all factual and you make sure you have it referenced. I'm pretty sure the Embassy of Chile would be pretty thorough in their information provided on their site, alot more so concerning Chileans than the Australian Census issued by the government, which is not specific to Chileans would! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The paper was was written by Nadine as part of her internship. While it appears on the website there is no indication that the Embassy takes responsibility for or endorses the paper - certainly it is not credited as being an author. As you say when you write a report you make sure it is factual and referenced - unfortunately Nadine doesn't explain how she "arrives" at a figure of 45,000. The Census on the other hand actually counts people, rather than make estimates. Please go to the documentation and tell me what problems you have with the ABS data. Kransky (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Added 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics ancestry data. Kransky (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Amendments - May 2008

The debate was never finalised. As you can see above, I cited my reasons why I consider the statistics by Nadine to be unreliable, and how we should use Australian Bureau of Statistics data instead. I politely asked you to explain what problems you had with the ABS data, even showing you where to get the right information about its methodology. On other matters, I feel that the article could be split between details of demography and history (or any other sections you feel appropriate). And the statement of Chileans fleeing "the threat of socialism" is pretty much POV - my amendment makes it neutral.

Over to you for your comments. I would just add that I have been polite, open and civil to you, and expect the same in return. Kransky (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh you just decided to take a break obviously and then thought you would give it a few months and try and change the article to your own personal preference when the dust has settled. Yes, I have seen you repeating yourself and as you can see I cited my reasons why I think the paper provided by the Chilean Embassy into Chilean migration to Australia is reliable. And why I don't think the very broad, non-specific Australian Census is not. And I have politely told you repeatedly what problems I have had and most of them we have been able to resolve and incorporate into the article except the one constant point you continually try to re-add without a reference. So I am going to try my best to make this extremely clear to you as I have been telling you since early february, repeatedly! You must provide a reference to the 2006 data you constantly add to this article. You have failed to do this repeatedly and even after I have told you, you still continue to add it. Not only have you been unreliable in providing a reference but something I have noticed in having to re-read everything that was said months ago, is you have not even been consistent in the numbers you have provided! Let me quote you for clarity.

This is what you said at 11:36 on the 22nd of February:

"FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT)."

And this is what you have been saying since 00:07, 4th of May until this point in discussion:

"Chilean-born persons resided in Sydney (10,909), and a further 6,530 were in Melbourne."

So once again I stress you provide a reliable reference and do not continue to add unreliable information. On other matters, this article does not need to be split as it is effectively and easily explained in the format it is. Chilean Australians are not a large demographical group in Australia and the current information has no need to be split. It is fine the way it is and just because you want it suited to your own personal preference, doesn't mean you are improving it. The statement is not pretty much point of view, it is factual and true. So hopefully you can take into account what I have said to you and not disregard it, or if you don't understand then I honestly don't think you ever will as I have repeatedly on numerous occasions told you this. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I already have references to the 2006 ABS Census stats on ancestry and country of birth (twice!). If you feel happier with even more references, fine. However I don't think it is necessary for more, just as I don't think you need to reference details of the third waves of Chilean immigration when your references are already included (twice). Formally people would use "ibid" to repeat a footnote rather than repeat the same information - I don't know what the practice is for Misplaced Pages, but I maintain my statistics are sufficiently refenced.

On the matter of references, could you please provide a reference to the sentence "The majority of Chileans have both European and Amerindian ancestry"

Okay, now to the debate on the ABS stats themselves. You say they are "very broad" and "non-specific". Well, frankly no. Australian residents were asked in 2006 a range of personal details - these details were collated and published by a professional, non-partisan and expert agency. The statistics are specific enough to identify details about Chilean Australians. We use ABS Country of Birth and ancestry data in other articles covering various ethnic groups in Australia. The Chilean Australian themselves deserve to have information published about them to be accurate and reliable. While much of Nadine's article is informative, she doesn't tell us how she arrived at a figure of 45,000 as the size of the Chilean-Australian population, and given its variance with the 25,439 ABS ancestry figures published by the ABS I honestly can't see how it is reliable.

I have no problems with other things you have added, but think that some phrases could sound less POV ("the threat of socialism") or not be comprimised by weasel words or peacock terms ("Anglo-British socio-cultural structure").

Ok, back to you - but if you still think our differences are unreconcilable we should seek additional views from elsewhere to get over this impasse! PS: is anybody else giving you a hard time? Kransky (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yeh I think maybe we should get a third party invovled because I have tried to make it as clear as possible to you but you still don't seem to comprehend that the information you add to this article is not in your reference, thereby making your reference invalid! See and your choosing to ignore this debate and article for months I find very sneaky! Why did you do this other than why I'm thinking? If you give the reasons I think you are going to give I'll know what I'm thinking is true. But anyway back to topic. Can I provide references for "The majority of Chileans have both European and Amerindian ancestry", you even asking this shows how little you know on the subject you are making major edits to. Honestly if you knew something about chileans you would not even need to ask for this. I did not even add that it was added before I started watching this page, but it is another fact! Now regarding my statements on the ABS, well frankly yes. What I said is completely factual and true, they don't conduct specific investigations into chileans. And, well frankly you are wasting your time telling me about the ABS, as I am already well aware of what you are telling me. Yes we do use the statistics in other articles just as they are used in this one! Ancestory and place of birth are two different things mate. Many chileans born in chile may trace their ancestory to other countries accounting for the difference in the numbers. The problem with you is you seem to miss important details in your interpratation. According to your logic there should only be around two thousand chilean australians who were not born in chile. You fail to fathom second and third generation chileans in australia and this is your main point of argument. Yes Chilean Australians do deserve the right information which is in my edit and not your edit. I already explained to you this point so I won't repeat myself as I'm growing tired of it. And as for the integration sentence, I thought you added that I wasn't in favour of keeping that sentence to begin with. So finally I plea to you to keep in mind that we are here to improve wikipedia and your constant editing of this article to your personal preference is not improving this article at all, so why continue? P.S. I'm fine, is anybody else giving you a hard time? P.P.S. If you do continue to disregard what I have clearly explained to you and wish to get a third party involved then we will chose an unbiased user whom we both have not dealt with before, and let me remind you I can doublecheck using wikipedia's tools. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee, I think the crux of your argument is that the ABS statistics are faulty because a Chilean-Australian might nominate their European backgrounds or their Australian connection as their ancestry/ancestries, but fail to identify themselves as Chilean. The low difference (2,000) between the numbers of Chilean-born and Chilean-ancestry residents concerns you. There could be a perfectly innocent reason for this: the Chilean migrants who came over in the 1970s could have already had children, and so fewer gave birth in Australia and others have subsequently died (remember that the number of Chilean born has fallen). Or persons of Chilean ancestry might prefer to either identify themselves with their European heritage or their new Australian identity.

The ABS could never be precise, but it still is a more reliable source of data than simply (as Nadine seems to have done) assume that in two to three generations the population doubled. But as I said she has provided no evidence how she arrived at this figure.

So the choice is that we either we include statistics which are either conceptually flawed (ABS) or lack any credible methodology (Nadine). I will revert your edits, but include a caveat which I hope addresses your concerns. My concerns about other language employed in this article stands.

I hope you can assume good faith. I don't wake up in the morning thinking of ways how to screw up your life. Kransky (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky, no that is NOT the crux of my agrument, the crux of my argument is you DO NOT provide a reliable reference to the information you edit in! I in no way think the Census is faulty and anyone who knows how to interpret things correctly shouldn't have a problem. Seriously I'm starting to think your a lost cause now because now you are trying to give reasons as to why there would only be 2,000 Australian born chileans living here, implying you actually believe this! So you still believe in your logic which to me is starting to sound ridiculous! Yes it is true the ABS could never be precise due to it relying on people to be truthful or interprating the questions the right way, but for the 100th time now I am not arguing the reliability of the data the ABS has provided only you are! The investigation into chileans is just that, an Investigation into Chileans! NOT an investigation into Australians, specifically an INVESTIGATION INTO CHILEANS!!! And this is provided by the Chilean Embassy! I have assumed good faith repeatedly now, REPEATEDLY! But I seriously don't think it's possible to assume good faith when you just do not listen. I do know you don't wake up in the morning hell bent on screwing up my life an frustrating me like no other person I have met has been able to do, but you do wake up wishing to have things your way and disregard the truth which I say. I will revert your edit once more as once again you have added unreliable, unreferenced information and have made an unproductive edit to this article. Please just accept what I am telling you is not BS and I'm just trying to keep this article in the best condition it can be and if you did have a valid reference I would have no problem adding the statistics. If you still can't accept the fact and wish to revert my edit then don't! Tell me first on my talkpage you still feel you are right and then we will both get a 3rd and even 4th party involved in this. And once again an unbiased 3rd or 4th party and make certain I will thoroughly be checking that they are! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been incredibly patient with you, but even after a break we have failed to reach agreement. I cannot be bothered restating my case on your talk page and reading what I expect would be an immature rant in return. Consequently I am referring this debate to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. In the meantime let's sit back, date girls, learn pottery or do what we need to to get a life, and let others share their views. Kransky (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again you did not bother to read my reply carefully, I didn't want you restating your case, I said if "you stil feel you are right and then we will both get a 3rd and even 4th party involved in this". I wanted to post a notice together signed both our names, but once again you choose to ignore me and do your own thing. So now we'll wait and see what another party has to say. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: "The investigation into chileans is just that, an Investigation into Chileans! NOT an investigation into Australians, specifically an INVESTIGATION INTO CHILEANS!!! "

(a) this article is about Chilean-Australians

(b) an Australian resident (citizen or permanent representative) who declared themselves to be Chilean-born or of Chilean ancestry is a Chilean Australian

(c) the ABS have statistics for both country of birth and declared ancestry

(d) I have already cited the limitation of ancestry data - such as the fact that in 2001 37% of Chilean born persons declared a primary ancestry other than Chilean (like Spanish). However I consider it is the best objective measure to use.

(e) other ethnic groups in Australia articles use ABS data.

(f) the Nadine essay does not explain how she calculates the number of Chilean Australians to be 45,000. I do not consider it reliable.

(g) my claims are referenced. Of the seven citations on the article, six refer to my ABS data.

Please state which of the above points you have difficulty understanding Kransky (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG, WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS GUY!!! Please third parties ignore his constant bombardment of his opinion to influence you as if you read the whole discussion and history that has occured over this article, you can see I have already addressed his points and now he just wants to get the final word and shove his opinion down your throats! He has not even bothered reading the paper on the Embassy of Chile to Australia's website which is quite evident in the crap hes talking (an Investigation into Chileans! NOT an investigation into Australians), so please ignore his constant repetitious wave of opinion in your heads, thank you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion following filing of RfC on 12 May

I have read Nadine's essay. She says "The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."

She doesn't say where she gets, or how she calculates, the numbers of "second and third generation Chileans". Conversely the ABS data is clear, caveated and professional. You may call me a "snobby square", but on Misplaced Pages articles a certain standard of accuracy and professionalism (not to mention civility) is required. Otherwise I recommend you stick to writing hip-hop articles. Kransky (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess, when I read that there were 23,000 Chileans born overseas, and only 25,000 in total by ancestry, I thought to myself: that looks odd. The Chileans are a relatively newish immigrant group (approx. 1970s onwards), so it's quite impossible that there can be 23,000 born here, but only 25,000 in total (if we accept that we are counting 1st and 2nd generation born here). For example, look at the 250,000 odd Italians arriving during the 50s and 60s, and counting close to 1 million claiming ancestry by the 90s. If we are all accepting that 23,000 is correct (and that's something we would know), then 25,000 is way, way wrong, and I don't care if it's Jesus Christ saying it's correct. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

YES! Thankyou! You understand, this was one point which I was trying my very hardest to get Kransky to understand but he does not listen! If you read further up you can see my comment saying by his logic there would only be 2,000 chileans born in Australia which is highly unlikely and then if you read down he tries to defend his logic which did it for me. (All this you can view in the discussion we have had over this article). Thankyou finally a third party so Kransky has to aknowledge what I say now and cannot ignore it any longer. Again thankyou if you have the time and patients you can read the whole history between us and understand why I have gotten so frustrated with Kransky. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks odd, but this ABS article suggests why there was an ancestry undercount for chilean-Australians. I have made reference to this on my version. ThanksKransky (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC).

So this is suggesting that about a third of all those born in Chile might actually describe themselves of "Spanish" ancestry? I guess this becomes a definitional issue. It's clear to me that the study that was done would have included all children born in Australia to Chilean born Australians as being of Chilean ancestry (one possible definition), whereas a large proportion of those same Chilean born Australians view themselves more as having a European ancestry? As I say, this is a definitional problem, but I can't help thinking that the ABS' 25,000 figure is highly misleading. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear to people like Kransky because exactly what I left in my reply to his comments left at Talk:Geography, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Talk:Australia and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chile. "Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory." I am most certain that the high majority of Chilean Australians born in Chile would have done this and that the ancestory number is due to the second and this generation Chilean Australians who were actually born in Australia. That's why the number of 45 000 provide by the Chilean Embassy makes alot of sense but Kransky does not understand this. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the Chile Embassy web site at work, and since work happens to be the ABS (in the Methodology Division, no less) I'm not sure whether or not I should be chiming in about ABS methodology (at the very least, not until I've seen this other paper to compare it, which I'll try to do at home). However, a relatively unrelated question - why on earth are we citing h2g2 as a reference? Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think that was added by what looks like a Chilean (Not sure if hes Australian also) after Kransky and I requested for comment on our dispute. I think it was Selecciones de la Vida but don't hold me to this you'll have to do some research for yourself. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute isn't at all clear to me. I have yet to meet a circumstance where the Australian Bureau of Statistics would not be considered a reliable reference provided of course the data is used appropriately and its qualifications understood. The paper by "Nadine Botzenhart, a Bond University student (Gold Coast, Qld), who worked in the Embassy of Chile between February and May 2006, in the framework of an intership program organized by the Australian National University. " has not been cited properly - eg using a template that clearly states authorship - try {{cite web}}. There seems to be some doubt in the discussion above as to whether the article is hosted or published by the embassy - I think it has to be viewed as less reliable if it conflicts with ABS data. The qualifications of the author are less than the qualifications of those emplayed by the ABS in aggregate. I am not sure that the two sources conflict so much as add additional information with nuances that are not picked up in raw figures from the ABS. So what is the problem - why can't both figures be cited with appropriate qualifications? If Chilean born people describe themselves as of Spanish ancestry to the ABS - you can refer to a reliable source for this view, refer to the ABS data and refer to other data which gives a higher figure and have explained the difference with regard to the reliable source. The answer is not to ignore the ABS data but to explain variations. I note with some concerns the assertion in Nadine Botzenhart's paper: The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. She starts off with a firm figure, apparently referenced from ABS data, but does not explain how she arrived at ther extrapolation concerning the second and third generations. Without that explanation I have concerns about the figure being cited. I downloaded her full paper (word document and also the appendices) but could not locate any reference to the 45,000 figure in it. --Matilda 07:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Matilda, you are being like Kransky now. The ABS statistics are quite clearly provided and included in the revision which I have been reverting to. If you saw my comment on Talk:Geography, Talk:Australi and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chile, you would see this "I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.". She wrote the paper on "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia" and then you can see underneath that summary of her paper, links to her whole paper and appendixes. Then there are two new section provided by the Chilean Embassy not the intern. The following quote is provided by the website: The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. it is not provided by her and you can verify this by reading her full paper. The data provided by the Embassy does not conflict with the ABS data and provides futher information. I have only kept the revision which is best from both worlds in that it clearly provides the ABS data and also the Embassy of Chile to Australia's data. Also if you read the dispute you can see what data I am opposed to Kransky adding, data which is unreferenced. Simple. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that referring to both sources, displaying both numbers, and explaining why they might differ is a good solution. The two numbers clearly come from a different perspective of what constitutes "Chilean ancestory". The ABS will know precisely who is born in Chile, but then asks people to describe their ancestory, and a significant percentage (including a third actually born in Chile) are describing themselves as having an ancestory apart from Chilean. That is going to differ wildly from counting children and grand children of those born in Chile. So on this particular point at least, I think it is impossible to say that the ABS is accurate - it's indicative of what people choose to call themselves - but who amongst us would believe that one third of Chileans were born in, have a parent or even a grand parent born in Spain? In fact Demographics of Chile tells us that Chile never experienced any substantial 20th century immigration from Europe (as opposed to, say, Argentina). In other words, when one third of all Chileans born in Chile tell the ABS that they have a Spanish ancestory - what are they really telling the ABS? That they descend directly from the Spanish colonialists from four centuries back? Is it not more reasonable to count the children and grand children of those born in Chile as being of Chilean ancestory? If that is the case, then the leap from 23,000 to 45,000 makes perfect sense, and the leap from 23,000 to 25,000 makes zero sense (depending on what one really means by Chilean ancestory). πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 08:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, read my reply further up and you will see I have said this! Kransky did not or still does not comprehend this. I don't think the two sources come from a different on what constitutes "Chilean ancestory", I just think people like Kransky misinterpret the two field provided by the ABS being birthplace and ancestory. You will notice he has not understood this fact throughout most of his argument and this is why people who don't understand completely and refuse to listen should not make major edits like Kransky has been doing. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I went digging around all the other "ethnic" groups in Australia, utilising the very helpful info box that most of these sorts of articles have (but not all). To be honest, the stats shown are all over the shop, and a very clear pattern emerged. Those from the more "mainstream" ethnic groups, e.g North and Western European, have extremely high rates of "ancestry" compared to "births" from that particular country. Those from less "mainstream" ethnic groups, have far, far fewer claiming ancestry. There will be some valid reasons for the former, such as some of these groups now going back 3 or 4 generations, but that's really only part of the story. The true tale of these stats (in which people are free to claim whatever they want) is a strong willingness to be associated with the more dominant ethnic groups in Australia, e.g. North and Western European. Looking at the Chilean example, it's a classic case, and closer inspection bears out what I am saying. A full third of Chilean Australians born in Chile claim Spanish ancestry, despite the fact that there has been no significant immigration from Europe for centuries, and, the bulk of the Chilean population is descended from mixed Spanish/Amerindian peoples. Of course, you might ask why would a Chilean want to be so strongly associated to the more dominant European ethnic group? It's called human nature! Look at this extremely poor article: Spanish Australian. There are 50,000 Australians of "pure" Spanish stock, but if you want to throw in the mestizos and mulattos, you can creep up to 75,000 (which is where quite a few of our Chilean friends are hiding in the ABS census). Now who amongst you is doing the appropriate genetic testing to ensure that these Chileans are of "pure" Spanish stock? And could you blame anyone for not wanting to be labelled a "mulatto", or half-caste (the word itself coming from the Latin word for mule - charming!). In fact, I find all these articles quite distasteful. This reliance on the ABS stats for this specific question shows an incredible degree of naivety. I'm not too fussed which way this goes, but if anyone here really thinks they have a strong handle on "Chilean" ancestry, or indeed any other type of ancestry menitioned in this series of articles, all can say is: you've got to be kidding me. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are extremely on point! And I know this from experience as I will now mention that I have taken so much interest into this article and it being factual and the best it can be, is because I am infact a Chilean Australian. What you just said is all extremely true but do you want to know what further adds to this? Well over in Chile there is great rivalary over Chile and Peru, kind of similar to Australia and New Zealand, Chile and Peru are much more extreme based on the history. But anyway something I know and which all Chileans know wether they want to admit it or not, is that Chileans in general hate to aknowledge their native blood and always choose to say they are white or spanish over mestizo even though the majority of us are mestizo! There is many of reasons why Chileans do this but this is a whole other lengthy subject in itself. So yeh something you should know about Chileans is that fact, so not only is it easier to fit into Australian society by identifying as European, but Chileans already have that mindset! I know this because I am Chilean and if you don't believe me do some research on it, trust me I'm not lying. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution I proposed earlier is to include a caveat about the reliability of ABS data (using the 2001 Census data in which many Chilean-born Australians didn't identify their ancestry as Chilean). Also note that in the text of many of these articles the text reads as "x number of persons declared themselves to have y ancestry either alone or in combination with one other ancestry" (ie: we report declared, not actual, ancestry). I still consider the ABS data is sufficiently reliable, whereas Ms Nadine is just assuming an ethnic group doubles in population over three generations. The reasons why Chilean-born Australians choose other ancestries is perhaps worth exploring, but it is not central to this argument. Kransky (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Your solution is not needed! You have been the only one unable to comprehend why there would be 45,000 Chilean Australian and having that caveat just confuses things even more as you still do not understand! And now you have confused everyone with your pointless argument on what is fact! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could I please have comments for this comprimise language: "According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount as it ignores Chilean-born residents and their children who may have nominated other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry" Kransky (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You still do not understand! Look I will make it clear to you by giving out personal information which up until now I didn't want to do but honestly I have exhausted every other possibility. I am a Chilean Australian, I am a second generation Chilean Australian who was born here in Australia. This is what I put in the ABS last year! I was born in Australia, both my parents were born overseas in Chile, and I indentified my ancestory as Chilean! We as children make up the ancestory figures! As we say Chilean! Both my parents did not put this they put spanish but I ended up convincing my mum to add Native American aswell, so she will be like one of the 10 Chile born Chilean Australians who did this, and honestly I am not exaggerating I think there will only be like 10 due to reasons I will not go into detail about now. But yeh, both my dad and mum are mestizo except my dad, being a chilean, refuses to aknowledge this so he only put his ancestory as Spanish on the ABS. So you must not add that compromise language as it is pointless and absurd! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for this statement: "However this may be an undercount as it ignores Chilean-born residents and their children who may have nominated other ancestries." As annoying as this may sound, you cannot utilize your own interpretation of the census data, even if we all agree that it is most probably accurate. Is there a way to reword this so that it can be accurately cited to one of the sources available? Just to make sure this is clear, I am not disputing your interpretation, it seems most probable, but that's not good enough here unfortunately.PelleSmith (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He can't as it is not even accurate! He still does not understand at all and now I see his little knowledge is rubbing off on other users! WTF what is becoming of wikipedia?! See this is what happens when he gets me blocked for telling the truth and only one biased opinion can be heard by all you third parties! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not annoying at all and a perfectly reasonable demand. My RS is here. The key paragraph is On the other hand, people arriving in Australia from the same birthplace may have different ethnic and cultural affiliations. For example, the ancestries of East Timor-born people living in Australia were Chinese (61%), Timorese (40%) and Portuguese (10%). Of people born in New Zealand, 14% stated Maori as their ancestry, while English (52%) and New Zealander (21%) were the most common responses. As with those born in New Zealand and Australia, ancestries given by those born in some other countries often include a national ancestry and one associated with a colonial power. Thus, a large proportion of those born in Chile reported their ancestry as Chilean (63%), but Spanish was also relatively common (29%). The statistics for Chilean-born ancestries then follow in a graph. Kransky (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

STOP STOP STOP!!! You have confused everyone now and are making things worst! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. One suggestion I would have is to rewrite the part about children. Do children figure in this statistic at all? What you propose makes it sound like the children "may (also) have nominated other ancestries." Otherwise that's a great source, and I think it goes far towards explaining the lower than assumed figure (by at least one researcher).PelleSmith (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I will quote myself "This one took him a while. I had to tell him this because he could not comprehend it before hand but then he adds the caveat trying to shut me up hoping I would not revert his edit where he sneaked in unreferenced information which he has constantly been doing. Only he is not able to comprehend that just because you're Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory." TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When I said children I meant the offspring of persons who were born in Chile (ie have an actual Chilean ancestry). It sounds misleading and is imprecise (ignores second generation plus). Instead, why not "According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount as persons with Chilean ancestries might have instead chosen to nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry". Any takers?Kransky (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He still does not understand and quite clearly me being away from all these discussions has caused great damage, all third parties read my replies and read this whole discussion from start to end. All of you except the greek lettered user are confused, not due to your own fault but due to Kranskys! So please read. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think that wording is good, in that it explains how Chilean-born Australians may have listed another ancestry. It doesn't explicitly take into account nth-generation Chileans of other reported ancestry, but given the difficulty in identifying such an ancestry in the first place, and in collecting accurate statistics based on such an identification (and I agree that the methodology in Nadine's paper is not well-explained), I think that it's best not to discuss the concept in detail. Even something like Aboriginal Australian ancestry is amazingly difficult to quantify in any meaningful sense, and they have the dual advantage of being (a) a larger population than Chilean Australians (and hence easier to get accurate population estimates of in relative terms) and (b) being a population of huge interest for the government (and hence more likely to get money put aside to get such estimates). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is confusing because Kransky is confusing, and this is not Nadines estimates, this is data provided by the Embassy please I insist you respect my request and thoroughly read every aspect on this matter as you will see me being a Chilean Australian am quite sure on all aspects of this matter! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the 50, GAZILLIONITH time Kransky has snuck in this unreferenced information "The largest Chilean Australian communities are in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result) and Melbourne (6,530). " Please, please, PLEASE read through the discussion on this talkpage and you can see this has always been my major issue with him! He is still not behaving appropriately and always goes unpunished yet I get blocked as a result of him lying and me attributing the noun to this word! What is wrong with wikipedia?! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

16 May responses to TeePee

• Reply to TeePee - I do not see that the data Kransky is using is unreferenced. I see him using sources which are reliable. I do not see any basis for the Chilean embassy's assertion of 45,000 except a paper written by an intern which does not refer tot he 45,000 but in fact has lower figures. The embassy has not done a census, referred to registrations of their nationals (which would not include Australian nationals of Chilean ancestry, or ... They do not explain their figure and hence they are not for this purpose a reliable source. I find your arguments unpersuasive and disruptive. Also please note that Matilda, you are being like Kransky now is not within Misplaced Pages guidelines as it is a comment on the editor and not the content.--Matilda 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see you chose not to listen. I'm sorry for commenting on you but it is the truth, not due to your fault. You have just been sucked in by Kransky's biased opinion and not having me here to dispute what he was saying. I hope you can accept my apology and this time take the time to read my replies before judging my argument as "unpersuasive and disruptive". TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee - you have to settle down a little bit. The wording I'm reading at the moment is on the right track because it is explaining why the Chilean ancestry might be understated in the ABS stats in a reasonably neutral manner. The stats from this person's independent study are missing, and from what I understand from others who have looked through it (and I haven't), it is unclear precisely how she arrived at them (even though any half competent demographer would have little doubt that the figure of 45,000 must be far closer to the mark than 25,000). What would really be useful is if we knew: 1. that she defined Chilean ancestry as anyone born, and/or with a parent or grand-parent born in Chile; and 2. whether she actually had access to this sort of data. In other words, if we knew she was able to count Chileans defined in this manner, and/or was able to somehow extrapolate from a reasonable sample, and that is explained in her study, then clearly no one would object to showing her estimate of 45,000, because it would fit seamlessly immediately after what is already written there. Relax mate and check it out! If need be, perhaps get confirmation from the Chilean embassy, if you have contacts there. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 21:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I settle down when this argument has been tipped in the favour of Kransky while he got me blocked for 24hrs for telling the truth about him. Had there been no lying I would not have been blocked inthe first place! Angelo I thought you were the only one who understood, read futher up to see why this is not hers! You also think these are her estimates as does Matilda and I just explained it to Matilda. Honestly can you people listen to me and read as I request. This data is provided by the Embassy of Chile to Australian and not the intern! This is a reliable source and has ben verified as so at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. Please all I ask is read and not base your judgement on me the editor and instead on the facts. Please this is all I ask and is all I have ever asked. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee - please add your comments at the bottom of the section, not in between dialogue already written. If you want to comment on what has been said, just cut and paste a quote so we know what you are referring to. Otherwise it is difficult to work out what is being said when to what. Kransky (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky - how is it difficult? I am replying directly underneath the comments I am addressing and you figure out when comments are posted based on the timestamp, this is what they are for. You can also check the history of this talkpage. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jupp reference

This reference is really useful:

• Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press. p. page 197. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved 2008-05-17. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

see also the preceding page. After reading this with some update of more recent data from the 2006 census I think we are most of the way there on this dispute.--Matilda 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done Matilda - that's perfect! TeePee, take a look, he gives an approximate figure of 40,000 (including children born in Australia to Chileans), which looks pretty good to me. Let's weave that in, cite the reference, and it's done. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Matilda this is also a good reference and futher supports the Embassy's view. But this 2001 reference does not need to be added as the Embassy's 2006 reference has already been verified. You still don't understand that this is the Embassy's data and not the interns. So I plead to you to actually read my replies so you can see I am not making up facts. Please just read. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee, Matilda's reference explains what the 40,000 comprises (Chilean-born plus their Australian born children). I think that everyone would agree that this is better defined than the "ancestry" question in the ABS stats, which are clearly flawed (and it's on that point that I have been agreeing with you all along). Re this other figure of 45,000, I can see how one could get up to that figure if you start adding Australian-born grandchildren (which would only have started happening in recent years in any significant numbers). But - do we know for sure that the 45,000 figure includes that? In fact, do we know for sure what the 45,000 is meant to represent? That's the problem that people are having with that number, and that's why this other number of 40,000 is so much more acceptable - there is greater clarity about what it is measuring (not to mention that it's a pretty good source to begin with). Actually, I thought you might have been a bit more relieved to find another source confirming the more accurate figure to be back up in the 40,000s. That's good, isn't it? By the way, my name is Pippu, not Angelo. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I come across ungrateful or disrespectful about Matilda finding that reference. But it has the exact same issues that the Embassy's figure has. I did not need this reference Matilda provided to convince me of the number of Chilean Australians as I was well aware that 45,000 is correct as seems you Pippu, Itsmejudith and maybe PelleSmith of this fact. About the only thing this reference does is explain it simpler in less formal language by using the word "children". The embassy does the exact same thing except it says "second and third generation". If people will just realise the Embassy has provided this and not the intern which I have already said in my replies, then there would be no issues as the Embassy's information does not conflict with the ABS data at all and instead quoting Itsmejudith, "adds another dimension". The reason for the 5,000 number difference is the reference provided by matilda was published in 2001 where as the Embassy published their data in 2006, something else which I alluded to in my previous comment. At least now all this other people who don't understand will have an easier time understanding as there are now two valid references saying the same things. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jupp's reference states "Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their persons born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today". It was published in 2001 with 1996 Census data. The number today could even be more, but Jupp is wise enough to prefix his statement with a "could".

So thats it. Either we use the (a) accurate, but conceptually flawed ABS data, (with a caveat warning that many Chilean-born didn't identify themselves as Chilean in the 2001 Census) or (b) we use say it might have been around 40 000 in 2001. Or we use both statistics, with caveats.

I have made modifications to the "Demography" section - moving up Pippu's text (thanks Pippu) and acknowledging that the number of Chilean Australians could be around 40,000 with the Jupp reference (I've met the prof - nice guy). My ABS text, with the caveat, still stays. I have also changed the info box to present the number of Chileans by self-declared ancestry. This should please everybody. Kransky (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not even quote him correctly! The correct quote is as follows "Although we do not have accurate figures, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today."

This is not it. We do not need to use (a) and do not need to add (b) as we already have (c) which is the data provided by the Chilean Embassy and is more up to date the the author's reference.

Sigh, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the revision I had and as you can now see the many flaws your edits have had as you havn't been able to fathom up until this point that there is more than 25 thousand Chilean Australians. You have once again referenced information with invalid references so I will revert the edit back to the one I have always been keeping and ask people to view it and address what problems there are. I hope you all have now taken the time to actually read my replies and aknowledge them by letting me know what you don't understand about them. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the embassy or the intern made the comment. Even if the embassy made the comment (and you could argue it has, because it is on its website without a disclaimer disendorsing comment), the issue is the reliability of the data. One does not need to be a genius to assume the Chilean-population has increased in size between 2001 and 2006. But why does Nadine say 45,000? Why not 42,000 or 50,000 or 78,423? What is her rationale to say "we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of 45 000"? Remember that Jupp in 2001 merely said it "could" have approach 40,000, so Nadine is making an estimate on an estimate. Very rubbery figures.

Could people look at the comprimise version on 15:58, 17 May 2008 and make their judgement?. Please TeePee - do not change it until we have agreement on this, or we will repeat this debate again next week. Kransky (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am sorry but now these third parties are involved you have completely changed your tone, as that was the issue before hand Kransky. I am glad to see you now understand the intern did not provide this and infact the Embassy did. That is right there is no disclaimer disendorsing it because I am assuming you have actually now taken the time to read her whole paper and have seen the information I have always been referring to is no where to be found in her paper! Oops spoke to soon, once again Nadine does not say 45 000, the Embassy does! And the Embassy says this because obviously they have thoroughly reserched this and have all the sources to do so. Jupp has done the exact same thing as the embassy, except the embassy is more reliable as they are specific to Chilean Australians. Fine I will let you have your way this one time, even after all the crap you have put me through as I don't want people's opinions on me as an editor distracting them from the facts. But in doing so I ask people first view the revision I provided before Kransky made his change to it's current revision, and tell me what problems there are with the version I posted. Remember I asked first, don't believe me look above Kransky's comment. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Teepee, care to explain the difference in meaning between my paraphrase and the actual quote? Exactly what point are you trying to make? Kransky (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is you must quote correctly! Simple, no need for explanation. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support or Oppose - question by PelleSmith 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky asked us to come here and say whether or not we support or oppose the current wording. I've taken the liberty to create a thread here for this purpose. Currently the wording reads:

"According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry. The true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp."

I suggest you all weigh in so that the editors here can move on with this entry. I also suggest that those who have minor issues with the specific wording specify this in their reply but do not wholesale oppose the addition unless they oppose its content.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not sure about the specific wording but this content looks right. The embassy is not an RS but now you have an expert in the field suggesting something similar. Problem solved.PelleSmith (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose by TeePee + following discussion

• Oppose - PelleSmith can you reply to me as I replied to you before Kransky so please answer the point I brought up concerning why the Embassy is an RS. The paragraph you quoted is not needed in this article and the revision I have provided is an alternative. It does not need to be provided as only people like Kransky who did not understand how the census works would have trouble relating the two numbers together. Also the wording is not good, it isn't an undercount, how exactly is it? Kransky still does not understand and that is why he is adding his POV saying it may be an undercount. Chilean born Australians are quite right in saying there ancestory to be something other than Chilean. So there is no undercount. And then he adds the "true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp" this statement implies the two sources conflict, just like he thinks the source of the Chilean Embassy conflicts with the ABS. None of the two conflict with ABS so again his wording is not the best. And why does the demographer need to be mentioned? I don't think I have ever seen a demographer mentioned on a wikipedia article in any articles similar to this one. So these are all the reasons why it should not be kept in the revision Kransky has provided, plus what I have already mentioned numerous of times and on your talkpages as you can see. That is, he has once again snuck in the reference which is invalid to the data he is editing into this article. Problem not solved TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee please do us all a favor and research reliability and verifiability as I have now asked you several times. You do not understand the relevant policies and seemingly you refuse to do so. The embassy is simply not in itself a reliable source for that information. The reason to mention that this man is a demographer is completely obvious. He is an expert in the relevant field, so his educated guess is an important one. We attribute and provide context where needed here on Misplaced Pages. Please wrap your head around this. As I mentioned already, if the wording isn't the best then please suggest changes to it, but please drop this talk about the non-RS embassy number. Everyone on this talk page has explained to you the problem and you clearly refuse to listen. My patience is wearing thin. I'm done with this. I only came here because of a question on the RS/N. I've stated my support for Kransky's version but I'm sick of trying to communicate with a wall so please stop leaving me messages. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How dare you breach civility by commenting on me and not my edits! I already told you numerous times I would read them and then you say "seemingly you refuse to do so"! Where the hell do you get off replying to me in that manner. I was not reading it as I was editing after I got home from work and it was far too late for me to be seriously taking time to address this issue! By the time I signed off yesterday it was 5:18am! This is how late I stayed up for you! And then you post a comment like that you ingrate! I have completely lost any respect I have had for you based on the manner you have just conducted yourself in! I have listened to everyone and unlike yourself have kept an open attitude and made sure I have thoroughly read their replies. You on the other hand have been so arrogant as to not reply to all the point's I raise, have not taken the time to thoroughly read the discussions (quite evident in me needing to post an entire new section highlighting all the times I have asked for a valid reference) and ignorance has been shown quite clearly in the hot headed reply you left above this! Your comments stating you will not comment on this any further in your clear closed mind in this matter does not warrant your opinion notable. If you will not take the time to hear all sides of the story and make sure this article is the best it can be then you opinion is not needed! I have now read both links you sent me and there is no indication at all that the Chilean Embassy is not a reliable source based on both the policy and guideline I have read. Jeff Jupps estimate is out of date and the Embassy's estimate is more recent. I am positive if Jeff Jupps himself could be involved in this matter he would also agree with the new number provided by the Embassy 5 years later. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From the RS guideline: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." The appropriate context here, for a population estimate, falls under the section that follows on scholarship. Please read it and explain how the embassy on its own, or by way of its intern researcher, qualify. They do not. As I have stated before it would be OK to mention the embassy figure if attributed and framed correctly, but a demographer is a much more reliable and hence preferable source for a demographic estimate. This should be rather obvious if you have read the guideline. Also the best guess we have is that embassy is extrapolating from the 2001 Census, which it mentions just prior to its vague comment about adding 2nd and 3rd generation Chileans to the figures of that 2001 Census. It is clearly not correct to claim that their figure is more recent than the demographer's own 2001 figure. My apologies for the "wall" comment. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: From the RS guidline: "although some material may be outdated by more recent research" The Embassy's not the interns research outdates Jeff Jupp's reference. Jeff Jupp's reference was published in 2001 based on the 1996 Australian Census. The Embassy's reference was provided in 2006 based on the 2001 Australian Census. I'm glad to see you have cooled down now and will be providing your opinion based on the information at hand. This is all I have ever asked for. Cheers TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am scraching my head wondering how the "Embassy" figure (really, Nadine's, and based on Jupp's) could be attributed and framed correctly. "the Embassy of Chile published an online essay by ANU intern B.Nadine in which she estimated that the number of Chilean-Australians in 2006 was 45,000, based on a statement made five years earlier by ANU Demographer J.Jupp in which he estimated the Chilean Australian at the time had approached 40,000, and by assuming that in the period the population had grown by around 5,000"  ???? doesn't sound that convincing does it... Kransky (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Kransky I see no connection to Nadine with the 45,000 figure. I have to agree with TeePee there. Her report makes no mention of it, only the embassy website does. If it is buried in the report somewhere please tell me where because I cannot find it. She mentions another 40,000 figure and sources it to the embassy, but I have just commented on the problems surrounding that figure below. It would be safe to say something like: "the Chilean Embassy estimates an even higher figure of 45,000 Chilean Australians based upon their own guess work and the 2001 census." But as I have already stated I don't understand why anyone would want to add this with the demographer's estimate already in there.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: That's because she did not provide it the Embassy did! Seriously how many times need I repeat myself? Honestly someone read these discussions and count them on your two hands, I'm quite positive you won't have enough fingers! And PelleSmith as I have already said, the reason being is they are both essentially the same thing except the Embassy's estimate is more up to date based on the Census taken 5 years after the Census which Jeff Jupp's based his estimate on. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per User:PelleSmith --Matilda 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per User:PelleSmith above and User:Matilda's comments at #Response to excessively numerous comments by TeePee below. One small point (or maybe not so small depending on your point of view) that I have issue with is the opening comment of the article, ie "Chilean Australians are citizens of Australia". "Citizens" should be replaced with "residents" since the ABS data, and I assume Jupp's and the embassy's conclusions as well, doesn't differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, ie not everyone included in the data is a citizen but they are a resident. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with the point about residents --Matilda 05:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I also concur, good eye. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Likewise, I concurKransky (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Embassy of Chile is a reliable source - comment by Selecciones de la Vida

~The Embassy of Chile is a reliable source and the following updated link in Spanish explains current research that they have conducted in regards to the Chilean population in Australia.

http://www.embachile-australia.com/community/chileans.html

They have concluded an independent research study titled Chileans in Australia Project along with a commission that involves Chileans living in Australia. The National Museum of Australia in Canberra and the Chilean Embassy also presented a book about Chileans living in Australia titled Under a Southern Sky. To simply dismiss the Embassy of Chile as non-reliable would be a disservice. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The manner in which the Embassy of Chile is reliable, and for what purposes is a matter of context. The embassy does not meet the basic criteria of an academic publisher or similar source reliable for the results of scientific research, so clearly we cannot take it as de facto reliable for information that should come from "scholarship," or scientific research. The webpage in question cannot be considered reliable without the type of information that you have just provided. Can you please help us by citing estimates from this study itself, or from the book that has been published?PelleSmith (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Yes according to you it is unreliable, I see no indication to say this at the policy and guidline I have read. Itsmejudith also lead me to believe otherwise before I even read the policy and guidleline. So PelleSmith this is just your opinion. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• The same page is available in English :-) http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/chileans.html and states The Chilean community in Australia comprises some 43 thousand people, including second and third generation Chileans. it still does not say how it got to that figure which disagrees with http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/migration.html which states The latest Australian Census in 2001 recorder 23 370 Chile-born persons in Australia. The 2001 distribution of this population by State and Territory revealed the largest numbers were situated in New South Wales with 12 630, followed by Victoria with 6670, Queensland with 1310 and Western Australia with 1220. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons. I do not understand the rationale for taking a census figure and doubling it more or less to establish an ancestry figure. Perhaps this rationale is explained in the book or in the independent research study. Even if those sources are not on-line they can be cited if you have access to the information. As per the above wording proposed by Kransky in question put by Pelle Smith, Jupp gives 40,000 in 2001 and is in my view a reliable source - scholarly published book. As per my comments below in the section Arbitrary break - more replies to TeePee 19 May - what is still your problem? :

I will allow their estimate to be used as a 3rd estimate in the terms proposed by Pippu ... The Chilean embassy's page as per Aussie Legend is very poorly set out (another reason why they are not a very reliable source) and it did look to me as though they were using Nadine Botzenhart as their authority due to layout. I did in fact read her paper and they did not derive their information from her paper - hence my assertion they have not explained how they arrived at the figure and why we can therefore on wikipedia not repeat it as clearly authoritative.

As user PelleSmith said below:

AussieLegend, I understand why you read the entire page as being attributed to Nadine, and I did so myself at first. Then I had a closer look at how it was set up and I'm pretty sure that stylistic aspects of this page suggest otherwise. I believe the embassy meant only to attribute to her the executive summary under the title and then of course to link to the whole report she generated. However, I also admit that this is not unequivocally clear, and agree with you that it could be read either way. The fact that the full report makes no mention of the statistic, I think is the strongest evidence that the entire page is not meant to summarize her report. Yet the fact that it is unclear leads more support to my basic assertion that what we are trying to attribute to either the embassy or Nadine is itself very unclear and less than ideal. I find it hard to understand why TeePee, after all this discussion and his claim to have read our RS and V guidelines has again reinserted "factual" sounding language into the entry about the 45,000 figure that is not attributed to either Nadine or the embassy, and that does not accurately reflect the fact that it is no more than an educated guess.

You can't just assert the embassy is a reliable source when it does not meet the guideline (see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources ) in the following ways: it is not scholarly, it is not from a news organisation ... I believe, somewhat reluctantly, it comes under the guideline Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves - see WP:SELFPUB. I have concerns because it does serve the embassy's interests to overstate the number of Chilean-Australians and there is a reasonable doubt about how the figure was calculated. At the very least it is a questionable source WP:QS as the site is promotional in nature.

However we have said it can be used as a third string to the assertion but using Jupp first - see section below in Jupp reference. I take the opportunity here to note I did not find that reference - it was found by User:Selecciones de la Vida - I merely formatted the cite and drew attention to it here. --Matilda 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

~The Embassy of Chile best serves as a secondary source that supports what Jupp wrote in the scholarly publication. There is absolutely no argument that the Australian census is the primary statistical source, yet, it is important to note that it is also not free of criticism. The Chilean population in Australia may be larger than originally reported.

It would be highly beneficial if the studies made by the embassy were offered online since it would assist us in providing the most up-to-date information. As of now I have been unable to obtain the information electronically.

The following link published in 2005 is from a Chilean on-line newspaper article (La Nacion). According to the article they report that the Chilean National Institute of Statistics which is a governmental agency state that there are 33,626 Chileans living in Australia.

http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias/site/artic/20050816/pags/20050816125322.html

The information provided is different from the Australian census giving us a higher number and different from both Jupp and the Embassy of Chile by providing a lower number. They also include in their calculations that there are 113,394 Chileans living in the United States a figure that is higher than the information gathered by the 2000 U.S. Census. Three out of four sources are reporting that the population figures are higher than the one provided by the Australian census. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Concern

I have not read the links PelleSmith has provided to me yet, but if what he is saying is true, the Embassy is not a RS and this whole article needs to have a major editing revision because upon learning this you will find out that most the article is referenced by the Chilean Embassy, even the parts in Kransky's revision. So if it is not a RS like he says, even though Itsmejudith has lead me to believe otherwise, then a whole major revision on the article is needed with new sources provided. Which really to me seems like it would not improve the article at all and instead worsen it a great deal. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry I have read the policy and guideline myself and there is no indication that the Embassy is not a reliable source. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad you finally got around to reading the guidelines and policy I disagree with your assertion - please see my comments immediately above. If you want to assert it is a reliable source please say how it is against the points made in the guideline - what is it in the guideline that allows you to make this conclusion? --Matilda 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Numerous times I have asked for a valid reference

Kransky: "FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT)." 11:36, 22 February 2008

Me: "If this is true like I said earlier reference it, as I cannot find it." 13:23, 22 February 2008

Kransky: "There could be several reasons why the number of Chilean-born Australians has declined. Many may have joined the President in returning back to Chile, now that democracy has been restored. Also note that the main wave of Chilean migrants came in the 1970s were probably aged in their 30s; now in their 60s many like other migrants may be returning home to spend their retirement" 10:38, 24 February 2008

Me: "Yes very true, but as I said earlier reference it so we can get rid of the 2001 census figures." 13:04, 24 February 2008

Kransky: "has been referenced" 01:21, 25 February 2008

Me: "Sigh. No it has not." 06:12, 25 February 2008

Kransky: "I politely asked you to explain what problems you had with the ABS data" 12:21, 6 May 2008

Me: "And I have politely told you repeatedly what problems I have had and most of them we have been able to resolve and incorporate into the article except the one constant point you continually try to re-add without a reference. So I am going to try my best to make this extremely clear to you as I have been telling you since early february, repeatedly! You must provide a reference to the 2006 data you constantly add to this article. You have failed to do this repeatedly and even after I have told you, you still continue to add it. Not only have you been unreliable in providing a reference but something I have noticed in having to re-read everything that was said months ago, is you have not even been consistent in the numbers you have provided! Let me quote you for clarity.

This is what you said at 11:36 on the 22nd of February:

"FYI, at the 2006 Census there were 23,302 Chile-born residents, located in 12,249 (NSW),6,678 (VIC), 1,546 (QLD), 1,269 (WA), 686 (SA), 144 (TAS), 681 (ACT) and 49 (NT)."

And this is what you have been saying since 00:07, 4th of May until this point in discussion:

"Chilean-born persons resided in Sydney (10,909), and a further 6,530 were in Melbourne." 13:45, 6 May 2008

Kransky: "I already have references to the 2006 ABS Census stats on ancestry and country of birth (twice!)." 09:06, 7 May 2008

Me: "Sigh, yeh I think maybe we should get a third party invovled because I have tried to make it as clear as possible to you but you still don't seem to comprehend that the information you add to this article is not in your reference, thereby making your reference invalid!" 16:52, 7 May 2008

Kransky: "I think the crux of your argument is that the ABS statistics are faulty" 09:56, 8 May 2008

Me: "Kransky, no that is NOT the crux of my agrument, the crux of my argument is you DO NOT provide a reliable reference to the information you edit in!" 16:24, 8 May 2008

Other times I have made reference to this

My reply to Matilda: "Also if you read the dispute you can see what data I am opposed to Kransky adding, data which is unreferenced. Simple." 15:21, 16 May 2008

My reply to all users in general: "For the 50, GAZILLIONITH time Kransky has snuck in this unreferenced information "The largest Chilean Australian communities are in Sydney (10,909, 2006 Census result) and Melbourne (6,530). " Please, please, PLEASE read through the discussion on this talkpage and you can see this has always been my major issue with him!" 16:43, 16 May 2008

My reply to Kransky: "You have once again referenced information with invalid references so I will revert the edit back to the one I have always been keeping and ask people to view it and address what problems there are." 15:42, 17 May 2008

In my reply to everyone: "especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months" Different times on 17 May 2008

And if you are still not clear

Where in this reference can you find the following information "Sydney (10,909), and a further 6,530 were in Melbourne"?

Like I have already said as you can see by reading, I am happy to add the updated statistics concerning distrubution from the 2006 Census over that of the 2001 Census, only if it can be referenced appropriately. Simple enough? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

actually TeePee has a point here - the link goes to a spreadsheet for Australia, not for the specific cities. I will revert back to my current version, and add links to the two sources on the ABS. Kransky (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow maybe I should make a new section everytime I need to explain something to you. Seems like it would save me alot of time. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to excessively numerous comments by TeePee

• Firstly it is really hard to respond if you run off as you have done in excessive numbers of edits in recent times. In my view the James Jupp reference is absolutely authoritative. Please read the guideline on reliable sources at WP:RS - it is an academic work published by a reliable publisher. The Chilean embassy is not a reliable source as they do not provide a methodology for how they got to the figure. The ABS data is reliable but needs to be read with caution. We all agree that proposition and Kransky has come up with some wording as to how to do that. As above I support that wording. I do not under any circumstances support the ABS data not being used - I do support it being interpreted as long as that interpretation contains no original research and is verifiable. See WP:NOR and WP:V.--Matilda 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: It is not hard if you do what is expected and read! Simple. Yes he is most certainly reliable in my view too and I have read the WP:RS. The Chilean Embassy is reliable as they provide as much methodology for how they got to the figure as Jeff Jupps does. The ABS data is reliable and only needs to be read in caution to those who do not understand, this should not be explained on this article as it has no place and should be explained on the ABS wikipedia page, if there is one. As above under PelleSmiths comments for support, I most certainly do not support the wording based on the issues I raised. So read them and reply, remember judgments are to based on information and not editor. Be very clear in addressing the points I make as this has not been done in the past. I also do not support the ABS data under any circumstances not being used and in the revison I supplied, is quite clearly used. So once again take the time to read my replies and address all points I raise. Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee - I think you should be at least happy that we've reached the 40,000s! I don't think you should be arguing that we don't need the Jupp reference, because to my eyes it seems to lend a reasonable amount of credibility to the Embassy figure. I have to say that I do see the same shortfalls as some of the others in relying solely on the Embassy figures. You must accept that that isn't an option at the moment for the reasons already conveyed. On the other hand, I would have thought that an Embassy, with presumably some access to relevant data, would be in a reasonalbe position to come up with a half decent estimate, but - embassies exist primarily to serve the interests of their government, they clearly don't have the same independence and scope of activity as an academic institution. But I do wonder this: is there anything wrong with mentioning that the population, including the 3rd generation of Chilean-Australians, might be as high as 45,000 acording to some estimates? (with reference to the Embassy) Afterall, let's all be honest, it wouldn't be the first time a wikepedia article has grabbed info from a website - and I could think of a lot worse sources of info than an Embassy! I know that ends up being three sets of figures, but all of them have a different meaning (all entirely reconcilable) and I can't see how the article would be hurt by that, indeed, surely it expands it in an appropriate manner? I'll be honest, I'm not going to vote because everything we need to finish off this debate is actually all sitting there before our very eyes. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply:Yes thankyou Pippu I am glad you do take the time to read and reply. I'm also glad you are not jumping on the bandwagon and are just brushing this off like the other editors simply because you do not want to spend any more time dealing with it or don't think it's worth the headache. As you can quite clearly see from the new section I made up until 00:51, 18 May 2008 it still provided invalid references, which Matilda chose to ignore in her decision to support the revision it was at before posting her comment in support! And as you can see from my opposition to support it above you can quite clearly see the many flaws still attributed to this article, and one more flaw which I will raise now is the cite error in references! And as I have mentioned it does lend a significant amount of credibility to the data provided by the embassy, but as I also mentioned even though it is a highly reliable source, it is not needed due to the Embassy's data. It is not needed as it is outdated by the Embassy's research which occured 5 years later based on the 2001 Census compared to Jupps data published in 2001 based on the 1996 Census. Now if I can get other users to listen to what I am saying and address the points I am raising we can have a productive conversation moving towards a final revision in which we can all agree upon. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong in my view with mentioning that the population, including the 3rd generation of Chilean-Australians, might be as high as 45,000 according to some estimates? (with reference to the Embassy) - what I am concerned about is TeePee's concern to remove material that is cited and replace it with a less reliable source. We need to have the ABS data, qualifications (with no original research - ie provide cites for the qualifications from reliable sources) then Jupp then perhaps the embassy data tacked on.--Matilda 05:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

that's precisely what I'm getting at - hard to argue with what you have written. What do you think TeePee and Kransky? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all responses. I just a few problems, Pippu. 45,000 is not the embassy's estimate so we cannot credit it to them - it is Ms Nadine's own estimate. And the estimate is a rough extrapolation from Jupp's 2001 estimate which he says is only approximate. If we are going to use Jupp's estimate we should say what he thought it was in 2001, not what Nadine thinks it has risen to be. As for saying "third generation Chileans", I suppose it could be added in as I demonstrate below (but I think it is redundant)

According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry. The true number of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation Chilean-Australians, could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp. Kransky (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Matilda and Kransky I just ask you to read. Pippu I am sure you have seen that I have already addressed both their concerns numerous times in my replies. Once again I am not removing any data apart from what is not needed in this article. both the birth, ancestory and now Kransky has finally provided a reference, population distrubiton ABS data will be used. The Embassy's estimates have been used, not Nadine's! And the POV interpratation provided by Kransky does not make sense. Again, I have already addressed these concerns in my comments! You know what maybe I should make new sections specific to these points highlighting my comments, it seems to have worked with the invalid reference Kransky was adding. What do you think Pippu? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

NO problem with adding the embassy figure if you can attribute and frame it properly. I'm not sure I agree with Kransky about who made this guess. Nadine does not mention 45,000 in her paper, so the only attribution we can make is to the "embassy." On the other hand the figure seems to be based on an extrapolation from the 2001 census, and there is no indication that is has anything to do with the year 2006 as TeePee suggests. Nadine makes reference, in her paper, to a claim by the embassy that there are 40,000 "Chilean nationals" in Australia and dates this claim to 2006. But the only reason it is so dated is because that's when she retrieved the information from their website, and we do not know if it represents a claim from that date. One should add that the specific link she provides is no longer working, and that Nadine either misunderstands what a foreign national is, or this figure isn't even apropos here. My guess is that she has misused the term foreign national to mean something less specific than what the term usually means-- foreigners who do not yet have the legal right of permanent residence. Of course who knows the real answer to this? Here is a very good illustration of why the embassy figures, in conjunction with Nadine's should be used with caution. It is unclear where they come from, how they were arrived at, and really even what they are in the first place. If you put them up please do attribute and frame them as clearly as possible.PelleSmith (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kransky still does not comprehend that it is data provided by the embassy and not Nadine the intern. Where here in her whole paper can you find the following quote "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."? Answer is no where as it is not provided by Nadine the intern! Sigh, how many times must I repeat myself before the message gets through! Or maybe it has got through and he just continues to say it in a hope you have not been reading my replies and respecting the requests I have been asking you all, so he can further strengthen his argument based on false information. On the other hand this is taken from the 2001 Census and there is suggestion to say otherwise which is "Last updated: June 2, 2006". And why have you came back to add your opinion? Like I made mention of earlier, if you are not going to listen to all sides of the argument and have a biased opinion, then don't include your opinion in these discussions. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You said, "Where here in her whole paper can you find the following quote "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons."? Answer is no where as it is not provided by Nadine the intern!" and yet, strangely, in your most recent edit you've written "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons" and the reference that you've used in support goes straight to a page titled "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006". Isn't she the intern?

Wow, I need to repeat myself once again it seems. It does not go to a page title "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006", it goes to a page on the Embassy's website titled "The Chilean Community Today - A Glance" and if you go to the home page and click the sub-heading "Chilean Immigration" under the heading "Chilean Community", it will take you to the same page. The section at the top of that particular page titled "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006" provided a summary of that report which you can view in full here. This section is entirely different than the two following sections, as this section is provided by Nadine and the two following are provided by the Embassy. Now do you understand why I had pleaded with all you third parties to read thoroughly before providing your opinions? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need repeat yourself but your somewhat confusing explanation reveals that you might need to learn to cite properly. The link you've provided does indeed go to a page on the website titled "The Chilean Community - Today A Glance" but the document displayed at the top of that page is most definitely "An Investigation of Latin American Migration to Australia by Nadine Botzenhart, May 2006" so that is what you are using as a reference. If you want to refer to something else on the page then you need to note that in your citation. In this case you need to make it obvious that you want people to refer to the section titled "The Chilean Community Today - A Glance" and you haven't done that. That said, the page is set out in such a way that the implied author of the whole page is Nadine Botzenhart because that's the main heading and there is really nothing to separate the sections. There's also nothing in the section that you're relying on to explain the methodology used to arrive at the figure of 45,000 and because it differs from the ABS figures so drastically it becomes a questionable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made it as clear as I can to you but you still do not understand. There was nothing confusing in what I just said to you, so I suggest you re-read it or no longer participate in discussions as your opinion is based on limited knowledge. I have tried to explain to you, Kransky and Matilda but you all seem to have the same problem in that you don't fathom what I am saying. Pippu does, it looks like PelleSmith now does that leaves you three and who ever else that does not understand. Please someone else explain to these three what I have said numerous times as I think they are having mental blocks due to this information coming from me as an editor. Maybe if someone else as an editor explains it to them there will not be a block as it is someone else. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your explanation was confusing. A large portion of it was irrelevant and tangential. All you really needed to say was that the reference refers to the section on the page titled "The Chilean Community - Today A Glance". Explanations as to how to get to the page from other pages and arguing that the reference doesn't go to something that you then admit that it does go to was unnecessary. Tangential arguments and attacks on other editors who are simply trying to point out the error in what you have written will not help your case. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL for some guidance. I'd also suggest you re-read what you've written. Admitting that you and one other person understand but nobody else does should give you a clue that you've not made yourself clear enough. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I understand why you read the entire page as being attributed to Nadine, and I did so myself at first. Then I had a closer look at how it was set up and I'm pretty sure that stylistic aspects of this page suggest otherwise. I believe the embassy meant only to attribute to her the executive summary under the title and then of course to link to the whole report she generated. However, I also admit that this is not unequivocally clear, and agree with you that it could be read either way. The fact that the full report makes no mention of the statistic, I think is the strongest evidence that the entire page is not meant to summarize her report. Yet the fact that it is unclear leads more support to my basic assertion that what we are trying to attribute to either the embassy or Nadine is itself very unclear and less than ideal. I find it hard to understand why TeePee, after all this discussion and his claim to have read our RS and V guidelines has again reinserted "factual" sounding language into the entry about the 45,000 figure that is not attributed to either Nadine or the embassy, and that does not accurately reflect the fact that it is no more than an educated guess. TeePee you are the only person who disagrees with Kransky's version. The rest of us were trying to figure out how to insert the language from the embassy, but that was peripheral to the fact that we all think the basic version of Kransky is OK.PelleSmith (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is why I said upon requesting third party assistance for you all to thoroughly read before coming involved. Because you have all mistakingly done the exact same thing as Kransky and not understood what you are reading. None of the two following sections after the summary of Nadines report can be found in her whole paper. Do the research yourself and you will be able to certify this. You all disagree because you all have not understood the full facts or still continue not to. This is not my problem this is your own problems for not reading carefully. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - more replies to TeePee 19 May - what is till your problem?

• I can indeed read but I find your excessive comments (review the edit history and see how many times you have contributed) unclear. I object strongly to the Chilean Embassy page. They do not explain their methodology. They do not meet reliable sources in my view. It has been explained above why not. I will allow their estimate to be used as a 3rd estimate in the terms proposed by Pippu - what remains to be your problem? All I see is personal attacks on me and Kransky - no articulation of your problem despite numerous edits. As per Aussie Legend - you need to learn to cite properly if you wish to escalate a discussion about sources. The Chilean embassy's page as per Aussie Legend is very poorly set out (another reason why they are not a very reliable source) and it did look to me as though they were using Nadine Botzenhart as their authority due to layout. I did in fact read her paper and they did not derive their information from her paper - hence my assertion they have not explained how they arrived at the figure and why we can therefore on wikipedia not repeat it as clearly authoritative.--Matilda 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You would not find my comments unclear had you taken the time to read them thoroughly. This is something expected of you as third parties to do before you become involved and is all I have ever asked, and you missing keypoints to my argument is what happens when you do not make sure you aquaint yourself with the full facts. I have also explained that the Embassy provides as much methodolgy as Jeff Jupp's does in his estimation, except the Embassy's number outdates Jupp's number. All you see is personal attacks is because you are taking what I say to heart instead of reading and understanding what I say to you. Why is it that I have not needed to explain myself the way I have with you, Kransky and AussieLegend to Pippu? It is because he does understand and I can quite clearly see from his replies that he is reading mine. I do not need to learn how to cite properly there is nothing wrong with my citation. You need to learn how to read properly and thoroughly and not have such a quick tongue in this matters. Again don't take this to heart and hear what I am saying to you. Thanks TeePee-20.7 (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

19 May - current form of proposed words and status

• Right now the article reads :

The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia, although in the 2006 reference this number dropped slightly to 23,305. The 2006 distribution of this population by major cities revealed the largest numbers were situated in Sydney with 10,909, followed by Melbourne with 6,530, Perth with 1,172 and Brisbane with 1,087. Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, the total Chilean-Australian population is around 45,000 persons. where reference 2 = ABS 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Australia, ref 9 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Sydney, ref 10 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Melbourne, ref 11 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Perth, ref 12 = 20680-Country of Birth of Person (full classification list) by Sex - Brisbane, and ref 7 = Embassy of Chile.

current words proposed by Kransky and PelleSmith at 17:18, 17 May 2008 are:

According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry. The true number of Chilean-Australians could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp. where ref 4 = Australian Bureau of Statistics 20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia, ref 5 = Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Social Trends, 2003, ref 6 = Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press, page 197. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved on 17 May 2008.

this form of words was inserted by Kransky after a show of support . That was revised by TeePee with no reference to the consensus building on that page and with the edit summaryKept the newly found information about the location of Chileans in Sydney, and restored reference back to the Chilean Embassy source. (See talkpage) . To me Teepee's edit made little sense, either by itself or in view of the talk page conversation. For example I do not understand why he has removed the subsection on demographics (which dealt with the present time and added info about the present to the bottom of the history section I note he added not exactly the same info and reintroduced the contentious Embassy of Chile reference - several people have pointed out several times why it does not meet WP:RS.

moving along we now have regional stats sourced from the ABS. We do not have Jupp's reference in the demographics section but do have it used once above to state most Chilean-Australians live in western Sydney. I propose we have a section on current demographics. My proposal is based on the discussions above. Sub sub section introduced for ease of reading--Matilda 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed section on demographics as at 19 May

• Proposed wording:

According to the 2006 Census, 25,439 persons resident in Australia claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry. However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries. At the 2001 Census 63% of Chilean-born respondents nominated their leading ancestry as Chilean, while others nominated a Spanish (29%), German (3%), Italian (3%) or English (2%) ancestry. The true number of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation Chilean-Australians,could have been closer to 40,000 in 2001, according to demographer Jeff Jupp. 2006 estimates of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, are 45,000. where the references are as follows:

a = "20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia" (Microsoft Excel download). 2006 Census. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-19.

ie use {{cite web| url = http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?breadcrumb=POLTD&method=Place%20of%20Usual%20Residence&subaction=-1&issue=2006&producttype=Census%20Tables&documentproductno=0&textversion=false&documenttype=Details&collection=Census&javascript=true&topic=Ancestry&action=404&productlabel=Ancestry%20(full%20classification%20list)%20by%20Sex&order=1&period=2006&tabname=Details&areacode=0&navmapdisplayed=true& | title = 20680-Ancestry (full classification list) by Sex - Australia| format = Microsoft Excel download |publisher = ] | work = 2006 Census| accessdate = 2008-05-19}} to format ref to provide comprehensive citation

b= "4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003 : Population characteristics: Ancestry of Australia's population". Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 2008-05-19.

use for ref {{cite web| url = http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/af5129cb50e07099ca2570eb0082e462!OpenDocument | title = 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, 2003 : Population characteristics: Ancestry of Australia's population |publisher = ] | accessdate = 2008-05-19}}

c = Jupp, James (2001). The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, its People and their Origins. Cambridge University Press. pp. pages 195-7. ISBN:0521807891. Retrieved 2008-05-17. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

use <ref name = "Jupp"/> as he is already cited with correct citation format

d = "Chilean Immigration". Chilean Community. Embassy of Chile in Australia. June 2, 2006. Retrieved 2008-05-19.

use {{cite web|url = http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/migration.html| title = Chilean Immigration| publisher = Embassy of Chile in Australia| work = Chilean Community| date = June 2, 2006 | accessdate = 2008-05-19}}

--Matilda 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of arguments above for proposed wording

• Suppport

1. I support--Matilda 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
2. PelleSmith supports at 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC) & 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC) "It would be safe to say something like: "the Chilean Embassy estimates an even higher figure of 45,000 Chilean Australians based upon their own guess work and the 2001 census." But as I have already stated I don't understand why anyone would want to add this with the demographer's estimate already in there."
3. AussieLegend 05:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)(but not necessarily the use of the Chilean Embassy page)
4. Kransky - yes but maybe not the use of the Embassy Page?
5. Pippu d'angelo 11:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. TeePee stated he opposed at 17:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite clear to me but I think supports

1. Selecciones de la Vida does support the use of the Embassy of Chile page 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) and again stating "The Embassy of Chile best serves as a secondary source that supports what Jupp wrote in the scholarly publication." 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have captured the views of all recent contributers. If I have captured this right so far we can move on and archive the rest for clarity. Comments below please (and in chronological order - ie latest comments at bottom would really help readability--Matilda 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class Australia articles
• Unknown-importance Australia articles
• WikiProject Australia articles