Talk:Chinese Australian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Flag
Portal
 Chinese Australian is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Demographics of Australia.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Requested move

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

  • Support - put in request. this is standard. -- Zondor 14:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is better to call the Australian Nationals of Chinese Origin or Descent as Australian Chinese. As they are Australians who nether (a) come from China and nationalized in Australia no loner uphold the Chinese citizenship and the only true nationality they got is the Australian nationality, or (b) borned in Australia and never get the chance to get the Chinese citizenship and the only true nationality they got is the Australian nationality. I'm sure that most Australians of Chinese Origin or Descent whould liked to be called Australian Chineses rather than Chinese Australians as it sound more natural. You can find this out by just looking how some of the more common Australian Chinese newspaper lable themself as or check with any of the Australian Chinese association and find out how they lable themself. You can find that Chinese Australian is only used by non-Australian Chinese who can not understand that Australian Chinese is in fact Australian and not Chinese nationals. If Australian of Chinese Origin or Descent can not be lable or called as Australians, then no one other than the Australian Aboriginals can have the right to call themself Australians. The right to call ourself Australians is not, can not and will not based upon race, religion, gender or age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.23.253 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discision

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

[edit] Terence Tao

I am not sure it is 100% appropriate for TT to be included in the list of notables here. Tereance Tao is a great guy - his stature in the mathematical world is immense but it looks as if he has not been around Aus for a while and he might not be back. Including him in the list of notable Chinese Aussies does not feel quite right. novacatz 10:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were to take the definition of a "Chinese Australian" literally, he needs to be an "Australian", i.e. an Australian citizen. So, the question then is whether he has taken up US citizenship now. enochlau (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, fair enough... cross referenced from Wikipedia, didn't know he was not Australian citizen... my criterion in these situations is always Australian citizenship. If he doesn't have Australian citizenship he can't be considered Australian. By the way, Enoch, obtaining another citizenship does not mean loss of Australian citizenship, so if he was an Australian citizen it would be irrelevant if he took up US citizenship. Doire (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes of course. Where did you read that he's not an Australian citizen? He would've been to start off with since he was born in Adelaide... enochlau (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Doire, for your edification -- if someone chooses to be naturalised as a US citizen, one of the steps is a pledge under oath renouncing their existing citizenship. novacatz 13:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Novacatz, for your information -- if an Australian national takes an oath renouncing their existing citizenship in a naturalisation ceremony in the United States it has no bearing whatsoever in Australian law and they remain an Australian citizen regardless.Doire 15:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This is NOT TRUE! The answer from here [1] to question one states that a citizen can lose their citizenship if they renounce their Australian Citizenship (as required by the US naturalisation process). You may be confused with the April 2002 changes which allow an Australian to acquire a citizenship without automatically losing Australian citizenship (this is a change from the previous rules; it is pertinent where someone wishes to acquire citizenship in a country which does not require renounciation). HTH, HAND. novacatz 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you are confusing an OATH of renunciation for rhetorical purposes of a CEREMONY in the US with ACTUAL renunciation BY APPLICATION ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN LAW. Very few applicants for US citizenship bother to renounce their other citizenship - that's why you have dual citizens who have US passports. Same in Australia before 2002. One of the reasons the law had to change was because the Australian Government had no way of knowing whether its citizens had obtained other citizenships. The only country to inform it was Italy, and the Italian Government had ceased to do so by the 1990s. Doire 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess we are both right in a way. You are right - renouncing Aus citizenship is a matter of filling in the form (and paying a fee!?!?). Part of the ceremony for US naturalisation is an oath that other citizenships have been renounced. Do people do this? Probably not if it is disvantageous. Can the government check? It is really hard. Does the government want to check? From my understanding the US govt doesn't want to open this can of worms... but for others (China) they will treat a former-Aust as just that - no longer a Aust. citizen with no right of recourse to Aust. consulates inside of China. novacatz 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Glad we sorted it out. The Chinese Government, of course, considers all those with Chinese ancestry to be Chinese citizens only, even in cases where the ancestry is somewhat distant. At least that's how I understand PRC citizenship law.Doire 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Enoch, I have never heard of Terence Tao myself, so I have no idea where he was born or what citizenship(s) he holds. However, searching for prominent Chinese Australians on Wikipedia came up with his name, so I popped him in the list. If he's an Australian citizen, good on him. If he isn't, then pull him off the list. By the way, birth in Australia does not automatically entitle you to Australian citizenship unless one (or both) of your parents is an Australian citizen or permanent resident. Doire 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Dragging this discussion back on topic -- TT is still an Aussie <- this tidbit from his CV on his website. So I guess he stays on the list. novacatz 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Cool. enochlau (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This article, on him winning the Fields Medal, says that he is. Jpe|ob 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Judging by the usual approach to "Aussieness" in the Australian media, anyone who's ever set foot within 200 meters of a kangaroo anywhere on earth is Australian. --Sumple (Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Is it possible to get a hold of statistics of Australian born Chinese Australians? I remember seeing this somewhere on the census, or perhaps on one of their "multicultural" supplements. Chinese Australians aren't all immigrants (myself included), knowing that some of them have been around since gold rush days.

I believe it is a very small percentage, but would be interesting to know regardless. Thanks!

[edit] Real estate tycoon L J Hooker was a Chinese Australian

[2]

[edit] Sino-Vietnamese are Chinese?

I notice the stats in the article mention Vietnam as a source of "Chinese" immigrants (Vietnam - 41,230).

While I'm aware that many immigrants from Vietnam are Overseas Chinese, I was just wondering whether such people (Sino-Vietnamese) are normally considered "Chinese" or "Vietnamese"? I ask because according to the article on Hoa, 'Along with ethnic Vietnamese, the Hoa are usually referred to as "Vietnamese" by the Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese.'

User:Bathrobe 7 April 2006

(Suppressed offensive comment)

I suspect it might depend on the person whether they consider themselves Chinese or Vietnamese. (Deleted comment that amounts to little more than overgeneralisation) enochlau (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(Suppressed irrelevant and unsubstantiated comments)

For the record, if the concept of ethnicity is to be strictly applied, then it follows that the 'Hoa' people are NOT ethnic Chinese at all; they would be considered ethnic Vietnamese. After all, there is no real difference between the 'Hoa' people and 'native' Vietnamese. This revelation may sound surprising to some but it is true (and has been backed up by scientific evidence)! 122.105.147.208 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this page suxorz

omfg not enough info on teh history bit i cant reach my 1k word limit for my phuckin history assignment and Duel me

  • This comment was added at 22:36 AEST by User:Duel me. I reverted it at 22:40 with the comment "write your own assignment; don't plagiarise - revert gratuitous comment". User:JSIN chose to reinstate the comment twice (User Blnguyen also removed), the second time the reinstatement was with the comment "revert - it commented that there wasn't enough info in history and suggested that editors expand it". I think User:JSIN is being excessively charitable in his remarks. Wikipedians priorities are not driven by the needs of high-school wanna-be plagiarists, or at any rate mine aren't. User:Duel me's remarks were not in good faith or constructive - they are not a useful addition to this talk page but I will accede to the wishes of User:JSIN that they stay here. Note I still think the {{mess2}} message to User:Duel me was warranted - we do not want irrelevant messages on talk pages. --A Y Arktos\talk 09:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of the section on Chinese Australian communities today

The section on Chinese Australian communities today is poorly expressed, in particular using cliches and stereotypes. Reliable sources are required. I have provided comments visible in the edit view as to what I found difficulties with - assertions about Hanson triggering political involvement, scholastic achievement, focal points of the community, ...--A Y Arktos\talk 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What? what's wrong with Chinatowns being a focal point of the Chinese community?? I'd like to see some evidence to the contrary! --Sumple (Talk) 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
what is a "focal point" - does the term mean anything? I am not proposing evidence to the contrary, I am requesting sources. "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. This means that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."--A Y Arktos\talk 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • To assist in consideration of what a "focal point" might or might not be, see Focal point dab page, and Focus. Wiktionary does not help much at wiktionary:focal point with definition 2 as "the centre of any activity". I assume this definition is what is intended in this article but it shows how vague the term is - "any activity"?!? Certainly not all activities, nor even many activites that might provide a focus for the community, for example politics or schools. To be used meaningfully you need to say what is in scope - focal point for eating out by the community, banking, ...? Generalisations need to be avoided - for example, do Chinatowns across Australia incorporate these activities as a focus for the chinese community in that city?--A Y Arktos\talk 01:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some referencing too, as most of that section seems to be info obtained from gross generalisations. For example, Chinese kids are good at school. Most Chinese immigrants can't speak English etc etc. French line 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of the word "Prominent" in describing some notorous figures

in the section Prominent Chinese Austalians, it is a mix of famours and notorous figures - see below:

Andrew Chan: drug lord, sentenced to death Victor Chang: heart surgeon Si Yi Chen: drug smuggler ...

I'd suggest to take out teh notorous ones or at least separate them from really prominent ones - i.e. people who have made contributions and not destructions to the society.

"prominent" means "sticking out". I'd say andrew chan is quite prominent. --Sumple (Talk) 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
famous means well known; it does not necessarily mean virtuous. Calling somebody a "drug lord" is too informal; "convicted drug smugger" is more appropriate Kransky 10:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teminology

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


[edit] ** THIS ARTICLE HAS BECOME A RACIST JOKE **

This article has become little more than a reinforcement of popular myths and is highly patronising to many people around the globe as a result. In particular, this article:

1.Falsely implies that most Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples are of Han ethnicity. In fact nothing else can be further from the truth. In fact, their ancestors were the victims of one of the worst genocides in world history at the hands of various Chinese armies. Once subjugated, the existences of distinct Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese ethnic identities (as opposed to 'regional' identities) were 'conveniently' forgotten by most people in the world (and tragically to this day). Thus from this point of view, the label of Han ethnicity was a brutal imposition upon the Cantonese, Hokkien and Taiwanese peoples against the wills of the said local peoples.

2.Implies that Taiwan is part of China. The reality is that Taiwan is **NOT** part of China and will never be for the foreseeable future. Over the past several millennia, the Taiwanese have maintained a distinct ethnic identity totally separate from the Han ethnicity. Therefore, to call Australian citizens who came from Taiwan 'Chinese Australian' is not merely wrong; it is downright offensive.

3.Fails to make any real distinctions between the concepts of ancestry and ethnicity whatsoever. There is more to ethnicity than simply being descended from a particular ancestor. Naturally, ethnic identities evolve and may even change over time (but not counting genocides). One could even argue that the concept of ancestry is nothing more than a political and social misconstruct since a recent scientific study has proven beyond reasonable doubt that all modern humans were descended from Africans.

The above points, in particular, MUST be taken seriously. Someone who is an expert on the subject matter of this article must edit this article IMMEDIATELY to remove the blatant biases in the article (including population figures).

Information that really belong to Wikipedia articles like 'Hong Kong Australians', 'Taiwanese Australians', etc must also be taken off this article NOW.

If this article is not fixed by 21 March 2008, 00:00 UTC, this article will be **NOMINATED FOR DELETION**.

Note: I would have attempted to correct some of the biases in the article, but owing to the fact that most of the required references are very difficult to obtain (and generally not found on the internet), I have called for an expert to fix the article instead.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.142 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Overseas Chinese. —Umofomia (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] **THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION**

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


[edit] About 'Hoa','Sino-Vietnamese', and the question of identity

The labels 'Hoa' and 'Sino-Vietnamese' are both extremely misleading. In fact, the word 'Hoa' is really just a political label that the Vietnamese government and the populace used to marginalise certain people. In reality, there is no real difference between the 'Hoa' and the 'native' Vietnamese (which are really a mixture of Viet peoples, one being the Kinh people). For the record, the 'Hoa' peoples are considered to be of Vietnamese ethnicity by most Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese; they are NOT considered to be ethnic Chinese at all. This classification, surprisingly for some, is consistent with the definition of ethnicity. In fact, calling 'Hoa' people 'ethnic Chinese' is actually wrong if the concept of ethnicity is to be strictly applied. Apart from this issue, there seems to be many other serious misconceptions over just what 'Chinese Australian' means. For example, do we include Taiwanese Australians in this category or do we exclude them from this article (and include them in a article about Taiwanese Australians)? Or should we include Australians born in China BUT who are not ethnic Chinese (such as ethnic Tibetans)? So what is the bottom line? Firstly, this article needs to define the term 'Chinese Australian' far more rigorously than it does now. Only by doing so can we be sure which peoples this article is referring to. Secondly, the ABS statistics on ancestry are extremely poor sources of information for this article. Because the term ancestry is vaguely defined, there is scope for wild misinterpretation. Indeed, there are some statistics from the ABS dating back to the early 1990s that claimed that over 30 % of Vietnamese Australians are of Chinese ancestry (an outrageous assertion by any measure) Furthermore, the concepts of ethnicity and ancestry are quite different. Thirdly, this article is really about a civic identity rather than an ethnic identity. So this means that on this point alone, this article needs substantial revision. In particular, there is a need for separate articles on 'Hong Kong Australians' and 'Taiwanese Australians' (and move content from this article to the relevant ones as appropriate). 122.105.147.208 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is now being edited in an attempt to remove irrelevant content from the article. Also, for the first time, the article makes it clear that 'Chinese Australian' is a civic identity (as opposed to an ethnic identity). So, material relating to topics like 'Taiwanese Australians' and 'Vietnamese Australians' are now being removed (they can be reinserted in the relevant articles if useful). I will now be checking each name listed in the article for relevance. So, stand by for further edits. 122.105.147.208 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Before editing this page all editors are now reminded once more that they should read this section carefully (and indeed any other applicable sections) and discuss any changes that they wish to make. Recently, once ignorant user reverted some changes claiming that there was no justification, a completely false allegation. 122.109.121.124 (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A user has added an entry for Taiwanese born people in the article. Unfortunately, some people find the idea that Taiwan is somehow a 'Chinese' state (whether politically, culturally or ethnically) extremely offensive. So, could we get rid of that entry please?

Also, the expression 'Chinese herritage' doesn't really mean anything as far as the article is concerned. How would Australian descendants of Chinese immigrants who can't speak any language but English be classified? What about Vietnamese Australians who can speak Cantonese but because of some mishap are completely unable to speak Vietnamese? In short, what is 'cultural herritage'?

To be honest, there is no simple answer to the last question. Therefore, I have reverted the definition to a less ambiguous one. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just inserted a much clearer definition that happens to be similar to the one put forth before it was changed to an ambiguous one. Now that the article contains a clear definition for the term 'Chinese Australian', we need to check every name listed in the notables section to see if they can remain in the article. I say this because, under the new definition, some of the people listed would not be considered 'Chinese Australian'.

And by the way Taiwan is NOT part of China. Many Taiwanese people are just fed up with this nonsense about Taiwan being part of China. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

um...I never said nor implied Taiwan is part of China (although Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China). Chinese Australians have been part of Australia long before the cross strait issues. Why should people from one ancestry come from only one country? Why can you say somebody is not of a particular ancestry if they cannot speak the language? You seem to be the only person making these issues Kransky (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody realised that 'Chinese Australian', just like 'Lebanese Australian', 'Iraqi Australian', 'Malaysian Australian' etc is just a term denoting a particular civic identity, i.e. NOT ethnic identity? If the term is indeed a civic identity term only as stated, then I am afraid to say that I will have to reverse Kransky's changes. But if the term denotes an ethnic identity as well, then may be the introduction should clearly state the distinction between the two identities and revise any other parts of the article as appropriate.
On the matter of Taiwanese Australians, I strongly believe that there should be a separate article for that subject and that qualifiers must be added if it is necessary to label them 'Chinese' in any way. 122.105.151.167 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anybody realised that 'Chinese Australian', just like 'Lebanese Australian', 'Iraqi Australian', 'Malaysian Australian' etc is just a term denoting a particular civic identity? Short answer: No I don't know of any official sources that deconstructs this term. You are overcomplicating what is a straight forward issue and being unnecessarily prescriptive.
Feel free to start a Taiwanese Australian article if you want.Kransky (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This game is getting ridiculous. For the record, I cannot emphasise enough that many Taiwanese Australians associate themselves with the Chinese ethnicity only because many of them are not very culturally minded at all (due to widespread propaganda both in and out of Taiwan). As for the Hoa people and their Australian descendants, they are NOT even considered ethnically Chinese by Mainland Chinese, Hong Kongers and - surprise, surprise - Taiwanese (and their respective governments)! So we ALL need to get a grip and stop putting information that is either out of touch with reality or would be considered offensive. This means getting rid of content about Taiwanese Australians and Vietnamese Australians from the article. I must add that a request has already been made to amend Vietnamese Australian to ensure that the Hoa people in Australia and their Australian descendants are counted as Vietnamese Australians. I will also be arranging for an article on Taiwanese Australians to be created in the near future. 122.109.98.50 (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
With due respect, it is you who needs to get a grip. For a start, provide us with evidence to back up your highly POV statement that many Taiwanese Australians associate themselves with the Chinese ethnicity only because many of them are not very culturally minded at all (and you say this article is offensive?!). Likewise with the Viet-Hoa. Kransky (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention all editors

Please note that the Hoa people are NOT considered ethnic Chinese by immigrants from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan; the 'Hoa' are considered 'Vietnamese'. In light of this, I urge all editors to check that this and all related articles reflect the said classification. 122.109.98.81 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition revisited

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