Talk:Chilean Australians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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: [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, but Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3