Jump to content

Talk:Chilean Australians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Demography - multiple estimates

The question has been asked in an edit comment " Are there multiple such estimates?" Yes - the Chilean Embassy also has 43,000 at another page - http://www.embachile-australia.com/en/community/chileans.html . The reference being discussed above in the section Another source to be taken into account - the 245 page pdf has different figures which seem to me to be 10,000 lower in its estimates. As above:

On page 18 there is a table Cuadro Nº 5 CHILENOS: RESIDENTES EN OCEANIA POR PAIS where the Australian figures are País Australia Población nacida en Chile 23.420 Hijos de los nacidos en Chile 10.206 Población Total 33.626 Which I think is saying that of the 33,626 residents in Australia with Chilean ancestry 23,420 were born in Chile and 10,206 are children of those born in Chile (I don't speak Spanish!). Page 22 has similar figures with reference to census 1996 y 2001 but the bornn to parents born in Chile seems to have dropped from 10,206 -> 10,018 giving a total of 33,438. I can't understand enough to understand the difference why though assume it is to do with the source of the data.

I assume the difference is the inclusion of third generation Chilean-Australians.--Matilda talk 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us forget about the Jupp estimate, and its questionable use by Ms Nadine. The Chilean Government estimates of around 33,000 sound to be credible, and I would rate the source to be reasonable. Kransky (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jupp is the second most reliable source we have other than the ABS. I don't think we should forget it. Perhaps we use the ABS self-declared ancestry, the Goverment figure, and the Jupp estimate. The embassy figure should be considered the least reliable. Note, for instance, that the embassy has also estimated 43,000 on another page.PelleSmith (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure how the second and third generation Chilean Australians weren't picked up by the 2006 census. After all, they had to fill out a form just like everyone else. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~The Chilean government PDF file was a study about the number of Chileans living abroad that was conducted in 2003-2004 and was published in 2005. In regards to Australia they base their study by figures gathered from the latest Australian Census of that time and the Chilean National Registry.

The way it works is rather simple, Chilean residents abroad have children, if they choose to and if informed they register their children overseas with the nearest Chilean Embassy or consulate, if they don't than the children aren't accounted for and remain Australian. This works better with first and second generation Chileans. The 33,625 total is based on the census and registry that you are able to view on page 18. The 33,348 total on page 22 is information that is gathered solely from the 1996 and 2001 Australian Census.

Like any kind of research there is also a margin of error, for example in this case not every Chilean living abroad was informed about the study or chose not to register their children. Also thirds generation Chileans may not be accounted for.

I gather that both Jupp and the Embassy of Chile in Australia gather a higher number due to the reasoning that they are including third generation Chileans. Since the PDF file is an official Chilean government study it makes for another primary source that we can use. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A small question.

"However this may be an undercount, since persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries.[5]"

Maybe I'm missing something but how, exactly, does the citation used support that claim? I don't see that it does. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation was misplaced, and should go on the sentence before it. If you look at this citation, which is #6 in that version, that's the relevant one.PelleSmith (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that supports it either. It supports "persons with Chilean ancestries tend nominate other ancestries" but not the undercount comment. Can you point to a specific statement? And how about this one:
"The 2001 Australian Census recorded 23,370 Chile-born persons in Australia.[2]" That citation is to a 2006 document. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the 2001 mention and added the correct 2006 figure instead. How do you feel about this language instead?
  • However the ancestry figure may not accurately represent the Chilean-Australian population, since persons of Chilean descent often chose to identify with other, sometimes older ancestries. The Australian 2001 Census reports that 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.
Does that do it or is there still a problem? Do you think it is important to mention the issue with self-identification?PelleSmith (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon entering this debate (I'm sorry that I did) I thought that self-identification was the nub of the problem, because to go from 23,000 born in Chile to only 25,000 of Chilean descent is impossible over a 30 year period (talking strict demographics). I now undertand that TeePee doesn't like the word "undercount", because he has argued that it's acceptable to claim whatever ancestry you want to claim - so I think your wording above covers that off nicely (by using the term "descent" which one should be able to apply to the children of Chilean-Australians whereas the term "ancestry" is way too broad, open to interpretation and let's be honest, can be a little emotionally charged). I think it's important that we explain why the ABS figure looks so low (the ABS figure presents a misleading picture without the background info that we have provided). I also think that the Jupp reference is important because it's a quality reference, i.e. expert in demographics, even if it's nothing more than an extrapolation from sample data, that's a demographer's bread and butter! The addition of the Embassy reference is ok as well, because it adds additional info and is slightly more current (and while the Embassy does not represent the quality of an expert demographer as a reference, I wouldn't view it as shabby either). All the figures pass reasonableness checks in my view, i.e. an intelligent reader stumbling across this info would see immediately that the numbers gel. On the other hand, this other figure from the Chilean Govt is problematic - it muddies the waters, it seems a bit unclear as to what it is measuring (only those who have registered?). When one understands why the first wave of Chilean migration occurred in the late 70s, you'd understand that many would not wish to ever formally register anything with the Chilean government. I would see zero merit in showing 4 different numbers. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the para in question might look something like this?:
  • According to the 2006 Australian Census, 23,305 Australians were born in Chile[2] while 25,439 claimed Chilean ancestry, either alone or with another ancestry.[1] However the ancestry figure may not accurately represent the Chilean-Australian population, since persons of Chilean descent often chose to identify with other, sometimes older ancestries. The Australian 2001 Census reports that 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.[5] According to demographer James Jupp in 2001, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today, but he noted we do not have accurate figures.[3] One 2006 estimate of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, is as high as 45,000.[6]
One question: we then follow up with a sentence on where the largest Chilean communities are living - are those figures for Sydney and Melbourne just those who are Chilean born, i.e. part of the ABS 23,000 figure? If so, is it worthwhile making that clear? πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your patience with this debate. I think your wording is good. However, I would support the inclusion of the extra figures from the Chilean Government but in a separate paragraph. I can't speak Spanish but can see enough to understand that they are authoritative. I think they need explanation - and we need to make sure we are clear what are the problems. The Chilean government seems to be using ABS data. I don't think we serve the reader well by having varying figures out there in cyberspace which are from a reliable source that don't reconcile with our article. Obviously we have to avoid original research in explaining the differences.--Matilda talk 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to implement the language suggested above. If AussieLegend or someone else still has issue with the phrasing we can start over on those specific points.PelleSmith (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The revised wording, as it stands now, seems much improved. It's far less prone to any misinterpretation. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too early to thank Christ?  :] πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 03:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blessed are the peacemakers - I have no problems with the Chilean Government's inclusion or otherwise. Regarding your question Pippy - yes, the Sydney and Melbourne statistics are for Chilean-born residents only. Kransky (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~The content of the article is much stronger and the various sources are being presented. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in Chilean Government data

As above I would support the inclusion of the extra figures from the Chilean Government but in a separate paragraph. I can't speak Spanish but can see enough to understand that they are authoritative. I think they need explanation - and we need to make sure we are clear what are the problems. The Chilean government seems to be using ABS data. I don't think we serve the reader well by having varying figures out there in cyberspace which are from a reliable source that don't reconcile with our article. Obviously we have to avoid original research in explaining the differences.

We currently have According to demographer James Jupp in 2001, the total number of persons born in Chile and their children born in Australia could approach some 40 000 today, but he noted we do not have accurate figures.[3] One 2006 estimate of Chilean-Australians, including third-generation, is as high as 45,000.[6] If we add the sentence - The Chilean Government has estimated in 2003-04 there were at least 33,626 residents in Australia with Chilean ancestry: 23,420 were born in Chile and 10,206 are children of those born in Chile.[ref - cite using template {{cite web}} the pdf pages 18 and 22 and note that the figure is calculated on the basis of the Australian census figures and the register of children born overseas who have been registered by their parents who are Chilean residents with the nearest Chilean Embassy or consulate]--Matilda talk 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little quick on the trigger - Chris Watson

The removal of Chris Watson as having been born in Chile to a Chilean father was rather abrupt. Even more incredible is the undeniable fact that this article actually provides references. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think Watson should be included, especially since there are clearly various ways to define "Chilean Australian," and since the entry makes it clear at this point that there may even be contemporary people born in Chile, living in Australia, who do not self identify with Chilean ancestry. That said, despite posthumous proof to the contrary, Watson himself claimed another lineage, and there may be some editors who want to include more detail about that. I do not think removing him altogether is the way to go, however.PelleSmith (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian Dictionary of Biography is quite clear that while he was born in Chile (quite possibly in the harbour) his father's ancestry was German, he grew up in New Zealand from a very young age and our own article is very clear he denied any Chilean ancestry. How do you say he is Chilean Australian? The references do not support the assertion of Chilean ancestry despite the fact that his father, who had little to do with him, was a Chilean citizen I find this an incredible long bow. And I am not the only editor who finds the ethnic category inappropriate.[1]
I note also that the National Archives only state "probably born in Valparaiso, Chile" [2] although the Australian Dictionary of Biography is more definitive on the place it is also quite clear his parents were intinerant

... was born on 9 April 1867 at Valparaiso, Chile, son of Johan Christian Tanck and his wife Martha, née Minchin (or Skinner). Tanck was chief officer of the brig Julia which had arrived at Port Chalmers, New Zealand, from Talcahuano, Chile, on 24 December 1865; he married Martha at Port Chalmers on 19 January 1866; they departed in the Julia for Guam on 2 February. On 15 February 1869 at Waipori, New Zealand, Martha Tank [sic] married George Thomas Watson; her son Chris became part of her new family.

Of the other refs cited, note 3 states probably (it is the archives again); note 4 - the trade union archives seem merely to be an abbreviated version of the ADB; similarly note 5 - the National Library and Note 6 the national Museum. Note 7 is a paper presented to th 11th Biennal National Conference of the Australian Historical Association Brisbane 3-7 July 2002 and discusses identity - the paper states

Throughout his life Watson concealed the fact that he was born Johan Cristian Tanck in Valparaiso, Chile, in 1867. His father, a ship’s officer, was a Chilean citizen of German birth; his mother was a New Zealander of Irish descent. In their recent biography of Watson, The Man Time Forgot, Grassby and Ordonez highlight this concealment, although historian’s have known of Watson’s unconventional genealogy since the publication by Bede Nairn of a note on this subject in 1967. (10) Watson’s father appears to have died while Watson was only a few months old; by 1869 his mother Martha had returned with the young John, or Johan, to New Zealand and remarried, to George Thomas Watson, by trade a miner and by ancestry Irish, although his family had settled for a time in Scotland before George emigrated to Australia. John Christian seems to have been readily assimilated into the family created by Martha and George (they had nine other children) in Oamaru, in the Otago province in New Zealand’s south island. (11) Grassby and Ordonez suggest that Watson ‘…held close his secret of Johan Christian Tanck’, particularly during the First World War, when his loyalties may have been questioned. (12) They extrapolate from this concealment to an overstatement of the significance of Watson’s Chilean background and Australia’s links with Chile. Nonetheless there are some aspects of Watson’s birthright that are worth considering, even if they involve a degree of speculation. Firstly, Watson’s parentage posed an obstacle to his political career. As Jupp observed in a recent article, Watson might well have been successfully challenged as a member of the House of Representatives under s.44 of the Australian Constitution, on the grounds of his ‘dubious’ nationality – non-British subjects were ineligible to stand as candidates for the Australian Parliament. (13) This begs two questions: did Watson know the truth of his parentage, and did he actively seek to obscure public knowledge of it? I suspect that Watson knew of his real father, and his real name; but what’s interesting about this story is the investment that Watson and his contemporaries make in Watson’s legendary identity, an investment made in Watson’s face value.

The paper is quite clear that the author believes Grassby and Ordonez ... extrapolate from this concealment to an overstatement of the significance of Watson’s Chilean background and Australia’s links with Chile. Al Grassby of course had a multicultural agenda to push. On the basis of the sources cited I believe it is wrong to describe Watson as a Chilean Australian. In fact the most comprehensive source on Watson's identity quoted as an inline reference rejects the assertion and I think would outweigh any other source. --Matilda talk 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the sources you cite confirm historically another dimension that is also exemplified by the disagreement here, that there is controversy surrounding Watson's ancestry. Unfortunately I don't agree with your assessment about what the sources say. Yes the paper you quote is clear in believing that two other authors overstate the ancestry, but then it goes on to say that there "are some aspects of Watson's birthright that are worth considering." This is followed by an explanation of why he most likely concealed his ancestry. I think there is a very adequate middle ground that is possible here. To simply and uncritically refer to him as a "Chilean Australian" is not helpful, but to mention him, and to explain the controversy is both helpful and interesting. Is it possible to do it that way? I believe that would also be a compromise between Matilda's and de la Vida's positions. How about it?PelleSmith (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of ethnic identity is one that has come up in several articles - most recently in a debate about what is an African Australian - is Marcia Hines or her daughter an African Australian? Billy Blue? I think not and I am not the only editor [3]. It is a debate that is rather difficult and needs a big picture discussion but Watson is part of that discussion perhaps. --Matilda talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~Matilda, the other editor stated that it was unreferenced which is why he took away the claim. If you follow his contribution historial he applied the same method with Nick Carle who is Australian but of immediate Chilean descent when that wasn't sourced. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK - then I am of a different view - I do not dispute his place of birth, I do dispute that birth place gives an ethnic identity when you spend no time there and your ancestry is not of that place (in this case German and British) --Matilda talk 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many references

Selcciones de la Vida, I would suggest that you please stop adding references for the exact same fact that is not disputed by anyone. One reference is enough, since there is no dispute over the fact that Watson was born in Chile, when he was born, or to whom he was born. These many references just clutter the entry, and the quantity doesn't add anything positive. Also we wikilink to him main entry where this is all presented clearly as well. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~If it is undisputed than one reference is definitely enough. His national origin was removed before, thus why extra references were included as to further validate the claim. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One ref is enough - I bleive the ADB woud do.Plus if issues of identity are discussed then the Hearn paper discussed above is very useful for discussing the issues beyond the bare facts and dealing with various sources.--Matilda talk 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be the best source for an additional sentence perhaps addressing this. I do note that the mention of Watson is oddly placed at the moment.PelleSmith (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dubious ref Nationbynation.com

Nationbynation.com would not appear to meet the guideline on Wikipedia:Reliable sources - no authority for assertions - seems to be plastered with advertisements. --Matilda talk 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reference in, but I agree it appears to be dodgy (I would not consider the presence of advertising to be an issue). The most reliable references I see state "95% of Chileans are either of European or Amerindian background", which is not the same as saying 95% of Chileans are mixed. Some statistics on Demography of Chile could be used - but really, is this relevant to Chilean Australians?Kransky (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~Agree that a better reference can be used. A source from the Chile article will be added. Kransky, I concur with you that there is still a question of relevancy when discussing the racial makeup of Chileans living in Chile as compared to Chileans living in Australia. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

call me peverse or masochistic...

...but I miss TeePee Kransky (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chilean Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chilean Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chilean_Australians&oldid=1200848300"