Talk:Violence against Indians in Australia controversy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article rename

I think this article should be renamed to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia" and the focus should be tightened. At the moment the article is too open ended, and is prone to creating unsourced conclusions via synthesis. - Borofkin (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that name is descriptive enough to cover the whole episode, especially since the media reaction in India was such a huge part of it, and more noteworthy than the protests in my opinion. I don't really have any good suggestions for a term that encompasses everything. Leaving the current title is probably the simplest option - the phrase "attacks on Indian students" seem to be the accepted term by the media in Australia, even if it is unfair and plainly not neutral. Fswan4 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the 'too open ended' point though - I think the article should be just focussed on the period during mid-2009 when this all became an issue, with the protests and media frenzy that occurred within those couple of months or so, before the storm entered a lull for the rest of that year. That period was an important turning point in our relations with India as well as the education industry etc, and it deserves its own article. If editors keep on reworking the lead paragraphs to accommodate the present day's news as part of the 2009 'attacks', and start adding non-students and non-Indians into the mix as someone did recently, then there will no longer be an article specifically about the controversy that started it all. Fswan4 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "Violence against Indians in Australia controversy" -- that way we can cover the entire period 2008-present, and we can avoid disputed terms like "racism" or "attacks". - Borofkin (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The controversy is about the attacks on Indian student in Australia. One could legitimately debate the extent of racist motive in such attacks or the extent of Indian hype or Australian denialism. Still, the proposed new title would covertly endoring the view that it is about indian hype and not australian denialism. Vapour (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed title would also eliminate "students", which is problematic becasue some Indian victims of attacks were not students. I don't see why non-students should be excluded from the article. - Borofkin (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
On the students front, I suspect the problem may not be one of excluding students, so much as one of including non-students. The furor was in regard to attacks on students in Australia, and has generally be focused on that. Keeping "students" in the title might be wise, as it would prevent the article from wandering too far afield and including attacks on all Indians. - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Because the media and the students focused on the attack on students. "We report, you decide." Vapour (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "covertly endorsing the view....". The use of the word "controversy" accurately presents the disputed nature of the violence. Some people think it's racist, and some people don't. - Borofkin (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Given that one side accuse the other of hyping up and the other side do like wise with accusation of denialism, the proposed title is akin to "Australian treatment of 2009 Indian attack victim", which would be equally unfair and biased. The sensitivity of Indian about racism from white (due to its past as a colony) and sensitivity of Australian of accusation of racism (due to its history of White Australia) are played out in media and in this article. Vapour (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely everyone agrees that the core issue is violence? If most Australians hated Indians, but never acted on that hatred, then there would be nothing to write about. It is the violence that makes this article notable. Focussing on the violence doesn't reject the racism thesis because many people believe the violence was racially motivated, and the article should reflect this. - Borofkin (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not real happy with the new title - "Violence against Indians in Australia controversy" makes it a tad too broad: is it now all Indians, when previously the focus was Indian students, over any period of time? It seems that this should be more narrowly defined to just the 2009 (and arguably 2010) issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It is narrowly defined -- the article focusses on the controversy, which is restricted to 2009-2010. There is no reason to restrict the article to students, or to a particular year, but there is a reason to restrict it to just the notable controversy. - Borofkin (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. It just seems to me that the article was restricted to students, as that was where the controversy was, and that long term the lack of a date will allow this to grow beyond what was viewed as the initial bounds. If the title is used to define the content, not the intent, then we risk including any attack on Indians in Australia, as pretty much anything can be attached to the generic "controversy", and we risk having an inherently one-sided account. But I guess we'll see where things go. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why cant this page be edited.

I have tried my best to work out if indian students are being persecuted or not. Here is my work below - would anyone be able to post it for me??

Expected Homicide Rate of Indian Students An expected homicide rate for the Indian student population would be a maximum of 6.6 Males 20-30 if no persecution of Indian students was occurring.

General population Australia 1.2 murders per 100000(2008) - estimated 2009 1.3 per 100,000.www.abs.gov.au 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Males 15-30 make up 25% of murder victims in Australia and 8% of the population (2008) - estimated murder rate 4.4 per 100,000 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/3235.0~2008~Main+Features~Main+Features?OpenDocument#PARALINK6

Expected murder rate of Male Indian students aged 20-30 would be = 4.4 * .75 = 3.3 killed per year (assuming males 20-30 make up 75% of the student population or 75,000)

the above figures allow for no influencing factors. Cities / Poor neighborhoods / Working and traveling late at night would be influencing factors. Assume this doubles the risk of murder then at a maximum you would still only expect 6.6 Male 20-30 year old Indian students to be murdered per year.

There where xx? Male Indian students 20-30 murdered in Australia in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ger876452334 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article is semi-protected. This means that new users, such as yourself, are unable to edit the article until your account has been established: it is referred to as being auto-confirmed, and will happen with your account after a certain number of edits and a few days have passed. However, while your work above is interesting, we won't be able to use it, as Wikipedia has fairly strict rules against the use of original research. If you can find a reliable source that makes the same conclusions we may be able to add it, though. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Caste

Why has caste and caste related violence in India been added as related articles to this article. They are totally irrelevant to what is going on in Australia. Is this an attempt to smear Indians? 92.29.34.78 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious why caste related violence has been added as a relation to this article. It is totally irrelevant to what is going on in Australia and yes it is an attempt to smear Indians. You have it there 92.29.34.78. You've hit the nail right in the middle of it's head. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
Another thing 92.29.34.78, bringing up problems that occur in India is a well known ploy used to deflect and cloud th truth as to what is going on in Australia. People will hope that by bringing this up that others will follow suit and say "well hang on, doesn't the same thing happen in India?" "So why talk about what's hapening in Australia when Indians are hurting each other?" The main reason for people saying this is that nobody wants to admit that their backyard is dirty. The other reason is that rednecks want to deftect the truth or somehow suggest that Indians are partly to blame. (Marinesuper (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
An interesting viewpoint. Given that last year at least 1/3 of the murders of Indians in Australia were by Indians, and this year it is 2/3 is it possible that Indians just like killing Indians? Does the high murder rate in India (also mostly by Indians, not Australians, I'd guess), not have anything to do with this? Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

how silly gregcock. Your abuse of basic stats is akin to soviet propaganda. grow up.

89.242.144.141 (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole topic is silly, I see no reason not to treat it appropriately. Of course anonymous wiki editors can be very brave about their opinions. If you had any integrity you'd use your real name when criticising me. Greglocock (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC

oh dear i actually thought gregcock was made up. didn't realise you were named that. commiserations 

92.24.60.204 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, since I have been called that since birth I am fairly inured to playground insults. However, for ease of reference I think I will christen (or should that be Hindu) you GutlessIndianWhiner. OK? Greglocock (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shiv Sena

About their calls for an Australian cricket ban. I expected better of the ABC than to say that Shiv Sena were responsible for not allowing Pakistani cricketers into India, which is nonsense. Also rather silly that CA officials haven't heard of these people when they once dug up a cricket pitch [1] YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ranjodh Singh

Should it be clarified that the suspects are two Indian nationals?Ticklemygrits (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference re above: [2] - Format (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not too sure this ref belongs in the article. The willingness of Indians to murder Indians is well known (32000+ per year), this article is about Indians whining about everybody else. Presumably an Indian in Australia is safer from his countrymen (or especially her countrymen, given the relative statistics for dowry murders 8000 vs 0), so this article is all about perception, not fact. Greglocock (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the controversy surrounding violence against Indians in Australia. The Ranjodh Singh attack is part of the controversy, regardless of who did it. - Borofkin (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please explain specifically why it is relevant? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want the relevance explained to me so I can comment. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
An example of the Indian media and pollies immediately claiming that it was a race murder, probably by a white, then it turned out to be a financial dispute among some Indian farm workers who were probably not registered YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus deemed it OK to mention Ranjodh Singh in the article when no one had been arrested for the murder and there were no reports of who might have done it. Are we meant to delete all references to Ranjodh Singh now that it has been reported that Indian nationals have been arrested for the crime? Format (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it isn't very hard to turn up examples of the indian newspapers reporting on this eg http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Indians-held-for-murder--MEA-says-be-careful-of-Oz/573272 while of course still wittering on about racism. So I suppose it is relevant, given, as I said before that this article is about perceptions. Perhaps we should retitle the article "Why are Indian papers so whiny, and Australian ones so spineless?", as that is really what it is about. Greglocock (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Deindent. Um, So 1/3 of the murders of Indians, in Australia last year, were committed by Indians? Doesn't that make them a tad overrepresented in the murderer statistics? If the Indian murderers hog all the murders what are the the racist Ozzies going to do? Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


The Outlook article

It seems to me that the Outlook article is unusable as a source. The following observation by the SMH has repeatedly been removed by an editor for no very good reason

"The article does not mention that three Indian nationals have been charged with murder in one of the recent cases[1]"

If you actually go and read the article it ledes with " But there’s unanimity on one count: “curry-bashing” is fast becoming the young Australian’s favourite pastime. " Um. really. I don't know many young Australians, buut I doubt 1 in 50 is even aware of the term.

Greglocock (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That was removed by me. :) First, I haven't read the Outlook article. What I've read is a source discussing the article. So I'm uncomfortable making solid statements about what is (or is not) in it - from an academic perspective, referencing something via another source is a huge risk. Second, I'm really uncomfortable with listing what an article doesn't cover: there's a lot that any given article doesn't cover, and there may be good reasons why it doesn't. In this case, it is very likely that the article was written before they were arrested, but there may be other reasons as well. I suppose we could point out that the SMH/Brisbane Times highlighted that the Outlook article didn't mention the arrest, but I don't see much value in doing so, and that says more about the Australian press that Outlook. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there's anything wrong with stating that one article has discussed another by stating what the second article says about the first, and providing a reference to the second article. News articles quote people all the time, and we reproduce those quotes WP all the time - as long as it is verifiable. Format (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That's true. In this case, though, I'm not sure we gain anything by saying that the SMH said that the Outlook article didn't mention the arrest of the Indian nationals - it seems like such a peripheral issue that I just can't see any value in it. And even the SMH only offers it as an aside. - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Its ridiculous to describe the outlook article by using a source which is highly critical of it. If you do, you should really discuss the interpretation of the outlook article by another source, which then makes the whole text a farce. Source the article directly or have the text be an australian interpretation of an indian article! 92.24.23.91 (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the SMH article really 'highly critical' of the Outlook rant? I don't think so. It points out that the Outlook article is willing to ignore the FACT that a large proportion of Indian violence in Australia is perpetrated by Indians. It is polite enough to ignore the FACT that 32000 Indians are killed by Indians every year, and another 8000 Indian wives are killed for primarily financial reasons, by their loving families and countrymen. I repeat my earlier point, why are we treating Outlook as an RS when it contains distortions (such as the curry bashing quote (hey great idea why not read the magazine?) and is at best misleading as identified by the SMH? Surely if a source includes obvious distortions some of which are noted by an RS then that is a valid critique of the source, and should be used to qualify any commentary derived from that source? Greglocock (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Greglocock if you want to discuss crime in India create an article on it or add it to another article. Facts about 32000 Indians killing each other have nothing to do with what is going on in Australia. Furthermore your statement on Indian violence makes no sense. Indian Violence can mean violence perpetrated by Indians or violence over the subject Indian in each instance most if not all of the violence would be committed by Indians . You comments are better suited to the Indophobia article. Its ridiculous that attacks on Indians are supposed to be balanced by negative views of Indians. On that account an attack on an Australian abroad should be balanced with everything that's wrong with Australia 89.242.211.168 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The point I was making is that a magazine article that conspicuously fails to mention the violence of Indian culture when discussing violence against Indians is not inherently a very good source. However as you'll notice I have changed my mind, as indictaed below, and think this piece of rabble rousing is actually a good example of Indian media hysteria and hypicrisy. Why would I write an article about India? I don't have any interest in the place. My reaction is not Indiophobia, it is India-don't-give-a-monkeys. Greglocock (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If we include one external publication, quote from it, etc, it is absolutely, positively, normal (and good) practice, to also include reference to another acticle that points out deficiencies in the first. State what that criticism is, and include reference to the article. This is a normal thing that would be easily visible in dozens of WP articles. As the word controversy in the article title implies, a crucial aspect of what this article is about, is press reactions and reporting, claims that the press are being inflammatory, blowing things out of proportion, claims Australia is in "denial", etc. So in this sort of article, comments about the deficiencies of another press report are absolutely appropriate and relevant. For a balanced NPOV article, it becomes crucial that comments like the SMH one are included. Just because an editor hasn't read the Outlook article (even though it is readily accessible on the web) that is no reason to delete fully referenced and verifiable evaluations of that article. Format (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Format,I think there's a bit of confusion about what I'm saying, which suggests I've been saying it badly. First, generally there's nothing wrong with mentioning what an article says about another article. The only issue is that we need to word it carefully. If I haven't read article A, but I have read article B which discusses it, then I can't say "Article A says ..." - I can only say "According to article B, article A says ..." That doesn't mean we can't make the claim - just that we need to be clear where the claim comes from. The original wording added by Greglocock didn't make this distinction.
But the real issue is much simpler. The SMH article, mentions as an aside, that the Outlook article fails to cover how three Indian nationals were arrested. That's interesting, but its just an aside, one sentence in a long article, so it would need to be an important aside to be worth covering. In this case it isn't. - Bilby (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is because it demonstrates that an RS recognises that the Outlook article has an agenda, and if you actually bother to read the outlook articles, are typical hysterical Indian media rants. As a compromise i suggest rewording my original sentence and putting it back in. Greglocock (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no - the articles have some balance in them. They're definitely presented from the Indian perspective, arguably with a clear agenda, but "hysterical Indian rant" is a tad much. And the main issue still stands: it is a minor, unnecessary point, that barely relates to the Outlook coverage, and says more of the Australian media's desire to find fault in the Outlook article. Indeed, while Outlook failed to mention that three Indian nationals have been arrested, it equally made no mention of the entire Ranjodh Singh case, so one can hardly fault them for not adding that detail. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
That article is not much better than the Pakistani papers who say any old thing is a false flag terriorst attack by Mossad or RAW. Still, the quoting of Jim Salaem is pretty amusing, I doubt he would have got 0.05% of the vote in Australia, and One Nation is irrelevant too, < 1%. As for Ranjodh Singh, now that it is thought that other Indians killed him, obviously it isn't consistent with their objective to include crimes by Indians YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deindent - ok I've rebooted as well. The Outlook article is not an RS about the attacks, it is however a good example of the media hysteria. Therefore it should be included in this article. A discussion of the Outlook article by an RS is, to my mind, the raison d'etre of this wiki article. It is ALL about perception. The reality is that Indians are being murdered at the usual rate in Australia (~6 per year for the past 5 years), and that they are much safer here than in India, and that a reasonable proportion of these murders are performed by Indian nationals. But that is not what this article is about. It is about the controversy, not the crimes. Greglocock (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any facts to back up your claims? Guess it makes it o.k to attack Indians if its usual.
89.242.211.168 (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Since 2004 the article says 33 Indians have been murdered (I'm using murders here as a proxy for all violent crimes because they all get reported). That means on average 6 Indians are murdered each year in Australia. Last year I think 6 Indians were murdered in Australia. Therefore the rate is not increasing, at least from that admittedly statistically unreliable snapshot. The relative safety of Indians in Australia vs in India is best illustrated by the the rate of Dowry murders, 0 vs 8000. Do you have any reliable statistics that says otherwise? Greglocock (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Annual murder rate per million: Indians in India =34, All Australians in Oz=11, Indians in Oz=25. The official explanation for the higher rate for Indians in oz compared with all Australians is that they are much more likely to be young and male, and about half of all violent crime involves young males. Unofficially I would point out that if you eliminate Indian murders by Indians in Oz then suddenly the difference gets much smaller. So it is pretty damn simple, Indians murder each other wherever they are. Please do something about it if you care. Greglocock (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


another possible explantion

has any one looked into the possiblity that islamic extreemists espesaly pakistanis might be involved in some of these attacks espesaly the killings. this vary article states that suvivors of these attacks have reported that some of the attackers were middle eastern or asians. pakistanis might be placed in both catagories by difrent people. this expanation needs to be investagated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.111.178 (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an investigative service, and this talk page exists solely to facilitate improvements to and discussion of the article itself, not for us to theorise about the actual incidents and what may or may not have transpired. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


What about African attacks on Indians?

The article used for citation 65 clearly states that many of the victims attackers were African, so why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article. Clearly there has been more African attackers than Asians but yet you indicate Asians as one among the groups perpetrating violence against Indians when in fact there are more African attackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.50.234 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do you want it say as it currently says "Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt criticised the automatic labelling of Australia as a racist country as unfair, noting comments from foreign victims of crime that their attackers were foreigners themselves" Pahari Sahib 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no mention of Africans in the Background section of the article "Violence against Indians in Australia controversy" as being one of the groups perpetrating the attacks. According to Andrew Bolt there's more attackers of African background than Asian but why isn't it written in the Background section listing all the groups perpetrating attacks against Indians? It makes no sense to mention Asians when you're going to leave out Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the article in question is an opinion piece by Andrew Bolt. While I rather enjoy some of Bolt's writings he has his own biases, and for a claim as strong as the one being described - that more people of African descent are attacking Indians in Australian than Asians - I'd really like to see something more authoritative that an opinion column, especially given that this isn't what Bolt is claiming. (He simply says that many of the attacks are by Africans, not most). The current treatment, presenting Bolt's opinion as such, seems the best approach, although it may be worth making clearer that a variety of different ethnic backgrounds appear to have been involved. - Bilby (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So why use it as a citation then if you think it's biased? By the same token Paul Sheenan can be just as biased because he doesn't verify who the Asian attackers he was referring to were. At least Andrew Bolt was more descriptive in quoting the victims making references to their African assailants. And it's written very clearly in Bolt's article that attacks were done less often by Asians than Africans. Now it seems you don't even want to mention Africans as among the perpetrators of attacks against Indians. This article is semi-protected and that's why I'm writing this. If you're gonna mention Whites, Asians, Middle Easterners, Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders as perpetrators then why not Africans? If you refuse to mention them as a group then the only reason I can come up with is that there is some bias going on here. It's not like what I'm suggesting is some kind of fabrication or false smearing. Balisong5 —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

The reference is currently being used to support a claim about Bolt's opinion, for which it is going to be very reliable. Bolt is a significant columnist, so his opinion is worth mentioning. However, this is a different thing from using his column to support a different, factual, claim, as suggested. Nevertheless, I'd see it as acceptable to support the lesser claim that people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds have been described as involved in perpetrating the attacks, including those of African and Asian descent. - Bilby (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've done some searching on google for "racism in Australia Asian attacks on Indians" to see if I could come up with any specific sources that would support Paul Sheenan's claim but so far I've found nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balisong5 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I can check NewsBank if there is something particular that you need. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this controversial? If it is not controversial then it should not be on this article. I'm not saying whether it is or isn't controversial.Greglocock (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Any further verification to the claims made in the article will help.--Balisong5 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of verified sources linking the attacks against Indians or Pakistanis to Whites, Middle Easterners and even Aboriginals and Africans but I have yet to find any that document Asians as being among the perpetrators of the Indian attacks. Only Paul Sheehan's article makes mention of this and he doesn't even bother to verify the source of this claim. --Balisong5 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is identifying the race of the individuals doing violence helpful to the artcile ? There are no or limited statistics so should we remove all mention of race and say "polygot of the streets" as quoted in one article OR i it part of denialism ? Wakelamp (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is fine the way it is now.--72.67.50.234 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Archive

I am seeking consensus that the following sections should be archived

  • This article should be deleted - Reason - discussion has taken place and it was agreed to keep
  • Rename to: 2009 attacks on Indians in Australia - Reason rename has taken place
  • General discussion of racism in Australia - Reason - no action for > 6 months
  • Edit Needed - Reason - Issue fixed
  • another possible explantion - Reason - original research requested on Islamic links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Harmony March

Does anyone know whether the Harmony March took place on July 12th 2009 ? http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/australia-to-hold-harmony-march-in-solidarity-with-indian-students_100213197.html Wakelamp (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the Harmony Day March http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/803/41331 Wakelamp (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxi driver irrelevant

The 2008 stuff was purely a workplace safety complaint about an unpleasant job. It wasn't until Gautam Gupta in 2009 that there was any controversy YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Gautam Gupta was actually involved in the 2008 stuff as well http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/foreign-students-feel-high-price-to-study/story-e6frf7kx-1111116297934, BUT I think to say no controversy without him is incorrect. Wakelamp (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Pretty pro-GG I would say given all teh noise about Ranjodh and Jaspreet that has now been blanked YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not Pro-GG, I am actually not pro anyone :-). The reference to Ranjodh and Jaspreet is still there, but I have removed all mentions of names as per the request in the incident talk section that it was a WP:BLP violation " On 28 January 2010 two Indian nationals were arrested for the murder of an Indian national killed on December 29 2010[60] [61] [62].)" Wakelamp (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And the day after Gurshan Singh died, Tim Singh Laurence very obviously implied racism in one radio interview before they worked out it was the Indian housemate YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but the interesting thing about the Gurshan Singh incident and the Ranjodh and Jaspreet incident was that the situation began to become less clear cut for the Indian and Australian media, the reaction changed Wakelamp (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV section

Merbaba please identify what is NPOV about that section in accordance with the tag. Otherwise I will delete the tag. This article is about the controversy(ies). Greglocock (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The section is not NPOV - that's the problem. Start with the headings. In what way is "Hysterical Media Controvery" a npov-worded heading? In what way is it encyclopedic? As for me, I'm pressed for time - hence the tags for now. However, I'm happy to come back at a later stage and remove any npov content that remains. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Have changed heading from "Hysterical Media Controvery" to Media Coverage controversy, BUT to be clear the word hysteria and outrage have been used very commonly in the reporting in both Indian and AustraliaWakelamp (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
PS - while not a neutrality issue, the heading format is also up the spout. Headings should be lower case except for the first word. Clearly added by someone who has not yet had the time to be fully versed in wikipedia convention.--Merbabu (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have removed capitals Wakelamp (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice. --Merbabu (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Subheadings like "Indians to blame for incidents controversy" don't even make sense in English - could they be reworded to what they are actually intended to mean? Orderinchaos 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:I was trying to work out what the neutral POV is on this article becuase as it is a controversy there are multiple competing voices in all the sources,
  • An Australian view e.g The Age :
    • Some Australians are racist and maybe denialist.
    • Violence against Indians is higher than for the general Australian population.
    • SOME Indian Press reporting in India is seen as hysterical or ratings chasing
    • the Australian government should do something especially about knife related violence and poor educational practices.
    • Recently Some violence against Indians has been done by Indians
    • Gupta and FISA are quoted often
    • Australian press is ????
    • drop in student numbers due to violence and tightening of immigration requirements
  • An international view - Time magazine
    • Some Australians are racist.
    • Violence against Indians is high, but not necessarily due to white Australian.
    • Indians are doing low paid work and may be be resented
    • the Australian government should do something especially about violence, poor quality education and student welfare .
    • Middle Australia has been deeply offended
    • FISA quoted
    • http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1921482,00.html
  • Another Australian View e.g Herald Sun including Bolt
    • Australians are not genenerally racist,
    • Violence against Indians is a/ the same as for other groups in dangerous jobs such as taxi driving b/OR

mainly done by non Anglo Australians c/ OR by other Indians

  • An Indian Minority View e.g TIME NOW.
    • Many Australians are racist and are in denial,
    • Violence against Indians is high
    • The Australian government is ignoring student complaints about violence and poor conditions
    • Australian Press reporting is seen as biased.
    • Gupta and FISA are mentioned
    • http://www.timesnow.tv/videosearchresult.cms search for Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakelamp (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Need for a section outlining the other Indian issues

Do we need a section on what the Indian concerns are apart from racism and violence .

  • permanent residency

http://www.indianlink.com.au/templates/?a=1297&z=12

  • need for hate crime legislation
  • need for a student liason at the Indian High commission
  • poor quality and unscrupulous educational institutions

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5je2cVs2Hzr8SpqkhEwwhvNFauXRw

  • vocational education not leading to work
  • economic pressure due to no part time work available
  • statistics of violence incorrect
  • racism causing lower employment of students

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/why-indians-are-terrified-after-death-of-nitin-garg/story-e6frfhqf-1225816381992 http://www.southasiatimes.com.au/news/gautam-gupta-fighter-for-social-justice-or-an-unfettered-radical/ Wakelamp (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but could you then rename the article "Indians whining about Australia"? Thx Greglocock (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Gregolock, I assume amusing but no need to change article name. Without the protests the violence would have been ignored, but the media seems to indicate that the protests were triggered becuase the young Indian population felt ignored.Wakelamp (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if you correctly understand the rules that apply here at Wikipedia. This isn't like writing a term paper - we specifically discourage original research or synthesis. Much of what you have been adding has been taking a bit from here, a bit from there and trying to make it tell a story that the preponderance of reliable sources do not. Also, none of the above relate to "violence against Indians in Australia" in any reliable source I can find, although of course some may, to some greater or lesser extent, be factors that play into it. Orderinchaos 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi - I did not add this information, becuase I was uncertain. Thank-you for the input The Indian protestors have mentioned all the above in various articles as other cuases of complaint. This article is interesting

http://www.southasiatimes.com.au/news/gautam-gupta-fighter-for-social-justice-or-an-unfettered-radical/ In terms of reliable and non reliable sources, I have had concerns abour people criticising non Australian papers eg Times of India ( see discussion section Rubbish). In terms of WP:Syn Could you tell me how to improve the Chronology section. I took the existing reactions , added Ku Klux Klan and the Taxi protests, time lined them and then converted to prose. What should I have done ? Wakelamp (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues causing controversy: this whole section appears to be people's opinions. yet, it's written like an essay or position paper)

Merababu put this comment in his edit summary. Suggest we discuss it here, rather then on the fly via edit summary. Merababu has reverted to Reactions, but as this is about a controversy, it would seem important to split the various controversies apart. The various opinions are what people have added to the page. What do wikipedians think we should doWakelamp (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are counting me as a wikipedian, so I will comment here: I say restore to about this version. And then, do a major pruning of some of the less note-worthy opinions. The recent restructure is appalling. --Merbabu (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
My comments are not personal and I count ALL as fellow wikipedians! I would be against reversion as the previous reaction section was a selective listing so it had the same issue as has been pointed out with the incident section. Do you dislke the chronology section as well as most of that came from the reactions sorted by date. I had a list of dates on one edit, but removed that becuase of the criticism we should be more prose Wakelamp (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
When I say restore to that version - i actually really mean, just reinstate the previous "reactions" section as it was - at least it's structure - (including without all the dodgy headings) and have a good trim. I'd have a go but I'm working on other stuff at the moment. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying the chronology section should be removed ?
As a Wikipedian, a long-standing member of WikiProject Australia and an admin, I fully endorse Merbabu's actions in this matter. Orderinchaos 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No one is attacking Merbabu - I just want the issues sorted out on the discussion page rather then through edit summary comments - see the original comment above. Can you suggest what should be done to improve rather than just supporting Merbabu. (Merbabu has advised in discussion twice that he has no time and reverts are unsatisfying). Do you want the Chronology section removed as well? Could you please also discuss the other outstanding sections in the discussion as your advice would be welcomeWakelamp (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As suggested, a good start might be to trim out some of the less notable opinions. Indeed, I'd be wary of any opinions - they're a dime a dozen so to speak. --Merbabu (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability - FISA - Federation of Indian Students and Gautam Gupta ==

I created a stub, for FISA, Orderinchaos has faleed it as non - notable. There is also no page for Gautam Gupta . Where to next Wakelamp (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Meaningless Paragraph

This para is currently the 4th para in the Racism heading HERE,

"Bruce Haigh who served in Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1972 and was in contact with members of the black South African resistance, including the Black Consciousness Movement in 1976, Australia is racist and that it is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practiced with some guilt and in polite company circumspection. He cited many cases which speak of itself about how much racism prevails in Australia "

Suggested Alterations (BOLD=addition, line through=deletions

"Bruce Haigh, who served in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1972 and was in contact with members of the black South African resistance, including the Black Consciousness Movement in 1976, said "Australia is racist" and that racism it is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practiced with some guilt and quietly. in polite company circumspection. He cited many cases which speak of itself about how much racism prevails in Australia ."

Suggested Final text

"Bruce Haigh, who served in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 1972 said "Australia is racist" and that racism is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practiced with some guilt and quietly. He cited many cases about how much racism prevails in Australia."

Comments: In its current from this paragraph is pretty meaningless. It has been in the article since July 1, 2009!, DIFF though User:Merbabu did delete it once. I don't see what contacts in the 1970s with "South African resistance", or "Black Consciousness Movement" have to do with this article.
Original source HERE. NO mention of Foreign Affairs or South Africa!. Even the 'title' of the current reference, "Unleashed: Racism in Australia" is incorrect and deceptive. Simply "Racism in Australia" is correct!(as per reference), though apparently titling not done in the original edit.

Please fix! or re-delete!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

<talking to self> Well that was an exercise in futility! I come back to this article after 7 MONTHS+(!), actually make the proposed changes, and less than 2 days later the entire para is deleted! <shrug> - 220.101 talk\Contribs 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I looked at it, and it seemed to be OT. The subsection appears to me to be about Racism as a motive for the much publicised crimes against Indians over the period in question - not a dumpster for general POV rants on racism in Australia. I didn't check the history of the paragraph. Should I have? 19:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC) -- User:Netvegetable
Nah. As I said myself "fix! or re-delete!". I wrote my 'Meaningless Paragraph' when this article was protected, and nobody did anything! I may not have known about {{ediprotected}} then to get more notice. Just grumbling! - 220.101 talk\Contribs 01:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nitin Garg and Ranjodh Singh

The Aftermath section mentions "the deaths of Nitin Garg and Ranjodh Singh" but they are not mentioned in the main timeline. It should either be properly covered or the mention deleted. Given that both crimes recieved a lot of media attention at the time, I would suggest they be considered part of the events and properly covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.100.232 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) There was concern that the use of names of victims was a WP:BLP violation so I took them out. I think maybe the compromise woudl be to put back deaths and those violent incidents that were associated with the protests on the grounds of widespread knowledge of their names. Wakelamp (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As both are now dead, there's not much possibility of a biography of living persons violation here. (See WP:BDP.) Their names were, and and, widely publicized. Jpatokal (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

big overstatement

1400 attacks really? Who edited that is a sham, it was more like 12 with most being done by indians--Gargabook (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoever added this content got it right - check this source [3]. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
it would be good to have figures to compare this to other groups and to Australian society in general. Also - interesting that it says about half were in the workplace. Not sure exactly what that means . --Merbabu (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the source is more ambiguous. According to the source:
"The latest police statistics for the 2007-08 show 1447 Indians were the victims of crime including robberies and assaults -- about 50 per cent of which occur in the workplace."[4]
That doesn't necessarily relate to attacks, as attacks would only constitute an unknown portion of those numbers. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've rephrased it to "attacks and robberies" to reflect what the source says. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Only now we have a different problem with weight, I'm afraid. Saying "In the year 2007-2008, 1,447 Indians were victims of crime including assaults and robberies in the state of Victoria in Australia" causes a couple of issues. Most notably, this is an article about violence towards Indians in Australia, not about crime statistics in Victoria generally. It doesn't really matter for purposes of the article how many were victims of crime - the relevant question is how many were attacked, and that figure doesn't help us on this topic, while giving a potentially misleading impression of the scale of the problem. It's also specific to Victoria, when the article is about a national issue. Given that it is better covered in the body, it might be better just to leave these stats out of the lead altogether and include them in the body where some context can be added. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Bilby highlights some pertinent problems with the source and the way it is currently used in the article. it is indeed, misleading and provides undue weight. And, it's a poor article opener. this edit does not resolve these problems. It seems this discussion is based on changes Zuggernaut made on Sept 12th and are only now under scrutiny.
As a bare minimum, the sentence should be removed from the lead. As such, I’ve returned the relevant sections of the article to their pre Sept 12th state. Further changes to these aspects of the article should be discussed here *and* agreement reached before further changes made. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone actually done any WP:OR to get the number in context? That 1,447 Indians were victims of crime equates to only 1.48% of Indians being victims, compared to 22.5% of Victorians as whole who were victims of crime according to Victorian police crime statistics. If you count only robberies and assaults then we have 1.79% of Victorians as victims of crime. If this is the case then for the year 2007-2008, we have Indians having less risk of violence than the general population. If the commissioner is actually talking about 1,1447 Indian students (which he hasn't said) rather than the total Indian population of Victoria (including the students) then the percentage is 3.2% but even this is out of context as almost all would live in the city which has a substantially higher crime rate, not to mention that many of the students would live in higher risk suburbs. For example the crime rate (crimes against the person only) for individual suburbs varies from around 200/100,000 to around 3,500/100,000 for the higher risk areas so the difference is substantial enough to account for the difference between 3.2% and 1.48% when we are talking about an excess of only 500 people. That this age group, regardless of race, are more likely to be victims than any other age group is also significant and could account for the excess 500. The number 1,447 really makes no sense at all on it's own without context.Wayne (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Would be good to reference some of that comparative data to reliable sources. --Merbabu (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I used Melbournes population instead of Victorias by mistake so I have modified my post above to reflect this. The data I used was the census and police crime statistics so the percentages are OR on my part but you also need to search for 2007-2008 versions. This site will give you current statistics which are still useful. Wayne (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "attacks" is really quite unspecific, and seems to be somewhat emotive. I wish people wouldn't use it so much. What we are really talking about are usually specific crimes. e.g, If someone was assaulted during a robbery, say they were assaulted in a robbery, not an "attack". In this case, the 1477 "attacks" you refer to are actually mostly robberies. --Netvegetable (talk) 17:35 02 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Circus link

Since we have established that Indians are safer in Oz than they are in India, and safer than average asutralians, etc etc, then this article is largely about the media beatup, hence the link is justified. Greglocock (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

it is the same as what other media has been and is still doing for so long. --CarTick 00:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. Yes, it is a valid link, and I removed it once by mistake when I was trying to remove much more questionable material. It does, however, have an inherent POV given the wording, which may need to be considered.. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greg, there's two issues with this - content and process - and why the link is inappropriate. I've provided some links for reference on each issue

  1. Content: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN.
  2. Process: WP:BAN, WP:SOCK, WP:DUCK, WP:DENY, WP:MEAT

In summary, there's a POV issue to which Bilby alludes, and trolling by banned user. Solution to both is to not include link. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

you probably need to reread wp:wikilawyering and wp:idontlikeit. WLRoss has suggested a perfectly good RS for the term "circus" to be applied to this series of events. I agree it would be better if it was in the article rather than a 'see also', but the same could be said for almost any 'see also' link. There isn't enought trolling in this article to justify censorship.Greglocock (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If that's your position, then you certainly need to re-read my posts down the bottom. Edited versions here:
If there is relevant and notable opinion that media coverage is out of proportion, then perhaps this can be covered in the wikipedia way within the article, with reliable sources.
WLRoss, perhaps you could incorporate some well-referenced and notable opionion on the scale of the media coverage in place of a silly link with no explanations.
I agree what you are saying with other See Also's. While they are not totally useless, they are overated and I often find myself wondering if they are not relevant to the article body, why tack them on at the end - but there are some uses.
If you feel strongly that there is reliable sources on notable people's opinion that the media coverage is out of proportion, then why not put it in?
I do note that the only source specifically using the word "media circus" is an Andrew Bolt article - generally, but not always, opinion pieces are frowned on as sources. I don't think you need to use the platitude "media circus" to explain the concept of out of proportion coverage.
Why don't you just use the sources WLRoss provides, add some decent info into the article, and stop supporting the troll - note that those 3 editors have been blocked (hint - they are the one guy). --Merbabu (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
being back here after a while, i would like to know who is being referred to as troll by Merbabu? --CarTick 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Ganec & USer:Trizbee = User:DavidYork71, banned user and serial sock puppeteer (amongst many other things).
But as you allude to, CarTick, the link is still dodgy irrespective of who put it there. --Merbabu (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Media circus describes a news event where the media coverage is perceived to be out of proportion to the event being covered. It does not mean there is no violence or that such violence is not a problem, only that coverage is out of proportion. I dont think anyone can argue that this is not the case and this controversy is more so than several cited in the Media circus article. If you need specific references where this is claimed, The Age The Sydney Morning Herald Oneindia.in and this one actually calls it a media circus Herald Sun. The only POV problem I see is that inclusion may be seen by some POV editors as evidence of the problem being hype, but then much of the article can similarly be seen by some POV editors as evidence that the problem is much larger than it really is. Wayne (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is relevant and notable opinion that media coverage is out of proportion, then perhaps this can be covered in the wikipedia way within the article, with reliable sources.
It is completely inappropriate (and typical of the banned user) to throw in a platitude such as "media circus" as a see also link. In response to your last sentence, we should always be careful not to attribute motives and assume good faith (except in in cases where bad faith is proven beyond doubt. Speaking of which, our banned editor must be loving the attention his handy work has now received on this talk page).
WLRoss, perhaps you could incorporate some well-referenced and notable opionion on the scale of the media coverage in place of a silly link with no explanations. --Merbabu (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Merbabu you do not own this article, there are several links where this episode is described as a media circus. RA Editorial is an RS. Those who scream AGF are usually the ones who are abusing it. Greglocock (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not about sources. It's about the appropriate use of the See Also sections. If you want to establish a case for it being a media circus, then you should include this in the article. As nothing more has changed since the discussion above, then please refer to that including reference to "AGF". If you are not happy with my response, then you could use dispute resolution, or simple, request comment on the Australian notice board. Thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
PS - please do not change other users' comments including inserting within a users' post. I've removed you comments here. thanks--Merbabu (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Interpolating comments in long winded answers is an accepted method of repsonse to them, if the interpoaltions are formatted as mine were. There is no need to take this to any third party in my opinion, you can if you want to obviously. I do agree that a see also is not the best way to introduce the concept to the article. Are you using an IP address to edit the article? Greglocock (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
My comments:
  1. Not messing around with other editors’ talk page comments is far more accepted convention than what you are suggesting. Do it again, and I will complain on the administrators’ board. If you’re right, then they will slap me down. Your call.
  2. That’s an India-based IP. My advice would be sock puppetry is a silly accusation and a waste of time. On the other hand, if you instigate a formal sockpuppet investigation, then at least it’s not clouding up the actual issue at hand on this page. Your call again.
  3. I think a third opinion could be most useful to everyone – you clearly don’t think much of mine opinion. I’ve left a notice in the Australian notice board, and there are other avenues if that doesn’t get much of a response.
  4. As for the actual content, your editing and comments suggest to me that you still believe that this is simply a verification issue, and not a NPOV issue through the improper use of See Also sections. Sure, anyone can find (reliable) sources on peoples’ opinions on events including “media circus” (or many other things), that doesn’t mean that we stick it into the See Also and imply it’s wikipedia’s opinion.
  5. As for your latest edit here, I personally think it’s still flimsy, but it’s a whole lot better than what you’ve previously pushed, and as such I’m happy to accept it for now with some tweaks to the wording. But, see what others think. regards --Merbabu (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to my comments. It was previously completely unclear to me that they actually were my comments. I note that you initially accepting of my position, and now you have changed your mind and are changing them again. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make but you appear to be acting rather strangely. Sorry about that old chap. I will not waste time any further on this, and will edit the main article without your agreement. I suggest you DO get someone else to look at your behaviour, perhaps they can make you understand about formatting replies, and whether deleting other people's comments is acceptable. This is not a put down, you need help. Greglocock (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, from wp:etiquette "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to some, but it is virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow." Fair enough, I was doing that, I will desist on this page. "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar." So stop editing/deleting my talk page edits. Otherwise I will reinsert them all, no matter that they are unintelligible to you or not.Greglocock (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Contributions to neutral tone of article

Hello, I'm going to make a few edits that I believe will contribute to the neutral tone of this article. I want to clearly state that my intentions on Wikipedia are to contribute to the neutral tone and clarity of articles. I am very aware that this is a very relevant issue in Australia even today and that people have strong feelings about the issue. On a personal note, I do not in any way support the assaults made upon Indians living in Australia, nor do I support any crimes of a similiar nature on anyone else living in Australia. If you have concerns about my edits to this article, please don't hesistate to let me know on this talk page or my user talk page. Russell Dent (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/world/anatomy-of-hate-as-magazine-unleashes-antiaustralian-rage-20100131-n6n4.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_against_Indians_in_Australia_controversy/Archive_3&oldid=1224261084"