Talk:Violence against Indians in Australia controversy/Archive 1

View of long term Indian residents of Australia...

Info from this should be added for "balance" and fairness. Ie, views of long term Indian residents of Australia - ie, that the Indian press is being irresponsible and sensationalist. If no one does in the meantime, I will do it when I get a chance.--Merbabu (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr Singh, who heads a committee at the Indian consulate looking at Indian student issues, labelled the reporting "irresponsible". "There is a problem with Indian media and Indian leadership - they can't assess a situation in a rational way," he said. "It's the high competition in that industry. They all get on the bandwagon and say 'Oh racism', but it's not like that. "Something like this happens and they think: 'The whole world is against us.' I mean, burning effigies of Kevin Rudd ... come on. "This is not a racist country. Every country has one or two racists. --Merbabu (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of Australian denialism and victim blaming has been cited in this article. The self-loathing screeds of some affluent Indians in Australia (who, in all likelihood, have been paid by the white supremacist Australian media to tout some manufactured apologia) are hardly notable. There has been further testimony (cited in article) attesting to the clearly vicious levels of racist bias in Australian media.70.112.199.223 (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol - well, that very clearly shows where your bias' lie. "Self-loathing" paid by "white supremicists" and "vicious racist bias" in Australian media - that's a very ugly thing to say IMO. At the very least, it shows you don't get wikipedia editing. Is it not racist to label Australia as a racist country? Everyone else gets their say (even New Zealanders looking to take advantage of the situation), yet Indians in AUstralia cannot?? --Merbabu (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the response of the white-supremacists to this is to pollute the article by commentary from "countercurrents.org" (which feature openly racist and antisemitic hate-speech by Neo-Nazis)?. Nice!70.112.199.223 (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree all viewpoints should be included and that includes over-reaction by Indian media if it really did. But Australian media characterising Indian media response as over-reaction (in this case) can not entirely be impartial. I understand Arjun Ramachandran's fear in his article "He also feared there could be a backlash against other Australians of Indian heritage, many of whom had lived here for years". We could pretty much understand that there is one group of people mostly students directly affected by this attacks or at risk for potential attacks in the future reacting in one way and another group who didnt personally have to go through the ordeal but fearful of their future prospectives in a foreign country reacting in a different way. --Like I Care 21:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Australian media is not impartial but the Indian media cannot be? I'm not sure if that is what you are saying, but that would make for a very one-sided article. I will get around to including it sooner or later. --Merbabu (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Perceived partisanship is not grounds for exclusion from wikipedia. Lack of Reliability and Lack of Notability are. All the sources are from mainstream news outlets and represent the views of mainstream political forces/personalities.The Original Research claim being made by the white-supremacists and their ideological sympathizers among some upper-caste Indians in Australia concerning the racist attacks are similar to White Hispanics in America whitewashing racism against lower-casta Hispanic immigrants, and do not constitute mainstream opinion. As for perceived "one-sidedness" of the article, the Indian media is exponentially larger in size and girth than the Australian media, since it serves the needs of over 1 billion people. The fascist response of the white-supremacist Australian media is the fault of the Australian media, not wikipedia. The white supremacists and their ideological sympathizers merely wish to use that as a "straw man argument" in order to strong-arm white supremacist literature into this article, and it won't work.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "perceived partisanship" is not grounds for inclusion. But who specifically are the white supremacists? And what is their literature in your opinion? The Sydney Morning Herald? --Merbabu (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Australian media itself is charged with white-supremacist tenets. There are numerous reports by scholars as to the white supremacist sympathies in the Australian media, something that some upper-caste Indian immigrants in Australia and other western countries have internalized into their ethnic narrative since the time of Arthur de Gobineau (who first made the false claims that upper-caste Indians are white). The white supremacist denialism and negationism touted by this small and unrepresentative group of NRI's in Australia merely consists of their internalizing of anti-Indian racism into their own ideology.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

...and what specifically does this mean for this article? Does it mean we should remove the Australian media references?--Merbabu (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No. it means that the relative predominance of the Indian media sources in this article can be attributed to factors other than editorial partisanship, and is essentially unavoidable.70.112.199.223 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

IP, please stop your hypothetical racial accusations, it could just get you in trouble editing here. --Like I Care 01:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed?

My addition was removed. I'm not sure how this was reasoned. While there may not be as many notable Indians in Australia as there are in India - for the Australian Indian community, this figure seems reasonably notable. I'm not saying that his views are necessarily correct or more valid, only that they are notable enough for the article. However, I have modified the quotes to just this for now - ie, parts of the quote removed. I would like to know however, why it cannot be included. --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

the Sydney Cardiologist's opinion of Indian media or Indian leadership as "irrational" is WP:UNDUE. --Like I Care 03:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If he was only a cardiologist then I'd say "no". But, he is himself an Indian and heads a committee at the Indian Consulate that assists Indian students in Australia. No, he is not a head of state or leader of a major Indian political party, but the Indian community in Australia is a minority and measured in the 100,000s and not in the billions as the Indian community in India is. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability and motivation. Yadu Singh is apparently not worried about the attacks. He is more worried about spoiling his and his relatives's chances of living peacefully in Australia because he seems concerned Indian media reports might jeopardise the current Indo-Australian relations. Just fear.

“ He also feared there could be a backlash against other Australians of Indian heritage, many of whom had lived here for years ”

The attacks against Indians are facts. I just wonder why we need denials and dismissals from non-notable people. Yadu Singh heading "a" commitee in Indian consulate. Not saying what commitee he heads seems to be an attempt to hype up his notability on the part of the newspaper. --Like I Care 03:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stop second guessing people's motivation. If we were to base it all on perceived motivations, i could turn around and say that any Indian Newspaper or politician is just trying to drum up sales or votes. It would be never ending. The Sydney Morning Herald is notable, as is the Indian Consulate. Hence this is notable. There's never going to be Indians in Australia as notable as Indians in India by sheer force of numbers and proportion of dominance in their respective countries. --Merbabu (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This obviously racist editing is what has been going on in this article by edit-warriors. Emphasizing a non-notable personality while deliberately misrepresenting a quote by a prominent personality like Amir Khan in order to pursue a fascist bias is really disappointing.24.28.76.193 (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are blocked. Now pay heed to that block. --Merbabu (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is a fascist being allowed to edit articles with racist whitewashing and deliberate WP:BLP violation?24.28.76.193 (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I reported Khan's quote exactly as I found it in the smh. If you want to report me for BLP violation or for my fascist activities, please go ahead but consider first that as a blocked editor you are wasting other admin's time. I in the meantime will report you for breaching your block as a sockpuppet. --Merbabu (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no second guessing. just reading the whole article explains his motivation. In the same report where he criticised media of "irresponsibilty", he also expressed "fear". It is not just Indian media, TIME called the acts racism. Yadu Singh's comments could have been notable if he was the Indian Consular officer for the Sydney consulate for example. --Like I Care 03:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it was or wasn't racism. Nor are we to determine whether other's views are "correct". That's not the issue, nor is it our responsibility to make that judgement. Rather, the WP:NPOV policy means that we must give report all views. The issue is one one of verifiability and notability. Not one of motivations or "truth". We report what notable people say, not judge whether what they say is correct. kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The IPs arent very helpful. Can someone protect this article? --Like I Care 03:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I will ask to have his block extended as he is obviously flouting it. Who Is even provides the same address for the two IP's. How stupid. --Merbabu (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Blaming the victim

The White-supremacists editing this article should note that using racist slurs against Indians in this article and blaming them for causing the racial attacks against them by citing from viciously racist websites like countercurrents.org (a website that openly claims that Jews and Hindus were behind 9/11 and the Mumbai terror attacks)[1][2][3] does not fall under the wikipedia guidelines of WP:RS, especially the clause Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources.70.112.199.223 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Countercurrents is by no means considered a reliable source and all info citing that website can and should be removed. --Like I Care 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine - remove Countercurrents - thank you for bringing this to my attention. There are plenty of reliable Australian and Indian news sources which state Indian criticism of their own news sources.

The White-supremacists editing this article ... don't be nasty

Kransky (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What concerns me about accusations that editors' sympathies and motivations might lie in "white supremacism" and "fascism" is not so much that it is uncivil or "nasty", rather it is showing that this (anon) editor themselves is viewing this issue through a biased prism. Come on - the Sydney Morning Herald is a "non-notable" and white supremacist source? That's just silly - or perhaps this view is evidence of my racist "denialism"? he he --Merbabu (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Victim blaming is a fairly typical tactic carried out by the Australian media, and was also seen in Australian news following the racist pogroms against Lebanese minorities in the Australian city of Cronulla in 2005. It's an expected thing, but wikipedia is not subjected to fascist propaganda and is required to present a balanced perspective, which has now been severely compromised by ideologically slanted editors.70.112.199.223 (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are just taking the mickey now. While your contributions suggest you are a "new" editor, you seem well-versed in wikipedia. What would a check user reveal about your editing? I have my suspicions. --Merbabu (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, kindly refrain from using obscure idioms and use regular English. Secondly, using threats to intimidate legitimate editors merely clarifies bias on the part of the threatener. Finally, the repeated and relentless vandalism of this article by removing responses to blatant racist ultra-fascist victim blaming will not go unnoticed.70.112.199.223 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

checkuser can be useful, but i dont think he can be blocked unless he is also one of the other editors involved in this article. --Like I Care 02:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

THe editor is clearly not new to wikipedia - that's for sure. Further, while it's a long shot, I even have my suspicions about who it might actually be - a blocked editor with a long history of trouble making over racism articles. But I could well be wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the background of the IP address is relevant, wheras his/her contributions and behaviour are important. Don't feed the trolls - discuss his/her contributions if any are made after the block is lifted. Kransky (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of WP:RS that point to the fact that the victims of racist violence (in this case the indian students) are being perceived negatively for carrying out protests and organizing in self-defence while the authorities are not doing enough to take action against the racist violence itself. This point should be included in the article under "Australian Reactions" section. 71.198.231.7 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please rename the section titled "other" to "International Reaction."

71.198.231.7 (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this ip idiot hes a sock of Hkelkar and a heavily pro indian banned editor and illegitimate user 86.158.236.137 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive IP and block evader

Now reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#2009_attacks_on_Indian_students_in_Australia regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Any IP from Austin, TX with pro-BJP type views is Hkelkar. Because Hkelkar is so famous some other banned users like to follow him around and fight with him. 86.150s and 81.150s are the banned Pakistani Nangparbat (talk · contribs). 99.230s from Rogers Comm Co in Toronto that are anti-Indian/pro-Pak are the banned PakHub users (Nadirali), Telstra from Brisbane QLD is a banned Pak sockmaster called Strider11, and sometimes 59.91.250s, a banned Indian Kuntan (talk · contribs) whose views are opposite to Hkelkar. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Main page

Should this article be added to the main page? It is of great significance, and is making much of the news in Australia in the past few days, if not weeks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say no. Articles like this are always too tempting fir shrill and sensationalist editors - as we have seen with the anon editor and sock. Put it on the main page, and it's even more of a target. It needs more reflective editing. --Merbabu (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

as for coverage, I have watched 2 tv news bulletins tonight and dont remember seeing it. Nor did I see it in this weekends newspaper. I suspect it is getting more exposure in India. --Merbabu (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be due to different regions in Australia you guys are from? --Like I Care 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

On SBS, it is on almost every night, for the last three weeks. Not sure about Channel Nine and Seven. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

well, i nominated it for ITN based on the new BBC story --Like I Care 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all over the nightly news and newspapers here in Melbourne. Has been for the last week or so. True that it might be a regional thing. Gregory j (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Conclusion about ethnicities of attackers...

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section "Assaults", the last line states that "Their attackers were from a range of ethnic backgrounds." and note #12 is cited as a reference. I read through the article in cite note #12, and the article doesn't talk about the ethnicities of the attackers. Therefore, please remove that last statement since it is not supported by an adequate reference.

74.78.192.177 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment is in the reference. They also often have to travel at night on public transport to remote and unsupervised train stations. The students AM spoke to say their attackers were from a range of ethnic backgrounds. But while they say there is a racial element to the attacks, they also see them as opportunistic.  florrie  12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) ETA: Though, the context is misleading.  florrie  12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: per above. Celestra (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2009?

unless there exists other articles describing attacks on Indian students, is it really necessary. I have a strong distaste for "year" in article title unless absolutely required. Besides, I am not even sure if all the attacks were just restricted to year 2009. --Like I Care 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the year lost. But, maybe wait for other opinion first. --Merbabu (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Articles_on_events. Guidelines state that the year should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. Without the year it would suggest that the attacks are about assults against Indians in general in Australia. However we are dealing with assults mostly in one city which have become more frequent in a relatively short and defined space of time, and which follow similar modi operandi. Kransky (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. title doesnt have to be all inclusive and if that were the case, we should have named it 2009 attacks on Indians in Melbourne in Australia. My point was we dont need year 2009 as there is no 2005 attacks on Indians in Australia for disambiguation. The body explains it all. --Like I Care 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think mentioning 'Australia' sufficently describes the location of the attacks - the assults in Harris Park overnight does not make this an exclusively Melbourne matter. There probably were assults on Indians in 1902, 1954 and 2005 (youknowwhatimean), but the numbers have only recently risen, commensurate with a rise in the number of Indians coming to study. Kransky (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The year is probably important because it appears to be a new phenomenon. There are very few statistics or studies available but I did find victims of personal crimes by country of birth in the National Crime and Safety Survey 1998. A direct quote from the report: The risk of becoming a victim of any personal crime (Robbery, Assault and Sexual Assault) was relatively higher for those born in the United Kingdom and Ireland, New Zealand, and Germany than for other groups....The data presented is crude and requires caution; information for other ethnic groups could not be extracted because of small numbers. Other statistics (the most recent I could find was 2002) indicate that the risk of being a victim was not closely related to country of birth (victims as a percentage of their own population in Australia) at the time they were compiled. Attacks reported as racially motivated (by the victims) for 1996-1997 (the most recent I could find in a quick search) totaled 62 against Australian born, 37 against people of European birth, 23 against Asians (India/China combined) and 10 against African born (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Annual Report 1996-97, p. 36). To me this is a good indication that the current problems are exactly that...current. In all likelyhood the problems are the result of increased Indian immigration as each new ethnic group is targeted for a few years before they become accepted as was seen first with Italians/Greeks in the 1950/60s and Vietnamese in more recent years (my OR). Also cold calling from Indian call centres has been a very big problem in the last few years and there have been several documentaries on the anger generated by the practice. The Australian companies behind it are obviously at fault but it's all too easy to take it out on the "messenger". Wayne (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be AIC statistics available, however logic would suggest that more Indians are being assulted in Australia because there are more Indians in Australia. Kransky (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

?

"The incidents reached the status of public prominence when an Australian doctor of Indian origin was attacked and hospitalised." - This isn't sourced. Is this referring to Mukesh Haikerwal, or another incident? Rebecca (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could well be but the sentence appears out of context. "The incidents" (ie, attacks on Indian students) "reached the status of public prominence" (did they? or is it that the doctor attacked is prominent?) "when an Australian doctor of Indian origin was attacked and hospitalised" (a prominent doctor, not a student). I also found these [4] [5] articles which, although they mention other attacks on the same night, don't specifically say they were on other Indians or Indian students. I'd delete until/if it can be properly sourced, supported and shown to be relevant to an article on attacks on Indian students.  florrie  23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. Haikerwal's bashing was months ago, but the violence "reached public prominence" a couple of weeks ago, and the two haven't been tied together that I've seen. Rebecca (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Protests and vigilantes in Parramatta

Some sources. [6], [7] --Merbabu (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

scary stuff. --Like I Care 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Target changed from old women to Indians!?! THis page also has a radio interview with Dr Yadu Singh of Indian Student Welfare Committee (wait for the ad to finish).
• Opinion piece - good for background perhaps.
• another
• Latest comments from Aussie PM Rudd
• more
• ha ha - one from Shane Warne - maybe we could use that in the "other" section

Edits done on 9 June 2009

Edits in the article have been deleted stating unverified and presumptive statements and opinions from overseas, Lack of detailed local facts etc. I was expanding the article with news from Indian media as I see article seems to be missing these details. If u expect me to discuss before editing anything I can do that from now on. But someone kindly explain me why they think these opinions expressed from overseas are unverified. Thanks in advance (Nelatan (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

It is not a news article, meaning it is neither FOX news nor Times of India nor ABC. While reactions from Indian side is understandable, they are not necessarily facts. By stacking the article up with too many reactions, the article appears to take on a slanted postition inadvertently. You are welcome to edit the reactions from Indian side and limit with a couple of quotes from notable and representative individuals. --Like I Care 02:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

as general comment, I agree with the post above by Like I Care. Reactions have a place but they are not facts. This article is big on reactions/opinions but not facts. I can help with fixing that later tonight - if I get time. --Merbabu (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to write some facts and put them here for discussion. Lets see what you guys say about it. Peace (Nelatan (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

there are several articles in todays Sydney Morning Herald about the events in Sydney over the last few days. If it helps. www.smh.com.au. It would be nice to balance out the quoted politicians' opinions with some actual events or reporting from the scene. --Merbabu (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some Information related to facts for discussion. kindly you guys let me know your thoughts. Peace (Nelatan (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Student Attack timeline

Three attacks took place in quick succession with the first one reported to be on May 9 2009.

May 9 2009: Twenty one year old Sourabh Sharma was brutally beaten by a group of teenagers on a werribee-bound train. Security camera footage shows teenagers beating up a defenseless traveler

May 28 2009 Shravan Kumar Tirthala, a 25 year-old student was attacked with a screwdriver on May 24 along with his three friends. It was a casual birthday celebration when couple of local youth came gatecrashing and in a drunken state started attacking them. Shravan, who was seriosly injured in this incident, was immediately rushed to Royal Melbourne hospital where his condition was said to be critical. Rest of his friend's escaped without any injuries. On May 31 2009, doctors declared he is "out of danger" and been taken off the life-support system

Balijinder Singh, An Indian student, was robbed and stabbed nearby Carnegie train station, Melbourne on May 25 2009. He said two men carrying weapons approched him and demanded money. As he was searching his bag to hand over his wallet one of them stabbed him in the abdomen. He was later on discharged from the hospital

May 26 2009 A racist attack was reported from Sydney, the victim 25 year old Rajesh Kumar, suffered 30% burns when a suspected petrol bomb was hurled into his home. Neighbors said they saw an un-identified person threw what looked like a small petrol bomb at Rajesh who was sitting on his bed in the front room of his rented house. His roommate saw the later running out of his bedroom towards front door with back and arms on fire, he acted quickly and put-off the flames using an blanket. Rajesh condition is belived to be stable now.

May 29 2009 Australian authorities have charged five teenagers involved in two separate attacks on Indian students in Melbourne. A teenager from Glenroy was charged with attempted murder after the attack with a screw-driver on 25 year old Shravan Kumar Theerthala.

Indian crickter Harbhajan Singh's cousin, Jagjit Singh, alleged that an Australian taxi driver has killed his son in Melbourne and threw the body on a railway track. His son, 26 Year old Upkar Singh Babbal, went to Australia in 2004 to pursue a course in hospitality management and was killed in Melbourne on May 7 2009.

May 31 2009 Protesting against the racial attacks and attitude of government and police against these attacks, Federation of Indian Students of Australia(FISA) conducted a peace rally on May 31 2009. The rally, which compromised of thousands of peace marchers, started outside Royal Melbourne hospital where Shravan kumar was operated. Participants held playcards with slogan on them stating "we want justice", "Racism is more dangerous than swine flue", "End racist attacks" etc demanded that police should provide them with enough protection against these attacks. There was a sit-in protest outside Flinders Street station later on that day which was disrupted by police by use of force. Chief commissioner, Simon Overland, justified the measures taken by his colleagues stating that the protest went out of control as it was later on in the day hijacked by a group of "rabble-rousers" separate from Indian who used rally for there personal gains.

Curry-bashing(as attacks on Indian are popularly called) show up on Indian media articles

June 2 2009 Twenty one year old Indian student, Nardeep Singh, was attacked by five youth in Melbourne. He was stopped and demanded Cigarettes and Money, following which one of the attacker slashed him with a knife on his chest.

June 6 2009 A car belonging to Indian student was torched in Melbourne. According to Vikranth Rajesh Ratan owner of the car, along with his car two others car were damaged in this incident. Ratan said that drug addicts might be responsible for this crime.

June 08 2009 Twenty three year old Indian student, Kamal Jit, was beaten up second time in a fortnight by a group of youths in melbourne. He was found unconscious and bleeding by another student in western suburbs of the city. This is a second attack on kamal jit, who earlier was pelted with eggs by several masked men nearby St Albans station.

Kindly let me know if any of this information values for an entry in the article (Nelatan (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Part of the problem with your previous addition to the article was the loaded terms that again appear in your suggestions above: ie, "racist attack", "defenseless", "brutally beaten" while other things like "curry-bashing as it is *popularly* called" is just factually incorrect - no-one that I know had heard of this term until this week. I have only looked at the first two refs. I have not heard of Information Madness but judging from the tone of its language alone, it is hardly the kind of source that wikipedia requires (particularly on such a sensitive topic). Another big problem with this article is that there are no real statistics. There is one - the 1500 people of Indian origin attacked - but the source doesn't say where this figure comes from, or how it compares statistics for other groups of people. Perhaps that is normal. I do note that last night a NSW police spokesman said that attacks against Indians were not disproportionate to their numbers in the community. OK - so there was no hard data provided on the news with that, but it is certainly an interesting line to investigate - and would be more factual and more suitable to wikiepdia than quoting yet another politician or editor that has a vested interest in drumming up votes or circulation numbers. Call me a cynic but that is what is required I think - rather than jumping on the emotional and sensationalist bandwagon. --Merbabu (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to cover my side from Indian media. I tried looking at newspaper website you gave me but I wasn't able to get much information from it. My main focus was to tell people, who read this article, as in what is happening in Australia and India due to these attacks, and how it all started. If you say that the tone of the article is too loaded I can remove those words(no biggie :)). But if you Google something like "Indian Student attack" all what you get is these loaded words. Regarding Curry-bashing, I don't know nothing about that word until I read it recently. All I am saying is it might be popular among those teenagers who attacked Indian and they might use that, Due to this attacks media started getting that word main-stream(yahoo says that..not me:)). Peace (Nelatan (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, i hope you understand the difference between Google and Wikipedia!! While sources can verify info, we don't replicate their language or commentary if it's inappropriate for wikipedia. And I trust you understand my skepticism about relying on Indian media to gives a facts about things happening in Australia. ;-) What would be nice would be some cold hard crime statistics. We only have anecdotal evidence of the problem so far - it may be good anecdotal evidence - but it's still anecdotal. As for the list of information you provided, I'm not sure - what happens if there really is 100's? Do we list all of them? --Merbabu (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to start citing some of the newspaper background that's been published over the last few days - there was a good article I read earlier with NSW MLC Gordon Moyes talking about the history of problems in Harris Park, and a decent one earlier talking about ongoing problems in St Albans in Melbourne. Rebecca (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would like to point out just as Indian media can not be considered a reliable party and so is Australian media and the leaders in this case. Australian media has its own vested interest in making sure not to show their country in any poor light. Our responsibility is to sift through media from both country and third parties and state facts from all places and include less reactions from politicians and non-notable individuals. --Like I Care 12:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that media's main interest is to sell papers, boost ratings, etc. What's the best way for Australia media to do that? Keep quiet? And this is more clear cut for Indian media - hence the (fair or otherwise) accusations of a beat up. Anyway, no-one's saying that Indian sources shouldn't be used. I was just responding to the Indian editor above who suggested that adding Indian sources was a good way to "tell people" what is happening in Australia. At least you're not suggesting that Australian media is a fascist propaganda tool as our anonymous friend was doing a few days ago. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont buy our anonymous editors's argument about the fascism and other accusations. I truly beleieve majority of Australians are nice people and there are some bad apples in every society. I admit a sense of irresponsibilty in Indian media. Indian Government has a more sensible approach to it than the media. see here. Times of India has started running too many sensational stories nowadays. You can also find some responsible writing in between. The Hindu is by far the most responsible newspaper but they dont have a lot of online content.

Besides, Indian media started reporting each and every attack unlike Australian media which reported only when the students protested. There are plenty of facts about attack on Indian media hidden inside the "sensational" title with hyped reactions from politicians. --Like I Care 13:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

to answer your other question, I would believe the need and effort not to show one's country in bad light (understandably) would trump the need to sell more papers and it is quite the contrary to the situation to Indian media. We all know news stories are not written automatically, there is a plenty of thought which goes into what, when and how to write a story. --Like I Care 13:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see at least a summary of these attacks listed in the article as currently there's very little information of the attacks taking place which is what this is all about. fyi It's not common to see assaults, unless 'special', be reported by mainstream media and often aren't even reported to authorities. According to Australian Institute of Criminology it's estimated 2/3rds of violent crimes aren't even reported. RutgerH (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently busy and had requested Nelatan for a summary of this list in the article. --Like I Care 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the Background section I have added some links to early reports of attacks from 2006, and 2008, check it out! --Ekabhishek (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts and Figures

I believe that until there are more figures, figures should be kept out of this page, or at least kept out of the lead paragraph, as they are all over the place. Lets take a look, shall we?

In 2009 there were several reports of violent attacks and robberies on Indian students in Australia, particularly Melbourne.

Several? so its a small problem then?

In the 2007–08 financial year there had been nearly 1,500 assaults and robberies on persons of Indian origin in Victoria.

Wait what? I thought it was several. Also, this was between july 2007 and june 2008, whats the relevance? Also, is it just victoria? What about the rest of australia, where the phrase "particularly Melbourne" seems to imply there are crimes also? Also, I thought this was about students, are these all students?

From 2004 to 2009 the number of Indians studying in Australia rose from 30,000 to 97,000.

Ok, but how many are in Victoria? How many were victimized, and was in in specific places or suburbs, or just all over the place? Victoria is no India but the difference between say Wodonga, Preston and the Melbourne CBD.

A large proportion came from rural parts of India, after having availed education loans.

Ok, what proportion?

According to the Australian bureau of statisticsWebsite 2006 census date, there were 234,720 people of Indian descent in Australia. so if 1500-ish were assaulted, that would make for 0.64% (correct me if I am wrong). At the time of the same survey, assault rates for all people aged 15 or over living in Australia (of any ancestry) was 4.8%. All verifiable figures from a noteable source. WookMuff (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using a newspaper that hasn't properly quoted its sources for its numbers for too long. If the 1500 figure is accurate then it shouldn't be too hard to get a first hand look at the figures and then a neutral sentence including the average and total figures can be included to give some context to the 1500 figure.

It would be nice to validate the rest of the figures also but focusing on getting the number of crimes sourced should be a priority. Ansell 22:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Indian population in Victoria is around 53,000 with around 50,000 of those living in Melbourne. The 1,500 figure is, according to Victorian police sources, for all Indians in the state not just students and equates to a 3% victim rate compared to the 4.8% overal victim rate. Although this looks as if indians are actually targeted less often than the general public Indians are less likely to report assaults so the real figure is probably similar to the average. Perhaps the high profile of the attacks is due to media reporting which gives undue prominance to the problem. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Aus Institute of Criminology (2007), males aged 15 to 19 comprise 41% of all assault/robbery victims so students of any race should figure more prominently than adults. Wayne (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Assaults section - minor edit needed

"Several assaults were carried out by gangs of youths, some armed with baseball bats and golf sticks, and had used racial epithets"

Confused grammar and should surely be golf clubs rather than golf sticks shouldnt it?

Im a new user so cant edit this page, could someone make the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Blue Square (talk • contribs) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

How did the Chinese government and students get into the lead? Is this article about attacks on Indian students or not? Certainly mention China in the article tbody, but not the lead.  florrie  23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename and change of focus

Many people have claimed that there is a pattern of racial attacks against Indians, but where is the evidence that this pattern is real rather than perceived? In the absence of some kind of evidence it is only speculation and should be presented as such in the article. I think this article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia or something similar, and the focus should shift to the protests and reaction. - Borofkin (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

does not sound unreasonable. Particulary when one considers the section above titled "Facts and Figures". Perception is not verified fact. --Merbabu (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this. The article, as it stands, is really about the protests. Allegations of violence currently serve as just background, being given as the stated motivations for the protest. I really think that the article needs some better facts and figures in it (I don't think this is wikipedia's fault because I haven't seen these numbers being used anywhere else to draw them from), to address whether there really is an increase in violence against Indian students. I'd like to know whether Indian students are overrepresented in the crime statistics at all to begin with. Ideally, it would be nice to know how likely an Indian student is to be a victim of assault compared to a non-Indian student. If the article doesn't have good information on the actual attacks, which I don't feel that it currently does, then it should be renamed to reflect what it is primarily about, which is the protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory j (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian stereotypes

I'm curious if any sources have mentioned the habit many Australian's have of stereotyping populations. A popular stereotype of Indians in Australia is that they are Gandhi like. This, to an aggressive drunk can make them a target simply because they don't think they will put up much resistance. I've heard a number of people point out that this could be to blame ... and indeed this is racism. It is not perhaps 'racially motivated' but I wouldn't mind betting racial stereotypes could be to blame.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

that, if it was correct, would in itself be a stereotype of Australians. Do u see the irony? It's unreferenced inaccurate and original research. Like much of the article,and the actual issue, it seems to be based more on perception than verified fact. --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron

Call for Article Rescue Squadron: Can any registered user supporting to keep the article add a rescue tag to the article. Since I'm an IP user I still can't add the template unless the protection is lifted. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction

If there is consensus on changing the name to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia, I propose the following new introduction, to focus the article on the protests:

In May and June 2009 there were a number of protests by Indian students in Australia at a perceived pattern of racist attacks and inaction by police. Rallies were held in Melbourne and Sydney, and there was a series of impromptu street protests in Harris Park, a suburb of western Sydney with a large Indian population. The protests attracted attention from the international media, with coverage in India especially widespread and critical of Australia. Representatives of the Indian government met the Australian governemnt to express concern and request that Indians be protected. The Australian Prime Minister expressed regret and called for the attackers to be brought to justice.

- Borofkin (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone try to put this in context by giving figures for attacks of a similar kind against people of different ethnicity? Is it true there has been a big increase in violent crime all round in Melbourne and some other places? If so, how much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer this title, not because it takes focus away from probable racist attitudes, but because it is more accurately protraying what is happening, that being 2009 protests to events of the last 3+ years WookMuff (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about the change in title from attacks to protests, but I certainly see the logic and the need to shift the article's previous misguided emphasis. There is precious little systematic evidence of an increase in attacks, that Indians are being over-represented in crime statistics, or that they are specifically being targetted on racists grounds. Any attack on anyone is to be deplored, and the Australian authorities should protect its visitors no less than it should protect its own citizens - BUT, there is no reason to blindly follow the assertions of sensationalist media outlets and partisan politicians. That is where wikipedia is meant to be better than the media. --Merbabu (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please dont make fake consensus of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia,but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources.There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed new lead reads much better, is a lot more accurate, and is far more neutral. No one is making "fake consensus"; as it can be clearly seen on this talk page, most people support a lead similar to Borofkin's. The "media attention" is clearly centered around the protests, rather than the attacks, and the vast majority of the article is dedicated to the protests rather than the attacks, as well. Though the protests by Indians students are notable, at this stage, the attacks are only alleged to be racially motivated, and there are serious doubts as to whether the attacks on Indians are any more notable than any other attacks/assaults.

In short, yes, I do support the proposed new lead. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead is changing a bit of late (i think this is healthy), but just to clarify, maybe you could give a permanent link to the lead version you mean. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who, me? The version I agree with is written at the top of this section. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article should reflect the current focus of the article, which is on the notable protests rather than non-notable attacks on Indian students. The currently running AFD is not a reason to prevent improvements to this article. Tinucherian, you reverted my renaming to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. Would you reconsider this decision? - Borofkin (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the matter in the discussion with the AFD, let us wait for the outcome of the AFD. Please note that there is no consensus to rename the article to the new title. Sincerely the change of current focus of the article was due to undue change of scope by some editors. While I believe in neutrality, that is why I changed "racist attacks" to "alleged racist attacks" -- Tinu Cherian - 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The AFD process should not be used as a reason to prevent improvements to this article. The current title is innaproriate because it refers to attacks on Indian students that are not in themselves notable. The only reason the attacks are notable is because of the protests. If there were no protests, no-one would be talking about the attacks. Therefore the focus of the article should be on the notable protests, and the title should reflect this. - Borofkin (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like Borofkin's new idea of the lead may be with some minor tweaks but not the title. I have made my points here. thanks. --Like I Care 14:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I could tentatively support the change - the protests have now dominated the stories, not the assults themselves. While the article is much better than it was one week ago, there still needs to be some control and tighter writing. Kransky (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Were the protests legal?

My understanding is that if you want to protest something you have to get permission from the police and/or other authorities. As some of the early protests were impromptu and not organised by a particular organisation are they then considered illegal and if so shouldn't it be mentioned? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know you needed a permit. I would be careful about adding that before it is verified. Perhaps I might ask at the Australian notice board. --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a source that says these particular rallies/protests were illegal there isn't much point mentioning it.  florrie  10:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Per this website, it appears that a permit isn't needed, and that a protest is only unlawful if it breaks the law, although its fairly easy to find ways that protesters have "broken the law". WookMuff (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, perhaps you are thinking of larger street protests, which I believe need permits if they block traffic on public thoroughfares, etc. WookMuff (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've helped organise street protests that have blocked thoroughfares before, and I can't recall ever getting permission or permits, per se; though we have generally liaised with them so they know what's going on. Can't speak for other jurisdictions though. But yes, as to the original post, no, you don't need permission from any authority to organise a protest, and you don't need to be attached to any group to do so - not in Australia! This thread is all a bit bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I meant in relation to blocking streets on the 31 May, which I should of made clear. At one stage the article was suggesting the police were stopping protests via "ramrodding" protesters. I thought the police were breaking up the street protest because it was continuing into the early morning hours of the next day, blocking a busy intersection and that wasn't permitted. The article has since been improved to explain that the protest went violent and that is why the police broke it up. In Queensland regulations regarding peaceful protests are provided under the Peaceful Assembly Act 1992. According to this document, permission is required by the Police Commissioner and the relevant local government authority. This is why I mentioned the legality issue, so from my perspective the question was legitimate. I now understand that laws are different in southern states. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cronulla riots link

Is the link to the Cronulla riots in the "See also" section justified? If so, shouldn't the Sydney gang rapes article also be linked? Andjam (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the link, and unlike the Cronulla riots, it hasn't repeatedly been referred to by comparison in the press. Rebecca (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, assuming that's true. I do think we need some citations to show that the media are making that link though. Gregory j (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about attacks or about protests?

In Australia people of all races are bashed and robbed every day. None of these bashings or robbings are notable. What makes the content of this article notable is that one part of the community (Indians) have protested about being bashed and robbed. There are no sources that show that the bashings and robings themselves are notable. There are no sources dated prior to the first protest on 31 May.

Another way to look at it is this: why don't we write articles such as 2009 attacks on Pakistani students in Australia or 2009 attacks on Chinese students in Australia or perhaps 2009 attacks on Australians in India? I'm sure there have been plenty of attacks on Pakistanis and Chinese and Australians. The reason we don't write such articles is because those attacks are not notable.

If you think the attacks on Indian students are notable idependently of the protests, then you need to produce sources which demonstrate that notability independently of the protests. If no-one can find such a source, then the article should be renamed to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia. - Borofkin (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need to correct myself here. The section "Student attack timeline" does contain sources dated prior to 31 May. The question we need to consider is whether these sources demonstrate that the attacks are notable in themselves. In other words, if the protests never occurred, would this article still be notable? - Borofkin (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. Yesterday it was named protests but it got reverted because of the current AfD discussion. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is about both attacks (but still lacks that section) and protests. The attacks (rightly or just pure hype) received a lot of coverage in print, internet and TV media in India and has received some coverage in countries other than India and Australia. Whether these attacks have racist element to it, or just regular street attacks on par with everyday street violence but blown up out of proportions by the Indian media is debatable and we will present it in the same way. I have requested User:Nelatan to summarise the attacks and we will see where we go from there. --Like I Care 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could expand the "Attacks" section with specific, detailed and sourced information about specific attacks that have occurred. The paragraphs containing vague statements (e.g. "Students using public transport late at night found themselves at risk of assault and robbery on trains and at railway stations in Melbourne's western suburbs,") will have to be removed. I've made a start on adding specific, detailed and sourced information about the attacks. - Borofkin (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has been an eye opener for me: Racism in Australia, especially the White Australia Policy practiced from 1901 to 1970s, plus Australia Says Sorry, to put this clear and historic perspective! --Ekabhishek (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. All countries have racism in their history, including India. What is the relevance to this article? - Borofkin (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ekabhishek, may i request you to keep the conversation purely on issues related just to this article. The issue appears to be a very sensitive one and please do not add any comment which might just inflame the situation. --Like I Care 12:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the attacks are notable, add sourced facts to the article

On 26 May Rajesh Kumar, an Indian student, was set on fire by a petrol bomb thrown through the window of his home in Harris Park. During all the debates over what should be the focus of this article, no-one felt the need to add this fact. If you think the attacks are notable you should add sourced facts to the article. Why not add sourced facts about how the Indian government was talking about these attacks prior to protests occuring in Australia? I can't stress this point enough: edit the article with specific, detailed and sourced information, including names, dates, and locations. Who was attacked? When were they attacked? Where were they attacked? Who criticised the attacks? What did they say? When did they say it? Edit the article! Add sourced facts! It's fun! - Borofkin (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, individually they are not, and less so than the LTTE acid attacks on a couple of Sinhalese Sydneysiders, or the arson attacks on the Sinhalese shops in Melbourne. Those ones obviously have a political element to them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there were a number of particularly nasty attacks in May which may have triggered the protests. These attacks should be covered in detail, and we should try to find sources which show how the attacks led to the protests. The order is important. Did the attacks come first, then the protests, then the complaints from the Indian government? Or was it attacks, then Indian government, then protests? We need to verify the dates on which each of these events occurred. - Borofkin (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are adding claims to the article, please ensure that the sources attached actually support the material. There is nothing in the link you attached ([8]) to the fire bomb para that states the student's name or ethnicity or that the area is unsafe etc. Please provide a further source for the additional material.  florrie  01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for checking the sources. The source was correct but I had included the incorrect URL. I've fixed the URL and reinstated the material. - Borofkin (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it must have been an earlier version of the same report before names etc were known. I found the same updated version at another newspaper but as the "comments" included inciting violence/retaliation, I was loathe to use it.

another attack, probeand Lebanese involvement. --Like I Care 05:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Retaliation & vigilantes

Should there be a seperate section for this area rather than including the two known attacks by Indians in the "Protests" section? And I can't see mention of the vigilante groups in Melbourne.[9] [10]  florrie  01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Kevin Rudd picture

Is this necessary? does every article that quotes Kevin Rudd have such a picture? Unless it's a photo of Rudd actually speaking about these events then the photo should be removed. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Sure, the article is short of pictures, but it doesn't mean we should add in any picture just to provide pictures. However, the protest picture is excellent photography. I was as bold as to move it up to the "lead" pic. --Merbabu (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

yes good edit. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion-- a Biased View?

I have been reading all the replies and noticed some of the editors summarizing that article is not notable and imbalanced by Indian media.. To them please read this-- Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media. This article has got enough notability to keep and also I have seen editors saying these attacks were common and were on local residents and not on specificly Indians, I say if you claim for reliable sources, please add a source to this fact too.. Well I have got a new fact.. If these attacks are common and are for greed and fun purpose by thugs then why only Indians were attacked and why not local people(Australians).. Do you have news or info on any such incident... Clearly article needs improvment but not deletion.. people opposing deletion seem to have biased view... If this article is not under Wikipedia's guidlines then there are many such articles depicting attacks on communities and nationality abstracted from News which would need deletion then.. Does any user nominating this article for deletion went for nomination for deleting those article as well???? This clearly proves Biased view.. and user tagging this article for deletion made his last edit almost 1 year back!!!!!???.

Thanks and Regards --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at all the "voting" on the afd, I don't think the article will be deleted so you can relax. But, who says "only Indians" were attacked? Did you read this section above? --Merbabu (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Australians (I assume you mean Australians of non-Indian descent, because there are many Australians of Indian descent) are bashed and robbed in Sydney every night. That is what happens in a big city. - Borofkin (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these attacks racially motivated?

Questions to answer:

• Has there been an increase in attacks on Indians in Australia?
• Are Indians more likely to be attacked than other races in Australia?
• Is there a difference in the rate of attacks on recently arrived Indians and Indians who were born in Australia?
• Is there any evidence of ideological racism motivating attacks? Note that using racist taunts during an attack is not evidence of ideological racism. An attacker may call a fat person fat, but that doesn't mean the victim was chosen because they were fat. Also note that the fact that politicians call the attacks racist does not mean that it is a fact that the attacks were racist, it just means that some politicians think the attacks were racist.

I'm not asking for original research or sythesis. I'm asking if anyone knows of any reliable sources that answer these questions. I haven't been able to find any. - Borofkin (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources --Nvineeth (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This time article has good coverage. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain specifically which part of the TIME article provides evidence that these attacks were motivated by ideological racism? - Borofkin (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME: "Student leaders said this kind of violence racially motivated and had not been properly addressed by government authorities such as police and politicians." " sparking allegations of widespread racism in Australian society,"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Using original research and speculation I would answer:

* yes, because there are more Indians now living in Australia.

* no, ndians are no less likely to become a victim of bashing as any other race who live in dangerous areas

* yes, Indians born in Australia probably know where not to live

* no, if you define racism as a motivating factor.

But I note that I do not know where you can find reliable statistics to answer your questions, and I would be wary if anybody claims they exist. I also point out that this talk page is not to discuss the issues, rather it is here to discuss the article. Kransky (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, there is substantial consensus that the attacks reflect a racial phenomenon at work. It is really only a section of the Australian media and government that consistently denies it. But not all Australians - many acknowledge the racial nature and decry the attempts to whitewash it. Not that dissimilar from hate crimes anywhere actually. Only a tiny fractions of Australians/Indians/europeans/humans are racist, so that is not the implication here by any means. Acknowledging racist crimes in Australia does NOT mean Australia or Australians is being labeled racist. I think too many otherwise fairminded people make that kneejerk association and respond emotionally. The Indian media has had a diverse response also, with lots of internal soul searching on discrimination within India. But a spade is a spade. Many of these attacks were and are racist.

• Better policing could quell racist attacks - Greg Sheridan - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25627170-25377,00.html
• Shane Warne slams racist attacks on Indian students - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25588874-11088,00.html
• Countries appeal for end to racist attacks - Greg Ansley - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10577744
• Blaming entire Australia for racist attacks wrong: Dalai Lama - Times of India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Blaming-entire-Australia-for-racist-attacks-wrong-Dalai-Lama/articleshow/4641295.cms
• All Australians are not racist: Aamir Khan - New Delhi TV - http://movies.ndtv.com/newstory.asp?section=Movies&id=ENTEN20090095510
• Racism: We just keep it in a closet (Indians are racist too) - Economic Times (India) - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Racism-We-just-keep-it-in-a-closet/articleshow/4637610.cms

The article should be kept with its current name. --Hunnjazal (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that lots of people consider these attacks to be racist, and this fact is well represented in the article. What I'm wondering is if there is any evidence that the attackers really were motivated by race. For example, have any of the attackers been caught and said: "I hate Indians"? Are any of the attackers known for their racist views? However, I agree with Kransky that this particular discussion is not really relavent to the article, because the article in its current form does not describe the attacks as racist. - Borofkin (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Broad scope Saturday article

SMH article on Harris Park events --Merbabu (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

crimes over-representation?

Who is Rafael Epstein? It just sounds like an offhand remark? Are we just going to take his word that crimes against Indians are not over-represented? I believe it would be important we get a chance to look at the statistics he had access for that comment. In addition, why cherrypicking just half of what he said, his full comment, RAFAEL EPSTEIN: Indians are not overrepresented in crime statistics. But Yogesh who praises the police in general says racist attacks are often not reported. --Like I Care 06:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The ABC is arguably Australia's most respected news outlet. As its Lateline show. It's a very big call to say that it is unreliable - and the article seems to use lesser media outlets very readily. But that is irrelevant. The police themselves have actually said it on camera - see the second reference. The article (and it seems much of the world) to accepts very readily the "bandwagon" view that there is an anti-India crime wave, yet there just isn't the statistics to show that.

As for your second point, although I am not completely opposed, it is an opinion rather than a fact (but probably a reasonable opinion) and thus not overly useful. That Indians are not over-represented in crime statistics is a comment on, well, statistics. That racist attacks are "often not reported" cannot be, by definition, based on statistics. Indeed, there are many types of crimes that go under-reported - presumably. --Merbabu (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Epstein is one of Australia's leading current affairs reporters. Just a couple of examples of his Lateline stories...he reported on the Somali pirates (and interviewed the pirates themselves), he has interviewed Radovan Karadzic, he reported on the Mohamed Haneef story. Wayne (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just quote the Victorian Police Commissioner instead of a reporter? He made exactly that comment, after all.  florrie  14:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - as did NSW police spokesmen - which is referenced. I will fix that. Can you find a reference to Vic police commissioner? As for removing this from the lead, how is this undue weight? The Police themselves are saying that Indians aren't over-represented in the crime statistics? Isn't that kind of *fundamental*???? That's not a side issue. --Merbabu (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Lateline link which was previously (and may still be) in the article. [11] I also read an article this evening which contained some statistics which were said to be released by the Commissioner. Unfortunately they don't specifically solve any of questions asked [12] as while it gives a figure for the number of attacks on people of Indian origin and it gives a total for Indian students in Victoria, it doesn't say how many attacks were made on Indian students or how many people of Indian origin live in Victoria! It's like comparing apples and oranges. And if you take this [13] into consideration, it's even murkier!  florrie  15:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) PS - is the question about undue weight for someone else?  florrie  15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Devine, hey? Indeed, not very illuminating. I'm sure the full stats are out there, and would be better than using opinion pieces or snippets from news programs. --Merbabu (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[14] Here is Simon Overland's press statement. The figures aren't clarified at all.  florrie  15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That contradicts the statement. i guess we should rephrase that sentence to provide a more balanced view. --Like I Care 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which statement does it contradict?  florrie  15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

that the crimes are not over-represented. I rephrased that in the article main page.--Like I Care 15:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, it doesn't contradict the statement. Saying the figures have risen for crimes against Indian students does not mean that they are over-represented. Overland also says this issue is symptomatic of what we are seeing across the community as a whole. Without accurate statistices it is not possible to calculate whether crimes against Indian students are over-represented or not, and we can only go on what those who should know are telling us.  florrie  15:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Per by edit summary, a rise doesn't mean an over-representation. And what we don't know is how this increase compares to the increase in Indian students vs. the (apparent) general increase in crime. --Merbabu (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. --Like I Care 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

statistics manipulation

just curious, what is about Miranda Devine. not as good as Rafael Epstein? I find it interesting that she mentions that there was protest last year about how police manipulates crime stastistics. and so is this article--Like I Care 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Devine is columnist paid to be provocative - she particularly dislikes the slightly leftish NSW govt. But that's beside the point - it doesn't matter what opinionated columnists write, they are not considered reliable sources - rather we are discussing statistics. Or are you now suggesting that statistics are meaningless because Miranda told you? --Merbabu (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry, if i have missed the discussion. which statistics are we talking about? --Like I Care 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are taking User:Florrie and I around in circles. --Merbabu (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i didnt apologise for you to be be insolent. are you talking about this,

“ Our statewide figures show that in 2007-08, 1447 people of Indian origin were victims of crimes against the person such as robberies and assaults, an increase from 1082 the previous year.

This was compared with 24,260 caucasian victims and 36,765 victims overall.

In 2008, there were almost 160,000 international students in Victoria.

Of these, more than 46,000 were from India, making Indian students the largest group of overseas students in Victoria. This has more than doubled since 2006.

”

--Like I Care 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not refer to a specific set of statistics. I meant statistics (including those provided or commented on by police) would be more useful than the comments of opinion piece writers who are paid to be provocative. And I meant that a comparison of Miranda Devine and Raphael Epstein and their relative merit as sources was irrelevant and missed the point. You did afterall start this sub-section with the title "statistics manipulation" - presumably in an attempt to undermine the use of crime statistics? --Merbabu (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If it does undermine, it is not my original research, it has (as of now) two reports supporting that claim. well, the above statistics does not provide any insight about anything about over or under-representation. as u noticed, I am a little concerned about the comments from police considering allegeations of crime statistics manipulation. It could keep us wondering about the reliablity of any hard and complete statistcs if we ever get our hands onto. --Like I Care 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about many comments quoted in the article and I have been kept wondering about their reliability. But I don't take it upon myself to remove them. If the NSW police said that Indians were not over-represented in crime statistics, that is a notable piece of info in itself. Yes, it would be nice to have statistics for that, but i note that a lack of any evidence for other opinions doesn't prevent their inclusion in this article. Why should we create a different standard for the police?--Merbabu (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not advocating its removal. As long as we attribute comments, we solve most of the NPOV issue if not all. --Like I Care 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A publication on ethnic crime statistics by the Australian Institute of Criminology that goes a long way to explaining why specific statistics are so slow in coming to light. Statistical information on Ethnicity and Crime in Australia. Wayne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reference to actual Indian student numbers in Melbourne that I have found so far and a good article on the subject.[15] The 2004 International Crime Victimisation Survey has some interesting parts. It mentions that more than 50% of victims (verbal assault to physical assault) thought to be Muslim were in fact Pakistani, Indian or other similar nationality and links this to victimisation following 911 and Bali. It also mentions that 0.47% of immigrants surveyed admitted being a victim of racially motivated harassment in the previous 12 months (from verbal assault to actual physical assault) so this is the first statistic for racism I have found. Heres another link indicating attacks on Indian students in Sydney is not racially motivated and why. Wayne (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Folks dont get bogged down in the statistics, the reality is that statistics arent important. Statistic can be manipulated how far into WP:OR territory do we really want to get, who's statistics are the right ones? by all means look at the statements by individuals quote people but be cautious giving them to much significance. Look at the stats in encyclopaedic terms the statistic just dont add anything or improve understanding why heres the <OR/commonsense> students because their of studies and visa restrictions prodominately are in casual/part time work, in Australia this work is more prellevant at night and on weekends anywhere in world travelling at night carries a higher personal risk as does having items of value visable so of course students will be statistically higher if by proportion Indian students as a group are a dominant figure in both student numbers in general and that part of the workforce then by default they will a recognised grouping.</ or/commonsense> Keep the focus on the events, reporting and the effects on laws, international relations. Then ultimately the convictions because thats what this is about, yes there is now an under lying racial current but what we'll never know is which came first the egg or the chicken. Personally I think using the expressed feelings of the people in the cente of this storm is a better choice rather than the hard numbers being rolled out, just ensure its attributed to a person who is worthy of note ie Police, Government officials, Consul officials, and care organisation leaders rather than commentators, reporters and bystanders. Gnangarra 06:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gnangarra. This article has few details about the attacks, but plenty of speculative interpretations about them. Kransky (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Devine is a deliberately inflammatory right-wing pundit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

The 'Attacks' section includes a number of events which look like bog standard robberies, and unless we are going to include every crime against Indian students in Australia a standard would see appropriate.

I'd suggest that event has to have some racial aspect to it however slight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Determining the "racism" of every Indian student attack, is beyond the scope of this article. "All" of the attacks have had a cumulative effect on Australian Indians causing them to finally shout "enough is enough". Philwalker87 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the basis for including only these attacks?

I'm not suggesting removing all examples for violence against Indians just having a standard to apply to any case so that we don't just get a list of cases.

Or the other option is to separate the attacks into cases with, and without a racial aspect.

Rsloch (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand ur concern. But, pls remember the article is not about racial attacks. Second, even the ones decribed as racial by the attacked men may not be necessarily racial and vice versa. it would be clear case of original research if we were to categorise them. I would say, we leave all the attacks untouched as of now and am positive, the article will mature over time as more information becomes available. --Like I Care 00:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So all that warrants an attack being included is that the victim was Indian and it happened in the recent past?

Rsloch (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, why are there attacks which occurred in 2008 listed in the "Attacks" section? The article is about 2009 attacks, yes?  florrie  01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

guess it is not about the year. it is really about the attacks and protests. The year makes no sense. --Like I Care 01:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that only the attacks that are directly associated with the May/June protest and controversy should be included in the "Attacks" section. - Borofkin (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

We should only mention attacks specifically cited in articles about the protests or cited as examples of the problem. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I will remove the first three attacks. They (and the cites) can always be recovered from the history if anyone feels they have a place elsewhere in the article or if the article is renamed to cover all attacks on Indians.  florrie  10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here, though I would include the robbery of Hardik Patel. Objections anyone?

Rsloch (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That was just a few days ago, wasn't it? Why would you not include it?  florrie  11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't be including attacks that are bog standard crimes. There was no racial aspect, and the police seem to have done their job, leaving the only thing that links it to the other mentioned attacks being the opinion of a hack on the Times of India. To include it their should be more to an attack than it happened to an Indian student in a specific timeframe, or at least that's my opinion. Rsloch (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to remove any attacks on the Indian students. If anything the 2008 attacks can be moved to the background section. Philwalker87 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put the section on Kanan into context in "Background" though I fail to see how the anecdotal evidence of an attack on Kanwerdeep to steal his mobile phone is "notable" as claimed in the paragraph.  florrie  23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Still current?

Is this article still a "current event" as per the template at the top of the article page? I've not heard anything new about the situation in several weeks, but I didn't hear much about it over here anyway. As there has been nothing of substance added to the article in a week or more, it may be time to remove the tag.  florrie  15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

sure. --Like I Care 15:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)