This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I suggest we delete this article, as the events causing the media circus have passed out of current concern. Indians are still safer in Australia than they are in India, and still safer in Australia than average Australians. Is there a wiki policy called "Storm in a teacup"? Greglocock ( talk) 22:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Answering my own question, indeed there is Wikipedia:Notability_(events). The article should be summarised, merged into Australian education, and deleted. Greglocock ( talk) 22:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a pity to lose this article, as the controversy is still very much an a live and important issue in Indian-Australian relations, and could even be pivotal. Netvegetable ( talk) 2:54 AM, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps you need a sense of proportion. India willl either get access to more uranium or it won't, but a few little maharajahs complaining about not being treated like they would like to be is not going make an iota of difference. OK, if in the next few months it turns out that indian student attacks were apivotal part of the urnaium decision I'll (a) eat my hat and (b) support the retention of this article. Greglocock ( talk) 03:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sense of proportion? Hey I'm just telling you what I read in the papers. The whole issue may seem like a silly "storm in a teacup", but Indians do not see it that way. This issue is still very much in the consciousness of the Indian media, even if it has waned. [1] The Australian education industry (hitherto that country's third biggest exporter) has lost billions of dollars partly because of it, and many experts believe it has tarnished the image of Australia in India for years to come. [2] Netvegetable ( talk) 5:40 AM, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A few points that spring to my mind: (a) whether was actually racist (or not) is irrelevant to the notability - the "controversy" is notable and that is why that word is in the title, (b) it was an established consensus at the time that this notable at the time, and thus it must still be those - notability doesn't change with the passing of time, and (c) it is fine to gauge the mood for deletion on this talk page, but ultimately the question of deletion should be discussed at article's for deletion. regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 07:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You obviously either didn't read or failed to understand the notability guideline i linked. notability is not a permanent state. Greglocock ( talk) 19:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

then i suggest you take it to AFD if you believes it requires deletion and that it is likely that consensus will agree with you. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick read of the lead shows that it does not adequately summarise the whole article which is required under WP:LEAD . Ie, mu h of the article has no mention in the lead while some details are overly covered in the lead. This will likely help with the above concerns (misconceptions?) about article notability. Regards -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK have at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle seems to me to be a way forward. Greglocock ( talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This article announces many promises and predictions and intentions to set up commissions and all sorts of things that politicians like to do to please the rabble. From a perspective of 4 years later we should reassess how much of this hot air actually resulted in concrete actions.

I also propose to drastically reduce the level of detail of individual cases, as this is WP:UNDUE. Greglocock ( talk) 18:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On the surface your goals seem fine. Your section heading, however, suggests that you might be approaching this with an unacceptable POV. Please just stick to reliable sources, and discuss your planned deletions here first. HiLo48 ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm, what are the promises, predictions, and intentions you refer? Rather than remove them, it might be more constructive to follow them up and include info on their current status.

Which individual cases are you referring to? I can only see the murders given individual attention, although I admit only skimmed through the article. -- Merbabu ( talk) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

And the changes you made, references to hot air, and adding a question, were unsourced, quite unhelpful and inappropriate, so they have been reverted. It looks like you need to bring everything you plan to do to the article here first. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Both of you have good points...

This was a storm. That’s why it’s notable. It’s had a massive effect on student numbers and achieved ongoing coverage internationally. That makes it notable.

And, it is my own personal point of view that said storm was indeed in a tea cup. But that’s just my opinion, and it’s not up to us to come in and “fix” an article to the “correct POV”. Just report relevant and reliable sources accurately and neutrally. We all have our own opinions and POVs, but it’s important not to let our editing be influenced by that. That’s why having multiple editors helps – it picks up editors’ POV that (usually inadvertently) creeps in.

While I get what Greg is trying to address, those templates/comments in the article are not the way to go about improving the article. I support the removal of them, and hope that Greg can find other ways to address any apparent incomplete info.

cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm looking for a template that says "The article says these things were going to happen, but 4 years later somebody needs to find out whetehr they did, and if they did not happen then the reference to the proposed actions should dissappear since they were just the usual politician's hot-air, which is not notable even if it is cited". I welcome suggestions for a template that can be used to do this. I suggest that template needs to be added to EVERY politician's claim about future action in this article. I'll list them below Greglocock ( talk) 23:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It’s not a question of notability. If a significant politician said something regarding this topic, then it is relevant. Ie, notability concerns an article’s existence, whereas relevance concerns the content of said article. Splitting hairs perhaps, but either way I don’t agree, generally at least, that the comments need to be removed.

If you can find a status, or follow up to each of these, that’s great. But if not, I can’t see why they should be removed.

I don’t think a template is the way to fix it. Either fix it or leave it.

In general, it stems back to your original comment – “It’s a storm in a teacup”. My response is that I agree it’s a storm in a tea cup, but tea cup or not, it’s still a storm and is thus notable topic for an article. The next questions is what’s relevant content for that article. If it’s from a reliable source, neutral, and from someone significant, then its hard not to include it. -- Merbabu ( talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Greglocock has highlighted how clever and manipulative our politicians can be, even with Wikipedia policies that they probably know nothing about. We can and should report major statements by pollies, such as the promise to fix everything about Indian students' safety, but unless someone else significant makes a fuss about the fact that they have broken, or not yet delivered on that promise, it's very hard for us to comment on it at all. I even have my doubts regarding the added text about armed guards at stations. Sure, they're not yet in place, but we really need someone "important" to make a fuss about it, in the same way that the Libs and their media friends have highlighted Julia Gillard's broken promise on a carbon tax. HiLo48 ( talk) 01:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• "After the attacks of 2009 and the deaths in Jan 2010, its expected to fall even further than the 20% drop.[98]"

So waht exactly happened?

• "An editorial in the Geelong Advertiser suggested that education institutions should take more consideration of safeguarding student safety, and other factors including inadequate policing numbers and liquor licensing should be addressed.[85]".

Currently at least one bar in Geelong is applying for a license extension to serve until 6 am. Police numbers have not kept pace with population growth.

• "The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs said it would conduct a national quality crackdown on education and training providers, in particular smaller education providers that have been the target of student complaints.[86]"

This happened and is one reason why student numbers fell, as a bunch of dodgy visa farms were closed

• "Following the recent media attention regarding attacks on Indian students, the agency accepted testimonials on the safety of living in Adelaide from international students, including one from the 22 year old Sikh who had been attacked in Rundle Mall on 11 June.[5]"

Dunno what this is trying to say but it fails magnificently

• "Domestically, the Indian government declared that it would formulate a policy to deal with racial discrimination against Indians abroad.[92]"

So what happened?

• " Ravi has called for a report on these incidents from the Indian High Commission in Australia.[93]"

With what results?

• "In response, Victorian police were given new powers to conduct stop-and-search operations without the need for warrants. They conducted their first stop-and-search operation for three hours at Footscray railway station which has a history of knife crime. They found seven people carrying twelve weapons.[99]"

yay for them. is this ongoing? has there been a statistical change in knife carrying? or was this just a once in a lifetime feelgood PR exercise?

• "The Victorian government is considering enacting hate crime legislation that would consider prejudicial motivation as a factor in sentencing.[100]"

Did it enact the legislation?

Greglocock ( talk) 23:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If the politician was notable, and the comments relevant, then I don't think they should be removed just because something (may) not have come of the comments. If nothing did come of this, then it needs to be cited.

On the other hand, I did remove this which I agree doesn't add anything helpful. It actually reads like an advertisement. -- Merbabu ( talk) 01:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a relevant article in today's smh that may have info for this wikipedia article, in case any has time to add it. Which i dont have right at this moment. Here. cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 04:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-03/indian-students-describe-sydney-attacks/1702016. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 01:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this article. I started some copyediting on the intro, but I think it needs to be rewritten, possibly broken up into multiple articles. The introduction suggests that the article will be about a specific outbreak of anti-Indian violence in 2009, but the article itself includes discussion of violence in all recent years. The main title further complicates the article. If it's just about the 2009 controversy, 2009 should be in the title. If it's about violence against Indians in Australia in general, perhaps the article would be best merged into Federation of Indian Student Associations in Australia or Discrimination in Australia (if something like that exists).

I removed a line in the introduction about 150,000 Indian students preparing for some sort of Australian "qualification" (??). It was not clearly connected to the content surrounding it.

I also have neutrality concerns. The article seems to jump quickly toward looking for defenses of the violence as "opportunistic" or not racially-motivated. I would think that an even-handed treatment of an issue titled "Violence against Indians" would start off by describing the crimes as racial, and then discuss the controversy, without giving undue weight. For example, the first sentence under "Media coverage" reads, "Indian community leaders in Australia said Indian media has blown the issue out of proportion, and that their coverage could overcast the real issues faced by students." Shouldn't the first sentence under media coverage talk about coverage first and spin second?

Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts. Ultrauber ( talk) 01:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you have read the archived talk pages to gain a little insight into why this article is such a mess. As I pointed out there, Indians are less likely to be attacked than the average Australian when in Australia, and they are safer in Australia than they are in India, and an awful lot of the examples selected were (as is usual with assaults and murders) with victim and perp known to each other, if not related. Therefore I take a somewhat jaundiced view of the special pleading and media circus that took place. I agree it would be great if this article stuck to 2009 and aftermath. Greglocock ( talk) 00:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is not a rag bag collection for every violent incident involving Indians in Australia. I suggest that is specifically about a perceived problem in 2009 and 2010 and the resulting media circus. Greglocock ( talk) 22:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Violence against Indians in Australia controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110608023214/http://www.theindiadaily.com:80/racist-scandal-in-australia-cops-joke-about-indians/ to http://www.theindiadaily.com/racist-scandal-in-australia-cops-joke-about-indians/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615090105/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,25625761-12332,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25625761-12332,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110602131410/http://www.immi.gov.au/students/news/2010/safety-students-research.htm to http://www.immi.gov.au/students/news/2010/safety-students-research.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)