This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
American Australians is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Please note that FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) is completely WP:OFFTOPIC for the scope of this article. Per WP:TITLE, the article is about Australian citizens, permanent residents as an ethnic group (which is not a single ethnic group, but multiple ethnic groups who were part of the nation-state known as the US) in the diaspora (including their descendants who were born in Australia, but identify in some manner with their American ancestry): not American citizens working or working/conducting business in Australia, but who are not immigrants and who have no intention of changing their citizenship.
Instead of conducting a slow edit war, Ottawahitech, please follow WP:BRD and use this article talk page to bring WP:RS demonstrating that "FATCA affects 100% of American Australians" as you claim. As I see it, you're using this article for WP:ADVOCACY to POV-push the existence of US legislation. Please see WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: iam on wiki-break and unable to engage in long disscussions. However, I am surprised to see an edotor whorecently received an Editor of the Week award automatically assume bad faith. I don't believe I have interacted with you before, and I wish you would check your facts before jumping to conclusions. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: My apologies for my curt behaviour when the courteous method of handling the matter would have been to post to your talk page. I'm well aware of the fact that you're an experienced editor, but I sometimes get my head stuck up my aaa...HA! moments.
I've been checking through sundry Australian census stat articles and trying to sort through legal differences between publicly available census statistics pertaining to American client-state Australian legislation and US legislative differences. My primary concern is that of variables between systems and what is actually depicted in what are WP:PRIMARY sources. At this point, establishing what the public is privy to via the Australian census isn't entirely clear (and visa versa), therefore my preference is to err on the side of caution/conservatism in the context of a broad scope article (such as this one). The primary question is whether those from the US 'residing' in Australia (i.e., in the past this meant those with permanent residency or full citizenship) at the time the census was conducted, are calculated as falling under a single group, or whether there is a further breakdown into disparate levels of 'residence' as there used to be. Stating that all Australian citizens and permanent residents of American descent (including those born here) is a potential breach of WP:NOR. Please bear with me until I can establish further details. The potential impact of FACTA is certainly an interesting premise, but it needs to be backed up by RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
