Talk:Vietnamese Australians

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Societal perceptions

Are Vietnamese Australians perceived by Australians as a productive community or as a bunch of drug traffickers? DHN (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, I'd say. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is not Vietnamese, I would say the answer is a bit of both and I think it depends whereabouts in Australia you are talking about. My gut feeling, without any statistics to support it at all, is that the Vietnamese community is perceived far more more harshly in Sydney than in Melbourne or Brisbane. There is no equivalent in the public perception in either of the latter cities to Cabramatta, New South Wales or the 5T (gang). Just my thoughts. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footscray, Victoria had a really bad reputation... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I grew up in the western suburbs of Melb and while Footscray was a trouble spot (and remains one) and has a large Vietnamese community I don't think it ever received the attention of Cabramatta. Certainly Springvale, Victoria, while the subject of some resentment from the Anglo community due to shop signage etc., doesn't have as poor a reputation, at least not that I have seen. Inala, Queensland is mainly public housing and the crime and social problem that are perceived to come from that area are tied as much to that as to the Vietnamese community.
Ngo Canh Phuong caused quite a stink. with his killing of John Newman. In the area of South Australia where I live, which is a Viet suburb, there was a mural put up in honour of Newman on the wall of a Salvation Army church. I'm not sure if that was supposed to send any message. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether people noticed any religious divide - Ngo Canh Phuong, Van Tuong Nguyen and Tach Duc Thanh Nguyen, the three listed criminals, are all Catholic - NCP was a Catholic community group leader in NSW (his church held prayers for him) and VTN was quite notable while in death row for promoting Catholicism. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also in NSW, the Viet image has faded a bit in the last 10 years, mainly because of Lebanese Australian incidents overtaking things, pretaining to race riots and gang rapes - 2005 Cronulla riots and Sydney gang rapes - there is a perception among the community that the Lebanese/Islamic community is actively targeting Anglo-Australians for racial/cultural reasons, whereas Vietnamese and other Asian gangsters and just financially/criminally motivated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last point is interesting. There has been a bit of comment in the popular press and talk back radio along the lines of "Why can't the Lebanese community integrate and work hard like the Asian (read Vietnamese) community?" The same people did not have much good to say about the Vietnamese around the time of Romper Stomper. It seems each new immigrant group gets judged as inferior to the group immediately prior to them. Given this, perhaps the perception of the Lebanese will improve as the Sudanese Australian community becomes the next target. (note: Lebanese in Melbourne means something completely different; the Lebanese in Melbourne are generally Christian and stereotyped as convenience store owners in a manner similar to Indians in the US.) -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there more Chinese than Vietnamese in Australia? How are the Chinese perceived there? Do Australians differentiate between them? DHN (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot better I would think. About 3 times as many Chinese. The other thing different is that the Vietnamese were taken in under Australia's refugee policy, whereas basically all the Chinese were taken in under the skilled migration program in the last 30 years; very few are falun Gong members or anti-communist activists. Indeed, most Chinese I meet are CCP apologists and supporters of govt policy, anti-US etc. The other thing is since the immigrants are basically all university immigrants etc, their school marks of their children will also tend to be much much higher than the national average. As for any instances of gang-activity, there have been a few, but generally (by perception) linked to more organised/clinical/skillful organised crime rather than the more incompetent/rowdy/overt/angry punk style that tends to be associated with Vietnamese. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that within the "Vietnamese" community, that Vietnamese migrants were also made up of and includes a significant proportion of ethnic Chinese-Vietnamese or Chinese descendant from Vietnam, who may or may not claim to be Vietnamese Australian.

This article is now about the 'Vietnamese Australian' civic identity and so 'Vietnamese descent' here and in the article is taken to mean 'all people born in Vietnam and their descendants thereof'. So the concept of a multi-ethnic 'Vietnamese Australian' community certainly warrants considerable attention. However, it is also important to realise that many labels such as 'Hoa' and 'Chinese' were really political labels that were used to marginalise certain people based on distorted notions of ethnicity. For example, the Cantonese, Teo Chew and Vietnamese peoples are all Viet peoples who are closely related in a genetic sense. They share a common history of armed struggle against the genocidal Han Chinese since ancient times. Yet, this fact has not stopped ultra-Vietnamese nationalists from smearing the Cantonese, Teo Chew and many other non-Vietnamese Viet peoples by using a range of derogatory labels, which included - you probably guessed it - labeling many of these peoples 'Chinese' in a pathetic attempt to promote an 'us and them' attitude. It is as though 'Viet' and 'Vietnamese' mean the same thing (they don't)! Therefore, great care would be needed if the multi-ethnic concept is to be mentioned. 122.105.150.197 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this section does not seem to be relevant and sounds like a forum. Perhaps deleting the irrelevant bits is in order. For example, do the paragraphs on social perceptions really deserve to be here? Furthermore, some sentences probably should be axed as per WP:SOAPBOX. 122.105.150.197 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Deficiencies in Article

Can someone please clarify what is actually meant by the term 'Vietnamese Australian'? The article, as it stands, contains serious deficiencies. For example, what is meant by the term 'ethnically Vietnamese' in the context of this article? Does it simply refer to all people born in Vietnam and who speak Vietnamese (whether or not as a first language) and all their descendants (disregarding all notions of ancestry), or does it refer to the Vietnamese ethnicity as applied in Vietnam only, which excludes Vietnam's ethnic minorities such as the Cantonese and Hmong peoples (the former, incidentally, is closely related to the 'native' Vietnamese people both culturally and genetically)? Indeed, the 'population' box even presumes that descendants of Vietnamese Australians are somehow not 'Vietnamese Australian'! It would be better if a more precise definition is given rather than the somewhat ambiguous term 'ethnically Vietnamese'.

Also there seems to be a lack of reliable references to back up the information regarding economic and social conditions within the Vietnamese Australian community. Some of the information in the article amounts to little more than 'anecdotal evidence'.

Furthermore, it would very helpful if people using this talk page refrained from placing blatantly offensive comments on the page. At least one of the comments now on the talk page could even contravene Australian Anti-Discrimination Law (any well educated person would know which section I am talking about). Your cooperation would be gratefully appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.142 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi - you might find the policy at WP:NOTCENSORED useful. The laws wikipedia needs to comply with are the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.
The comments on this page are not the article, they are merely discussion by editors in order to sort out the article's content. In terms of your suggestions, they are perfectly valid clarifications to seek, but please be aware that you too can edit and help to refine the article. In order to challenge unreferenced facts, please feel free to tag assertions with {{cite}} in order to draw to attention any assertions you have difficulty with that are not supported by references; if supported by references but inadequately or there is some other reason for doubt you can use {{dubious}} --Matilda talk 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than having us all play a guessing game, how about just telling us what you feel is offensive and we can remove it if necessary. Regarding your other points, for my part the article refers to those Australians with a Vietnamese background, be they ethnic Vietnamese or from a Vietnamese minority, including first generation immigrants and their descendants. If you or others disagree feel free to state your case here. Certainly, the term should be defined in the article. When referring to population figures, we should be careful to identify what subset those figures relate to. As for references, feel free to jump in and add them. Alternatively, unsupported claims can be tagged as described above or removed by any editor as they see fit; in fact it is encouraged - see Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by the term Vietnamese Australian - just citizens or residents too

Following on from the discussion above, some changes have been made to the article. One of these changes substituted citizens for citizens or residents. I don't think this is correct. We do not distinguish between citizens or residents for most purposes - in particular the census. The scope of the Census according to the ABS is All persons and dwellings in Australia and the external Territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) islands on Census Night excluding diplomats, their families and diplomatic dwellings, and visitors from overseas who are not required to undergo migration formalities, such as foreign crews on ships. [1]. Thus for example we have 159,848 people counted in the 2006 census who were born in Vietnam - and of these we do not distinguish thier nationality. --Matilda talk 06:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of identity

It seems that no one has attempted, to date, to actually provide a proper definition of 'Vietnamese Australian'. I feel that a proper definition is crucial as different people seem to have very different ideas of just what is meant by 'Vietnamese Australian'. I propose that the usual definition(s) be listed and then any other notable alternatives can follow.

Also, would it be appropriate to mention in the article that there are many Vietnamese Australians (going by one of the usual definition(s)) out there who are NOT capable of speaking Vietnamese at all? I ask this because it seems to be mainly these people who are likely to not even identify themselves as 'Vietnamese' when asked about their ethnicity!

For the record, most of the non-Vietnamese speaking 'Vietnamese Australians' speak Cantonese or Teochew as their mother tongue, albeit in a Vietnamese accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.175 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you see as the usual definitions? we say citizens or residents of Australia who are ethnically Vietnamese and we also refer to Vietnam-born. What are we missing?--Matilda talk 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A natural (and popular) definition of 'Vietnamese Australian' would be 'any Australian of Vietnamese ethnicity'. While this is the usual definition of 'Vietnamese Australian' the concept of Vietnamese ethnicity is more troublesome than many people realise. First of all, Vietnamese ethnicity is often equated to the Kinh people but the two entities are not synonymous or at least not so in modern times. It is likely that the Vietnamese are really a mixture of closely related peoples with the Kinh people being one of the constituent peoples. Which brings me to the second point.

As mentioned previously, many Vietnamese Australians born in Australia cannot speak Vietnamese at all despite the fact that many of their parents were literate in the Vietnamese language. However, most of these people speak Cantonese or Teo Chew (albeit in a Vietnamese accent) as their mother tongue. These people also tend not to identify themselves as 'Vietnamese' in any way at all. This leads to another question: given that the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples are almost genetically identical to the 'native' Vietnamese (and intermarriage needs to be factored in too for the purposes of this discussion), surely there should be no controversy over whether Vietnamese ethnicity is tied to being able to speak Vietnamese. But as the above example demonstrates, it seems that there is mass confusion among the Vietnamese Australians themselves as to notions of identity. So what is the bottomline: if we define 'Vietnamese Australian' simply as being Australians born in Vietnam or of Vietnamese ethnicity, then there is a danger of serious misinterpretation where we would have the ridiculous situation of an Australian descendant of a Vietnamese Australian not being considered 'Vietnamese Australian' simply because of his or her ancestry or language background! Indeed the information box needs to be revised as it is promoting the very confusion that I have just described (labels like ancestry are extremely unhelpful in this context). Of course there are radicals out there who would do anything in order to marginalise anyone who they see as being not 'Vietnamese'. Indeed, Vietnamese Australians such as those of Cantonese ancestry have been given rather offensive labels by the radicals in their attempts to promote an 'us and them' attitude and also to manipulate notions of ethnicity. Sorry for being long-winded but this issue is really serious and needs to be addressed promptly. Your responses would be appreciated. 122.105.148.86 (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the opening sentence with a much clearer definition that is widely used across the Australian community. Hopefully, this should clarify some major issues such as whether non-Vietnamese speaking descendants of the so-called Hoa people are part of the Vietnamese Australian identity. 122.109.121.124 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the edits of user 64.233.237.51

User 64.233.237.51 had added an entry under the 'notable' section for the criminal gang that once flourished in Western Sydney, engaging principally in the drug trade. While the criminal gang certainly made major headlines for an extended period of time AND made a strong impact on the image of affected communities, I believe that the notable list really should only include individuals, not groups. So perhaps it would be better to list the most infamous of the gang in question and provide appropriate descriptions. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

By the way, some organisations have quoted the number of Vietnamese Australians as being well over two hundred thousand (as of 2007). Is this fact worth mentioning? 122.105.147.208 (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable section revisited

Some of the entries in the said section are red links. I am wondering how many of them are actually notable. 122.109.121.124 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on statistics and Vietnamese Australians

Hi 122.109.121.124, Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you please get yourself a handle so you can be referred by name? It would help your credibility on Wikipedia. On the matter of the number of Vietnamese-Australians, a guestimate like "200,000+" suggested by "some people" doesn't cut the mustard here, m'boy. Do you have any reliable sources? The Australian Bureau of Statistics has ample statistics based on country of birth and self-described ancestry. There are limitations with the ancestry data, but with caveats it should be descriptive enough. (Deleted unsubstantiated and offensive comments) Kransky (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that every time someone brings up the idea that ethnic Cantonese, Teo Chew and Vietnamese are similar culturally and virtually genetically identical, someone has the audacity to suggest otherwise and smear the former two peoples by claiming that they are 'Chinese'? Perhaps this is a symptom of a society where too many people have become culturally ignorant to the extreme.

For too long, too many people have been led to believe that the Cantonese and Teo Chew peoples are somehow not connected to the Vietnamese peoples and that they are ethnically Chinese. Many of these same people have also been fooled by stories from alleged 'Vietnamese history' (many of which are really little more than fiction) where the Cantonese, Teo Chew and many other Viet peoples are portrayed as somehow different from the 'native' Vietnamese.

So what is the point of all this 'ranting'? We all need to get a grip and actually examine the history of Vietnam and its people in an objective way. This mean adopting a critical approach to history. We all know that too much stories from the past are really just fiction. So part of the 'critical approach' will involve excising the myths out. I am afraid that many editors here are just not capable of anything but rudimentary evaluation of sources, let alone present ideas in a sustained and logical manner.

Returning to the issue at hand, I believe that Kransky's edits should be reverted promptly and in fact I will be doing that now. The edits do not appear to improve the article and only introduces yet another point-of-view problem.

By the way, the vast majority people from Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan do not consider the Hoa people ethnically Chinese at all; they consider the Hoa people ethnically Vietnamese. I hope this provides some insight into the complexities of identity. 122.109.121.182 (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm...I am having difficulty understanding how my comment is insulting to you (I don't know anybody who would consider the term "Chinese Vietnamese" offensive to either a person with mixed Chinese Vietnamese heritage, or a somebody of Chinese ancestry who was born in Vietnam). You appear to be new, so let me pass on some basic house rules first
  • assume good faith
  • don't refactor other people's comments in talk pages
  • talk about the content you are unhappy with; don't waste other people's time whinging about Wikipedia or its users. Kransky (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those editors who don't know why a Vietnamese Australian might feel extremely insulted if they were labeled 'Chinese' all over a superficial difference (or presumption thereof), perhaps they should examine the similarities between the various Viet peoples and their somewhat similar histories of struggle against foreign domination. Some peoples might, for instance, be surprised to discover just how similar the Cantonese and Vietnamese peoples are (both culturally and genetically)! 122.105.150.197 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think somewhere along the way you were not informed that Chinese-speaking people in Vietnam are not indigenous to the region. Most of them are descendants of Ming dynasty refugees during the 18th century after the Qing takeover. They did not take Vietnamese citizenship until forced to do so. Please provide evidence that the classification is offensive to them - I think the Australian census is self-reported, so if they feel more like Vietnamese they are free to report themselves as Vietnamese. DHN (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is User:DHN also aware that the Vietnamese ethnic group is really a collection of smaller and barely distinguishable ethnic groups, many of which originated from places like present-day Canton? I seem to recall a comment by a user that discussed diversity within the Vietnamese ethnic group and how the Au Lac tribe was only one of the many constituent groups. Is he also aware that in practice one cannot distinguish between the Vietnamese and Cantonese peoples on the basis of such things as 'appearance' at all, that the cultures of the Vietnamese and Cantonese peoples are very similar and that their languages are quite similar? 122.105.146.201 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Aus census is up to the individual to put in whatever they want, so this is self-identification. A lot of folks claimed to be "Jedi Knight". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people might find Blnguyen's claim funny but the reality is quite serious. If it is true that a substantial portion of the Australian community have been either giving silly responses or telling lies whenever ABS conducts a census, then these incidents say something about the reliability of the census itself. I wonder what happens to people who get caught trying to interfere with the census (which does include writing 'Jedi Knight' on the census form). 122.105.146.201 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-identification is the only way a census works. There is no other way to get information about people's ethnic numbers, except for DNA tests. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic, what are you proposing wrt to the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw 122.108.146.201's attention to details of the ABS Census and the question of ancestry below. He should explain why he thinks people are incapable of ticking a box marked "Vietnamese" or "Chinese" in a Census.

For the 2006 Census, the objective of the question on ancestry is to gain a better understanding of a person's ethnic background, particularly for Australians who have recently arrived. A person's ancestry, when used in conjunction with the person's birthplace, language and religion, and whether the person's parents were born in Australia or overseas, provides a good indication of the ethnic background of first and second generation Australians.

Ancestry data also helps to identify the distinct cultural groups within Australia, such as Maoris or Australian South Sea Islanders, and groups which are spread across countries, such as Kurds or Indians. Country of birth data alone cannot identify these groups. Identification of these groups is essential for planning and the effective delivery of services to particular ethnic communities.
ANCESTRY IN EARLIER CENSUSES
Ancestry was first included as a question in the 1986 Census. The aim of the question was to measure the ethnic composition of the population as a whole. Evaluation showed that it was not useful for this purpose as there was a high level of subjectivity and confusion about what the question meant, particularly for those people whose families had been in Australia for many generations. Very little use was made of the ancestry data from the 1986 Census. As a consequence, ancestry was not included in either the 1991 or 1996 Censuses.


However, leading up to the 2001 Census, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) established a Census Consultative Group on Ancestry, with the objectives of:


  • seeking user input;
  • identifying user requirements for these data;
  • researching international practices; and
  • developing and testing questions which would provide acceptable and accurate data at a reasonable cost.
The conclusion of the Consultative Group was that major policy issues required data about those people who were born overseas themselves, or whose parents were born overseas. It was considered that an ancestry question, in combination with a question on whether the person's parents were born in Australia or overseas, would produce the desired information.


ANCESTRY IN THE 2006 CENSUS
For the 2006 Census, respondents were asked to mark the ancestries they most closely identified with and to consider their ancestry back as far as two generations (ie. their parents and grandparents). Respondents were asked to report at least one ancestry, but no more than two ancestries (see Figure 1). The instructions differed from the 2001 Census where respondents were asked to 'Provide more than one ancestry if necessary', and to consider their parents, grandparents and great grandparents.


Because Ancestry is a multi-response question in the Census, responses were coded into two variables - ANCP1 (first response) and ANCP2 (second response). Depending on the number of responses given, some people are recorded with one ancestry while others have two. There is no ranking of responses, so if a respondent reports two ancestries, both answers have equal standing.


For output, the two ancestry variables (ANCP1 and ANCP2) have been combined into one variable - ANCP. It is important to note that in a table which shows a selection of ancestries, those people who reported two ancestries will be counted twice and the total for the table may be greater than the number of people in the selected geographic area. To assist users when analysing ancestry data in standard output, such as the Basic Community Profile, and Census Tables, tables display both total responses and total persons. Data in this form is useful for showing the total number of people who reported a specific ancestry e.g. Chinese.


It is still possible to derive ancestry data using the two individual response variables. For example, the number of persons who have both Australian and Vietnamese ancestry can be obtained by cross-tabulating these two ancestry variables.


THE ANCESTRY CLASSIFICATION


Ancestry is coded using the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG), Second Edition 2005-06 (cat. no. 1249.0).


It is based on:
  • the geographic area in which a group originated or developed; and
  • the similarity of cultural and ethnic groups in terms of social and cultural characteristics.


The ABS developed this classification to satisfy wide community interest in the ethnic and cultural composition of the Australian population and the characteristics of particular migrant community groups. The classification is intended to provide a standard to meet a growing statistical, administrative and service delivery need for data relating to these interests.


The ASCCEG classification for ethnicity is based on the self-perceived group identification approach, which uses a self-assessed response to a direct question. This approach measures the extent to which individuals associate with particular cultural or ethnic groups.


Further information on this subject is available in the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG), Second Edition 2005-06 (cat. no. 1249.0).

(ref: ABS Census) Kransky (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that an alternative source be used. I really cannot imagine a situation where there would be more Vietnamese language speakers in Australia than Vietnamese Australians; it just does not make sense in the current environment. Also, I can't see why Australian citizens of Hoa descent should not be counted as Vietnamese Australians.
Fortunately, if it is possible to get down to the really fine details of the ABS census, then we might be able to extract the required information (or reasonable approximation thereof). For example, if we can get hold of the ABS statistics for Vietnamese born people and their Australian descendants only, then the number of Vietnamese Australians can easily be determined simply by - you guessed it - a raw count (in this case there would be no need to examine their ancestries as this is not part of the definition for 'Vietnamese Australian' as used by most Australians and the media).
As for the question regarding the concepts of 'Vietnamese' and 'Chinese' ancestries, I believe that the question has already been answered when someone said that all humans are ultimately descended from people living in Africa thousands of years ago. Note that the current definition of 'Vietnamese Australian' avoids reference to ancestry, ethnicity or cultural identity; strictly speaking, it defines a civic identity only. 122.109.121.70 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are more Vietnamese speakers in Australia than Vietnamese Australians - what information do you think is implying this?
You have not explained the relevance of the cute statement that suggests ancestry is meaningless because we are all ultimately descended from people living in Africa is cute. 20 million people who filled out a Census form could answer the question on ancestry.
Please tell me your source that specifies what is the "definition for 'Vietnamese Australian' as used by most Australians and the media", and how it is more reliable than what a Census agency is producing. Kransky (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed notability of Thang Ngo

This person is only a Fairfield City councillor. I highly doubt that this person is notable as even ethnic Vietnamese living in other Sydney suburbs such as Liverpool or Auburn are not likely to have even heard of this person. If there is more to the story, then please feel free to provide evidence to establish the notability (or lack thereof) of this person.
Perhaps it is time that all entries in the "notable" section (especially those that have no corresponding Wikipedia article) be reviewed for notability. David873 (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Natalie Tran

I have been adding Natalie Tran to the notable vietnamese austrailians list but some mother fucker keeps deleting her. Stop it!

Insults do not aid your argument and only make you sound ignorant. If you can't discuss the matter in a polite way, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity of Vietnamese

According to this http://geography.about.com/od/culturalgeography/a/10languages.htm

Vietnamese is NOT the 6th most spoken language in the world.

Perhaps this claim can be corrected in the present article.

N.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.20.5 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vietnamese Australians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics of Australia/Booian Australian importance more than 100,000 Australian residents declared their place of birth on the 2006 Australian census as being Viet Nam hence its rating as Demographics-importance = top --Matilda talk 21:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vietnamese Australians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Add these two demographic maps about Vietnamese Australians to the article.

File:Australian Census 2011 demographic map - Australia by SLA - BCP field 1216 Vietnamese Total Responses.svg

File:Australian Census 2011 demographic map - Inner Sydney by SLA - BCP field 1216 Vietnamese Total Responses.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Demographic_maps_of_people_of_Vietnamese_ancestry_by_Statistical_Local_Area

162.251.60.16 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It is not clear where you want to include these two images. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2024

Please add this image of the Vietnamese Australian community to the Infobox.

File:Vietnamese Australian community in Melbourne, Australia.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vietnamese_Australian_community_in_Melbourne,_Australia.jpg

Vietnamese Australian community in Melbourne, Australia

Thank you!

Na2212 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Melmann 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnamese_Australians"