Talk:Pacific Solution: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 58.7.143.196 - "→"Correlation is not causation": new section" |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Suggest replacement of this citation with a 'citation needed' tag on the claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.89.170.94|202.89.170.94]] ([[User talk:202.89.170.94|talk]]) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Suggest replacement of this citation with a 'citation needed' tag on the claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/202.89.170.94|202.89.170.94]] ([[User talk:202.89.170.94|talk]]) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
This citation 9 has been replaced with a citation needed, but I think the sentence itself should be removed, further down in the comments there is a year/boat/people chart that if sourced, would be more effective in solving the perceived bias against the pacific solution. But right now the sentence itself seems to be unfounded. Suggest deletion, sourcing, or replacement. |
|||
==Transportation and penal transportation== |
==Transportation and penal transportation== |
Revision as of 13:56, 13 March 2011
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Australia: Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Cost of the pacific solution
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) - $69.9 million
Administered Items
$52.7m adjustment for strengthened assistance to the Solomon Islands; ($0.2m) adjustment for policing assistance to East Timor; and $15.5m adjustment for the extension of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nauru. [1]
Regards, Ben Aveling 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The cost of the Pacific Solution is much higher than the figures stated here. As soon as the article is unlocked, I will add the newer figures (with references).--Lester 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Needs work
What we basically have here right now is a definition of the Pacific Solution followed by criticism. The cost is listed as a "criticism" and the links are mostly to groups who oppose the PS.
We need to present the arguments for and against this policy as both exist - The article makes it look like a government policy everyone hates. 70.189.213.149 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Citation 9, which is in support of the claim "Only around 40% of Pacific Solution boatpeople were granted Australian Visa's, another 30% went to other countries and another 30% were sent home. This compares to around a 90% approval when coming via boat through the current Rudd/Gillard Scheme." This citation links to a Human Rights Commission submission which doesn't discuss approval numbers at all and in any case is dated 2006, so could not possible attempt to compare approval percentages before and after the PS.
Suggest replacement of this citation with a 'citation needed' tag on the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.170.94 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This citation 9 has been replaced with a citation needed, but I think the sentence itself should be removed, further down in the comments there is a year/boat/people chart that if sourced, would be more effective in solving the perceived bias against the pacific solution. But right now the sentence itself seems to be unfounded. Suggest deletion, sourcing, or replacement.
Transportation and penal transportation
Please explain why thie link from 'transportation' to 'penal transportation' is being undone...???? Paki.tv 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article you keep directing it to deals with the dealing of "convicted" criminals. The transportation that is described is of people who have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The rescue operations conducted by the Australian Navy are in fact just that. The are Humanitarian transports, usually saving people from the dilapidated craft they are on. If you think they are "penal" journeys then you need a reference describing it so. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK I take the point. The claim is verging on OR ... Paki.tv 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've found a reference. Hope thats OK with you ;> Paki.tv 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK I take the point. The claim is verging on OR ... Paki.tv 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article you keep directing it to deals with the dealing of "convicted" criminals. The transportation that is described is of people who have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. The rescue operations conducted by the Australian Navy are in fact just that. The are Humanitarian transports, usually saving people from the dilapidated craft they are on. If you think they are "penal" journeys then you need a reference describing it so. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It still doesn't meet the definition of Penal transportation, the article you are trying to link to. Let me quote from that articles first line; "penal transportation is used to refer to the deporting of convicted criminals to a penal colony". Like I said before the unauthorised arrivals to Australia were not convicted of any crime and the islands in question are not penal colonies. This is another case of you synthesizing facts out of the opinions of a single non notable person. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- So John Howard and the government of Australia are non notable? i don't think so. As for penal transportation, the author maybe obscure but it is a contemporary topic and this is an encyclopaedia entry - not a tabloid or 'gutter' press article - as such it is well researched as well as verifiable. as i have stated, check the article. i have added a reference addition to the definition of transportation. Paki.tv 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed the point I am making. Why are you claiming these people have been "convicted" of a crime as is required to fit the definition of Penal transportation? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK yes, sorry - I've changed the definition - How now? Paki.tv 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please discuss changes firstPaki.tv 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that a more correct and WP:NPOV term would be "transferred" which is the word used by a majority of discussions on the subject. "Transportation" is only supported by a single rather obscure reference and even then, it doesn't make the assocation, just the analogy. I recommend that the expressed "Transportation" is removed from the lede and a comment is made in the body of the text only the lines of "Some commentators have likened the policy to transportation" with the appropriate wikilinks. There is no need for changes at Penal Transportation as the discussion is about the Pacific Solution being likened to something rather than the other way around. Shot info 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Bias
We seem to have a couple of sentances on what the Pacific Solution is, followed by paragraphs of critisism of the policy. The 'equal weight' given to both sides of the argument is not here. I think it needs a re-write. Matt5091 (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- More information on why you feel it could be bias and what sections need a re-write? Bidgee (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The obvious solution would be to add some praise of the Pacific solution, or criticism of its end. I've made a step in this direction. Cap'nTrade (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a claim that a report says that the Pacific Solution did not reduce the amount of arrivals. This is clearly an opinion and not one of actual fact as the government numbers show they did infact drop signficantly after the implementation of the Pacific Solution: [1] Therefore the opinions of a non-government leftwing organisation are being contradicted with actual figures, I request the last point of the Pacific Solution not reducing arrivals be removed as the claim is clearly false. Crocodile2009 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is not 'clearly false'. Correlation is not causation. 27.32.126.190 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
"Correlation is not causation"
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" was the Latin label for the logical fallacy of attributing causation to a prior event just because it was prior. However, the simplest and most often ignored rule of aetiology is that no effect can occur before its cause. As a result, an aetiologist works backwards from the effect, testing for causal links.
Monsoons? Push factors? Both fail the test. The only factor alleged to have stopped the flow of boat people which checks out is the "failed Pacific Solution.
Unauthorised boat arrivals
Year Boats People
1999 86 3721
2000 51 2939
2001 43 5516
2002 1 1
2003 1 53
2004 1 15
2005 4 11
2006 6 60
2007 5 148
2008 7 161
2009 59 2828
2010
6 mos 59 2982
Correlation is not causation, but correlation is certain one effect of causation. The numbers are, I believe, quite convincing. Tom Lawson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.143.196 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)