Talk:Pacific Solution

There is argument whether to include only information relating to the policies of the Australian Liberal Party here or to include the relevant policies of both ruling parties, and continuing efforts to remove all discussion of push factors. The article should present a complete picture in order to stay neutral. Djapa Owen (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.54.209 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement "The number of genuine refugees who were put through the Pacific Solution process was much lower than those who are currently seeking asylum. Only around 40% of Pacific Solution refugees were granted Australian Visas, another 30% went to other countries such as New Zealand (who have the right to settle in Australia) and another 30% were sent home.[citation needed]" has issues:

(1) The first sentence is not a statement of fact: needs citation. (2) The remaining statistics are false: see citation [2] in the article that states "96% of refugees were resettled in Australia and NZ. --> Therefore this sentence should be removed if not cited. Antenatruth (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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: [2] 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)

Nevertheless this ignores statistics of boats intercepted outside of Australian waters and in either, Australia's exclusive economic zone that is also international waters or in Indonesian waters with forward defence and with permission to intercept with the Indonesia government. Thus the statistics are unreliable and paint a rosy picture.Liberalcynic1 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

These statistics also ignore the SIEV's that sunk or where otherwise lost track of. Antenatruth (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I think you do reveal your bias even though the numbers do appear strong in isolation for 2009. You are selective in your data, ignoring available information before 1999. Very sloppy and suspect as it is typical of the cherry-picking we see to bolster so-called conservative politics now. You dismiss 'push factors', but how do you explain the big jump from virtually nothing during the '90s in 1999-2001? Howard Government policies or the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan? Or Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s. Fraser policies or the end of the American War in Vietnam? How is the end of the Sri Lankan civil war different? Or a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan? Both in 2009. Asylum seeker numbers were rising everywhere into 2009 as shown by the UNHCR - an inconvenient correlation it seems.

And can you be sure that the so-called 'people smugglers' are not more prevalent or crafty now. There is also the High Court case in 2010 that ruled the 'procedural unfairness' which was one point in the deterrent of asylum seekers was invalid and those shunted to a Pacific Island had to have the same rules and rights of appeals as other. This arguably makes the 'Pacific Solution' less effective as a deterrent. It is very clear that factors other than the government response of the day is involved.

All this doesn't necessarily negate the idea that changed policy attracted some people, but it means any numbers game on 'correlation' has to be qualified. This article isn't the semi-literate mob spouting xenophobic crap they have learnt from a shock jock...Gmelina (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation here being spread about what actually has been happening in worldwide asylum seeker numbers. We are told that the Pacific Solution wasn't the cause of the sudden decrease in asylum seeker numbers from 5500 in 2001 to only 1 single arrival in 2002 and this is because of the Afghan War(weird connection there). However numbers from the UNHCR disagree. Worldwide asylum seeker numbers actually peaked in 2002.. not decreased. After the 2002 peak the numbers were indeed on a downward trend, with ups and downs but never returned to their previous 2002 high. Indeed 2010 numbers were about half those reached in 2002. You can see this graph for yourself here: UNHCR Asylum Numbers

So as we can see on the UNHCR graph asylum seeker numbers overall have been on a downward trend since 2002's peak. So now we must look at other reasons why Australia's number dropped to almost Nil in 2002 from a previous high of 5500 despite 2002 being a peak year for Asylum Seekers. Then we must look at what happened in 2008-2009 which in the UNHCR chart was on a downward trend yet Australia's boatpeople number increased from 160 to 2900 arrivals. 2 very clear and concise changes that can't be explained away with worldwide asylum factors. We may get a 3rd chance to see another clear and concise change when Abbott introduces Pacific Solution Phase 2.Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Very little due diligence has been even attempted on this subject (or in this "debate", as i keep hearing), and given that the relevant statistics are easily available, I would have to presume that either widespread statistical illiteracy or the fingers-in-the-ears principle are at work here.

Of interest are the UNHCR figures for Afghanistan available here in PDF [[3]]

In section D, the number of "Refugees/Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan" worldwide dropped from 3.8 million in 2001 to 2.5 million in 2002, again dropping to 2.1 million in 2003 (2004: 2.4m , 2005: 2.1m where the figures cut out). This is a definite drop in refugees outside of Afghanistan, but where do 1.6 million people go?

Well, go to section A, and you will see 1.9 million refugees returned to Afghanistan in 2002 alone. Why so high a figure? That's because, in the same table, you will notice that in 2001 there were 1.2 million Internally Dispaced Persons(IDPs) within the borders of Afghanistan and 0.75 million of them resettled in 2002. This ties in very well with the development of the current Afghanistan War, which began in October 2001 and ousted the Taliban from control of the country.

Since then the war has certainly not de-escalated, but the statistics show that for a number of years refugees had the confidence to go back to their country and resettle.

The situation in Afghanistan can best be represented by this map [[4]], which shows a resurgent Taliban recapturing a lot of their former influence and control. The question is: what is the push effect of this new development?

To digress slightly, a graph that might be interesting is the number of Coalition Military Casualties during the war, [[5]]. This gives an idea of the war's increasing intensity.

Also of interest is: [[6]]. This section gives a concise picture of the troop surges during the war, to a peak of 100,000 US troops alone in 2011. It's unclear whether the deployment and withdrawal of troops has helped or harmed the war effort, but certain public relations disasters have almost certainly helped the Taliban insurgency, notably the "August 2008 Azizabad airstrike in Herat Province, which killed 91 civilians, including 60 children and 15 women." Continuing, "The attack sparked protest over "collateral damage"; with a 40% increase in civilian deaths in 2008." (Push effects?)

So it is hard to decide what the biggest push factor is, because there are different regions of Afghanistan (Taliban-era refugees had a large component of shi'ite Hazara, to name one regional group), and the Taliban is a problem also in Pakistan where most refugee camps are, as seen by this report of a bombing in a Pakistani camp: [[7]] Any push effects here?

In the absence of data, I can only speculate. But I do so with much more real evidence to hand than the maker of that irrelevant graph on the page of our subject in question.

Of further interest is a paper “Destination anywhere? Factors affecting asylum seekers' choice of destination country” ([[8]]) written by Harriet Spinks the co-author of “Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976” on which our incognito graph plotter partly based their work. ([[9]]) Monsieur Puppy (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias

The use of the expression 'illegal entrant' is biased. It is not illegal to enter Australia and seek asylum to the best of my knowledge. RichardA64 (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC) IT is certainly not illegal under Australian law vis-a-vis the treaties we have ratified. Liberalcynic1 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree: all references to "unauthorised" is irrelevant as above. Antenatruth (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is illegal to attempt entry to any country without a visa or through other than an official entry point. These people are attempting to unlawfully enter Australia so it is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.114.48 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To the previous unsigned contribution, an unsigned reply: It is in general (and certainly in Australia) perfectly legal to enter a country without a visa and not through an official entry point if your reason for doing so is a legitimate claim to asylum. The Howard-era criticism of "boat people", while rarely spelled out explicitly, was that a large fraction of their number were not legitimate asylum seekers but were, instead, economic migrants (Remember: Like it or not, living in poverty and in a country with repressive social norms does not make you a legitimate asylum seeker). This, then, was the basis for the endless arguments over whether such people were entering the country illegally. The truth, as an honest broker might expect, is that some of them were illegal and some of them were perfectly legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.65.110 (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of legality in claiming asylum, by whatever means, needs clarification. On the face of it, it is not illegal to claim asylum, nor to enter a country to do so, but issue and discussion should be about Australian and International law, not the party-political views of people who have been duped by muck-raking politicians and shock jocks. Actually, this isn't always condemned for political purposes, but is often celebrated for propaganda reasons, ie when people "illegally" escaped from East Germany to West Germany without permission from either place.Gmelina (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

Bipartisan means with the involvement of 2 groups/individuals(bi), each with significantly differing(partisan) views. Possibly non-partisan would be more appropriate.

Bipartisan is not hyphenated, just as bicycle binoculars binary biped biplane bisect etc,etc.... are not hy-phenated. Be-ware in-accurate spell-checks.

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

This article was tagged in 2008 as "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Is there consensus that the article is now balanced? And can the POV tag be removed? If not could you provide some advice or assist with finding the balance. CamV8 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I’d say remove it now. If someone says there’s a problem, chances are it isn’t the same issue from 2008.

Personally I think POV tags are bad news, although I admit to using them too. It’s something that all readers (remember them?) see – yet editors often seem to use them as a weapon in content disputes between other editors, with little regard to the actual users. POV tags regularly seem to be used as kind of a hostage tool. Ie, “This is staying here til I get my way, and don’t remove it til there’s agreement cause that’s what the tag says. Oh, and I only agree to what I want, so let it stay”. Some tags have been around for years. They are often selfish signs of childish and cantakerous tantrums. --Merbabu (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boat Arrivals image POV

A discussion is underway at [10] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the juxtaposition of the numbers of arrivals and the pacific solution policy could lead the reader to believe that a causal link has been established. The graph does not contain enough information (for e.g if the number of arrivals is the numerator, what is the denominator or quantum? What world events may have affected the numbers seeing asylum?), and therefore does not stand alone in my opinion. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should go at the talk page of the image as it is used in a number of articles dealing with the subject. [11] Djapa Owen (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Paul Kelly assertion biassed?

The last line of the section ==Suspension of the policy== states "Since the abandonment of the policy there has been a massive increase in arrivals by sea of asylum seekers, with over 45,000 arriving since 2008." with a reference from the tabloid journalist Paul Kelly who is not known for neutrality. Does it really make sense to include such a sweeping assertion when we do not have consensus about whether correlation equates to causality here on the discussion page? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying the claim isn't true? If not, why not? Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we have consensus about reporting correlation as causality? That is the real question here. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the data can be correlated to government policy is NOT true, and that IS what the claim is, end of story.--Monsieur Puppy (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Need more discussion

I'd like to mention that the comment "Graph is irrelevant because Afghans make less than 20% of illegal arrivals. Try UNHCR Worldwide Asylum Claim numbers instead" left as an edit summary properly belonged on this talk page, especially considering it was accompanied by a deletion. So let me kick off the discussion by asking for references to the claims being made. We are actually building a concensus based on readily available information about the subject at hand. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The quoted statement is totally illogical with or without references, as the arrivals under discussion are not illegal under Australian or international law. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I do of course have the stats that show Afghans make less than 20% of illegal arrivals now, but as you are the instigator of the graph it's up to you to prove otherwise it shouldn't be my job to fact check your claims. Also the graph has major issues in that if a majority of Afghans returned home in 2002, what relevence does the graph have from then on? Of course nothing. What if every single Afghan returned home, would that cause more boats or less? Common sense dictates your added Afghan returnees is therefore irrelevent. I've told you what you need to do to remain non-biased and want to include push factors... worldwide UNHCR Asylum Claim Numbers, here it is here to get you started: http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/files/2012_Asylum_Trends.pdf

Also you have doubled up on a graph which is already on the page, take your complaints and recommended changes to the Talk Page for the main GraphCrocodile2009 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You realise that you are engaging in an edit war by removing the graph twice. The object seems to be to remove from view relevant information. That aside, it is difficult to make perfect sense of your objections, given that you were involved in the development of the other graph on this page, and one that has been continually objected to as an NPOV violation, i don't strictly agree now, so i haven't removed it (twice), i ask you to extend the same courtesy. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

SIEVs

In response to the comment Boat Arrivals under Howard were designated Suspected ILLEGAL Arrival Vessels, please check facts first before editing left in an edit summary (!), i'll direct you to the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[12]], "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" is the term used, this is current official usage. Thats what i checked before i edited it. Monsieur Puppy(talk) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, but the SIEV's mentioned and it's definition were in regards to the boats that arrived under Howard with specific numbers and the correct definition. Future boats under Rudd and Gillard had their designated name changed to your definition but that doesn't make PAST arrivals designation change. SIEV boats under Howard by legislated definition were Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels... you can't retrospectively change those designations as much as you'd like. After this upcoming election they will be renamed Illegal Vessels again so don't kick up a fuss when people change all the definitions here as well.Crocodile2009 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats not my definition, its the definition of the Customs and Border Protection Service, i only changed it to match the wikipedia article link, and since i haven't altered your reversion i imagine you would have to assume good will. It matters little to me personally whether the anagram spells "Illegal" or "Irregular", that ball is in the court of the Customs and Border Protection Service. It also matters little to me who wins any election of any sort, i like to think i'm a little bit smarter than that. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Nauru....concerned

Nothing in the Age article referenced states anything about Nauru itself being concerned. The relevant section reads as follows: THE end of the Pacific Solution is likely to leave a gaping hole in Nauru's economy, with concerns that the closure of the immigration detention camps will devastate the near-bankrupt island.The only people cited are "Human rights advocate Susan Metcalfe" and "Mark Thompson, a former AusAid official", neither are Nauruan. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Graph showing Afghan "returnees" and boat arrivals

The Graph showing boat arrivals and then trying to connect it to Afghan returnee numbers is clearly POV and WP:FRINGE because as we have seen recently, there has been a 80%+ reduction in illegal boat arrivals with the introduction of Operation Sovereign Borders. So why are numbers that are irrelevant to the Pacific Solution still being shown on a graph? And wouldn't a more accurate... rather than a WP:FRINGE graph be worldwide U.N asylum seeker number claims which I am happy to replace it with? BTW there is no "Showing the other side" of the argument because that is POV whereas the graph simply showing the introduction of the policy isn't as agreed on the graphs talk page. Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You cannot seriously claim there is any consensus there, in the discussion of the graph here or on the Gillard page. The arrivals vs policies graph is simplistic and biassed. It shows arrivals vs Liberal government policy (as does the claim about the success of OSB which is little change from the PNG 'solution' /OSB did not stop the boats) as if Australia exists in a vacuum. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed, but this article is about the Pacific Solution and the goals of the Pacific Solution. It has nothing to do with Afghan returnee numbers. Therefore your graph has to go. Of course marking the introduction and end of the Pacific Solution on a graph as well as boat arrival numbers IS relevent because this is the Pacific Solution article. Not only is your graph irrelevant to the article, it is also a fringe view now being confirmed by the reduction in illegal boat arrivals from whatever Government policy you choose to decide did the job... had NOTHING to do with "Afghan Returnees" as you now have just admitted. The Afghan returnee graph has now therefore expired the realms to logic and must therefore go.Crocodile2009 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your logic escapes me. The Pacific Solution was responding to an influx of refugees who were predominantly from Afghanistan so the asylum seekers vs returnees data is directly relevant. There is a direct and obvious correlation between the number of Afghani refugees returning home and the drop in the number looking for asylum elsewhere. If the article was about African migrants heading to Europe then other factors like war and famine in sub-saharan Africa might be more relevant, but it is not. The PNG solution's most fundamental features were the rejection of the principles of non-refoulment and the "right to be free from penalties pertaining to the illegality of their entry to or presence within a country" in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The Howard government did not do either of these things as fundamentally as the Rudd government has, and the Abbott government has continued these parts of the Rudd policy. The Pacific Solution article relates to the period of the Pacific Solution policy which was in force from 2001 to 2007 and the situation in Afghanistan over that period is totally relevant. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, So now you are claiming Rudd's Pacific Solution worked, but Howards Pacific Solution didn't work? You've gone completely kook on us and it's now a fringe view that the Pacific Solution.... whether it's Rudds, Abbott's or Howard's doesn't stop illegal boat arrival. It's a complete and total unhingement from reality on your part. And yes Afghan returnee numbers might have been high in 2001, but as is pointed out to you constantly... UNHCR Number for Worldwide Asylum Claims(the number that actually matters) peaked in 2002.... that's the same year Australia had 1 single boat arrival under the Pacific Solution. ONE. It confirms what we already knew... and what Op Sov Borders reconfirms and that is the Pacific Solution stopped the boats and now domestic policy in Australia is once again stopping the boats.Crocodile2009 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You spout the global figure again and again despite people repeatedly pointing out that figure is swamped by African and Eastern European asylum applicants moving to Western Europe. It is not relevant and you know it. It seems like your POV is so strong and extreme that you cannot see what neutral is.

I do not care who did it, the PNG policy involved excising the Australian mainland from the Australian immigration zone and violating UN treaties and international law which worked. It was in my opinion totally immoral and outrageous, but it did work where endangering lives at sea (on all sides, ADF included) by turning back boats could not.

Anyway, we are diverging. We are arguing about the merits of the policy, not talking about the neutrality of the article. When you have a contentious subject like this the only way to maintain neutrality is to include all arguments, for and against, and allow the reader to make their own mind up. That is why the two graphs should both be included. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So which is it??? Pacific Solutions do work, or Pacific Solutions don't work?? Or is that you only think they work when someone on your side is dragged kicking and screaming to reintroduce it?? And just WHAT happened in 2008 to cause a massive surge in illegal boat arrivals?? And why didn't the rest of the world see this massive surge in asylum seekers? And why did Australia only get 1 illegal boat arrival in 2002? Sorry, there is nothing left to argue on this. It's a leftwing conspiracy theory that push factors stopped the boats and your graph has no consensus and therefore has to go.Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some interesting attitudes coming out there Croc. You are assuming Labor is my "side" (wrong on that one). You have decided it is "my graph" (wrong there too), and everyone who does not agree with you is part of a "left wing conspiracy". What does that say about your perspective?

This argument is getting rather long winded and repetitive with only two editors involved. I think it is time to put a call out for more eyes to look over this one (and I don't mean by PM). Djapa Owen (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am the author of the graph in question (or quarrel?), and i've reinstated it. I have to point out the obvious. It isn't WP:FRINGE simply because it doesn't fit into a political agenda. It ISreferenced. Those references are central to the subject at hand, and the graph is a statement of fact. To clarify, in case one's sense of political pique threatens to dumb one down, when the US sent troops to Afghanistan and initially fought the Taliban into submission, confidence was inspired in the refugees already in the pipeline to return to Afghanistan, and you will see that represented both on the graph in the 2002 column and in the UNHCR figures referenced. Do not remove the graph without discussing here (on this Talk page) how the article would benefit from it. This isn't the first time it's happened. The political views expressed have been noted, and i'll remind you that they have no place on the article itself, but i'll also remind you that they have no place here either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Puppy (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would help if editors were to discuss proposed changes to the extant article prior to making changes, I have to agree, more so when there have already been discussions about proposed edits which have prompted RFC. The graph appears informative and legitimate, in my opinion, I'm not sure why it was removed. If there's a reason, the editor that removed it please comment about it, if you would. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The data on the graph is 3 Years out of date. I've removed it because as what was done with the other graph it was removed until the data was updated.RandomUsername765 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing it off the cuff still conflicts withthe suggestions of the last two edits that it should be discussed first. However, I do agree with the suggestion that updating it would make sense. Does anyone have up to date figures on return numbers? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The graph is reinstated. You can't simply single-handedly remove something and then talk about it, you must discuss it here first, otherwise, what are you talking about? something that's no longer visible? I'll remind you this is a collaborative environment. There is no absolute imperative for a graph to be up to date, that depends on available data. Do you have the data? if you do, you are free to produce an updated version of the same graph. By the way, the graph above it entitled "Number of people arriving in Australia by unauthorised boat" is not properly referenced. There is a web address written on the graph itself, that is information that needs to be clickable (This is the internet). I would suggest referencing that graph in the normative format for Wikipedia, ie. via a link to the reference section.--Monsieur Puppy (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The graph is 3 Years out of date and the other graph was removed until it was updated. Other than that there is the point of WP:REL According to this government report asylum-statistics-aus-jun-qtr-2013.pdf there were a total of 18119 IMA's applications commenced in the 2012-13 period. Of these 3572 were Afghans. That's less than 20% of all arrivals. Wouldn't it be nice to have a graph showing what the other ~80% were doing?RandomUsername765 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're refering to the graph "Number of people arriving in Australia by unauthorised boat"? Well, i don't believe that it should have been removed, that isn't Wikipedia policy. The author of the graph obviously took upon himself the onus to update it, with a single new figure. The data sets between the graphs are identical but for this, anyone can see that. As for the UNHCR statistics, they are not yet available, so you have no argument.--Monsieur Puppy (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC Not Stated Properly

Greetings, Wiki Editors! There was an RFC opened however a review of the Talk:: page here shows that the RFC is not stated according to the traditional RFC Dispute Resolution. So that others may get a clear and concise statement of the issues under discussion, (1) an RFC template needs to be created and (2) under that template Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it...

People may offer their opinions when they are randomly selected by the 'bot for RFC however lacking specifics, you might not find people offering comments. If possible could one of the editors discussing the contentious issue(s) please update this Talk:: page so that the RFC request better matches the RFC policy RFC Dispute Resolution? Damotclese (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No RFC to respond to

Having arrived here by bot invitation, I expected to find an RFC to comment on. Instead, all I find is long-winded and repetitious argument by a very few editors. Come on, guys, if you want some help, please be courteous and don't waste our time. Who's going to trawl through all that argument to try to discern the real issue, then comment on that guess? Please create an RFC in the usual format, with clear issues to comment on. For now, I'm off! yoyo (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)