File talk:BoatArrivals.gif: Difference between revisions
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:::Looking at the source referenced in that document, it seems short on relevant data. I quote a few relevant paras: ''However, Afghan demand for these possibilities is out-stripping supply – between 2000 and 2012 Afghan GDP per capita increased by roughly 50%, but secure transit to a refugee place in Europe or Australia that cost around $5000 in 2000 now costs $15,000''. Possibly rising costs reflect the risk and difficulty of penetrating hardened borders. And, ''Over the next few years, we expect more Afghans to attempt to move to Europe, North America and Oceania. Facing softened but still restrictive asylum regimes, a greater proportion will work illegally and engage in fraudulent family, marriage or education arrangements''. |
:::Looking at the source referenced in that document, it seems short on relevant data. I quote a few relevant paras: ''However, Afghan demand for these possibilities is out-stripping supply – between 2000 and 2012 Afghan GDP per capita increased by roughly 50%, but secure transit to a refugee place in Europe or Australia that cost around $5000 in 2000 now costs $15,000''. Possibly rising costs reflect the risk and difficulty of penetrating hardened borders. And, ''Over the next few years, we expect more Afghans to attempt to move to Europe, North America and Oceania. Facing softened but still restrictive asylum regimes, a greater proportion will work illegally and engage in fraudulent family, marriage or education arrangements''. |
||
:::"Softened but still restrictive asylum regimes" - isn't that Australia all over? Now, if there were similar figures from other asylum-seeker destinations showing similar flat-lining effects, there might be something to discuss. But what other destinations also show such a dramatic change? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) |
:::"Softened but still restrictive asylum regimes" - isn't that Australia all over? Now, if there were similar figures from other asylum-seeker destinations showing similar flat-lining effects, there might be something to discuss. But what other destinations also show such a dramatic change? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
We should all read the SYNTH guidelines again "''SYNTH cautions against committing "original syn", i.e. original research by synthesis.''" [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position]] are relevant. This graph's content makes a combination of data in such a way that it makes a claim to original research not verifiable by its main source, and its source is nowhere cited properly (only a dead link written on the graph itself!). Well the source is the Parliamentary Library research paper (updated 23 July 2013) "Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976" by Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/5P1X6/upload_binary/5P1X6.pdf . In fact, it resembles the first example given of original synthesis, to quote: "''The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.''" |
We should all read the SYNTH guidelines again "''SYNTH cautions against committing "original syn", i.e. original research by synthesis.''" [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Synthesis#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position]] are relevant. This graph's content makes a combination of data in such a way that it makes a claim to original research not verifiable by its main source, and its source is nowhere cited properly (only a dead link written on the graph itself!). Well the source is the Parliamentary Library research paper (updated 23 July 2013) "Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976" by Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/5P1X6/upload_binary/5P1X6.pdf . In fact, it resembles the first example given of original synthesis, to quote: "''The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.''" an example given to show the way that two statements are thrown together to suggest a connection. |
||
That is why i removed the graph, which was then reverted by [[User:Surturz|Surturz]]. I believe i was too hasty in removing the graph before discussing the matter, and i don't believe in edit wars, but the graph doesn't really IMHO provide an aid to understanding the various subjects it peppers, i would have to conclude it is only there in support of political rhetoric. |
That is why i removed the graph, which was then reverted by [[User:Surturz|Surturz]]. I believe i was too hasty in removing the graph before discussing the matter, and i don't believe in edit wars, but the graph doesn't really IMHO provide an aid to understanding the various subjects it peppers, i would have to conclude it is only there in support of political rhetoric. |
||
To cut it short, evidence is what is needed, not innuendo. --[[User:Monsieur Puppy|Monsieur Puppy]] ([[User talk:Monsieur Puppy|talk]]) 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
To cut it short, evidence is what is needed, not innuendo. --[[User:Monsieur Puppy|Monsieur Puppy]] ([[User talk:Monsieur Puppy|talk]]) 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:20, 22 August 2013
It would be interesting if the events driving these arrivals from overseas were also listed, lest it appear to be partisan. Examples might include events in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse and slaughter of the Tamil Tigers.
Updated official version
There is an updated official (and more detailed) version of this graph (as of July 2012), available from: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/5P1X6/upload_binary/5P1X6.pdf
It is licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia' licence. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/)
This may be suitable for an updated replacement if no alterations are made to uploaded graph.
Aeonx (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
More detail needed for NPOV |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
More detail needed for NPOVI agree that it is neccessary to add 'events driving these arrivals from overseas were also listed, lest it appear to be partisan. Examples might include events in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the collapse and slaughter of the Tamil Tigers' to this graphic as mentioned above, plus marking Pacific Solution Mk II in 2012. This needs discussion. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No. The discussion of this image belongs here. The discussion belongs here because this image is used in the same way in several articles and so the discussion should be centralised here. The following is the argument from the Julia Gillard article; Djapa Owen (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I gather that we're being asked to discuss it here, so: I find the graph to be misleading. It highlights a single issue (policy changes) and suggests that the policy changes are responsible for changes in immigration numbers, creating a problem with synthesis. While there might be a case for this in articles which provide context, here we only talk about policy changes since 2010, none of which are highlighted on the chart, and we don't provide any broader context. Accordingly, I don't feel that the graph is appropriate in this article. - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Synthesis comes from combining two separate sources to make a new claim. The source used for that graph does not include the policy changes. The creator has combined policy changes with numbers of arrivals to suggest a causal relationship between the two, when other sources claim a more complex relationship. That said, none of the policies included in the graph were the result of the Gillard government. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC) You don't see a graph that shows numbers of arrivals by boat, highlighting the points at which certain policies were introduced without including any other information, as making a claim? I'd be hard pressed to imagine anyone looking at that graph and not seeing a claim of a causal relationship. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Yes, we are. That's why he have the policy against synthesis. If you juxtapose two separate claims, in such a way as to lead the user to a conclusion that isn't supported, then we have a problem. Here we have two juxtaposed claims - the number of people arriving by unauthorised boats, and the policies of various governments - which will lead the reader to conclude a causal relationship. We know, from other sources, that such a conclusion would not be the correct view. It would be far more useful without the policy labels, especially given that none of the highlighted policies are Gillard's. - Bilby (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with Bilby that the juxtaposition of the numbers of arrivals and government policies leads the reader 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC) It's not the 'correct view' because it only graphs one dimension of the total data available and it implies a causal link that hasn't been established. There are more data available on the issue of boat arrivals and providing all of that information would ensure neutrality. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC) There IS actually a well documented
We should all read the SYNTH guidelines again "SYNTH cautions against committing "original syn", i.e. original research by synthesis." [[1]] and [[2]] are relevant. This graph's content makes a combination of data in such a way that it makes a claim to original research not verifiable by its main source, and its source is nowhere cited properly (only a dead link written on the graph itself!). Well the source is the Parliamentary Library research paper (updated 23 July 2013) "Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976" by Janet Phillips and Harriet Spinks http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/5P1X6/upload_binary/5P1X6.pdf . In fact, it resembles the first example given of original synthesis, to quote: "The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world." an example given to show the way that two statements are thrown together to suggest a connection. That is why i removed the graph, which was then reverted by Surturz. I believe i was too hasty in removing the graph before discussing the matter, and i don't believe in edit wars, but the graph doesn't really IMHO provide an aid to understanding the various subjects it peppers, i would have to conclude it is only there in support of political rhetoric. To cut it short, evidence is what is needed, not innuendo. --Monsieur Puppy (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC) |
Request for comment on NPOV issues with this image |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request for comment on NPOV issues with this image.I have asked for comment on the appropriateness of including Australian Government policy changes under the Liberal Party tenure only without also including changes under Labor Party tenure, as well as whether some mention should be made of the major events driving asylum seekers to leave their homes in the first place. So far three other editors have joined me in the discussion of this issue expressing concern about the NPOV of the image and two have replied arguing the contrary. The reason I am escalating this is that those two editors, Surturz and Pete have behaved obstructively by continually removing the POV tag from the file and removing other people's comments from the discussion. This discussion is still ongoing and this behaviour is disruptive and in my opinion unacceptable. If Surturz and Pete feel their arguments are strong then they should have the confidence to put them clearly and let those arguments stand for themselves. This kind of under-handed editing is an attempt to avoid open discussion of the issue. Please show enough guts to be reasonable. Revert this entry and I will escalate the issue. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Djapa84, you are suggesting either that the image be changed or that it be deleted. If you want it deleted, then please raise it at WP:IfD. If you want it changed, please upload your preferred version (with a different name, preferably) so editors know what they are choosing between. Simply tagging as POV is not enough for you to get what you want, someone actually has to delete or modify the image. Consensus for change is moot if no-one is willing to make the change. --Surturz (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This image would support the inclusion of external events such as wars (from the ABC, who else?): [3]. I think it really is time that Djapa84 bit the bullet and uploaded his preferred version of the graph. Without violating the ABC's copyright, of course. --Surturz (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
|