File talk:BoatArrivals.gif

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 NPOV I 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) There is no assertion of cause or effect. That is your interpretation. The Mandatory detention and the Pacific Solution policies are directly relevant to the subject and their inclusion is not POV. Including overseas events in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, will be highly contentious and likely POV. Do you have a date and reliable sources for "Pacific Solution Mk II"? I don't think the ALP called their policy changes in 2012 by that name. --Surturz (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC) There is obviously an effect and that is clearly the reason the start and finish of the Pacific Solution is noted. The link is discussed in the document the image is taken from. I do not argue that it is not reasonable to include that information in the diagram, I am merely suggesting that perhaps we should add a little more detail when such a large proportion of the people coming have come from the theatres of conflict of four countries, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. I also believe your removal of the POV tag is premature Surturz, while I respect your opinion, I put it there to encourage comment from other editors. One comment and one response does not make a full discussion of an issue. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC) We cannot possibly include every relevant factor to irregular boat arrivals in one graph. The correct place for the discussion of how much WP:WEIGHT to assign to "push" and "pull" factors is in the articles that use this graph, not here. It may well be that some other graph could be justified in the relevant article. Discussing the NPOV status of this graph in the absence of the article text is meaningless, as the discussion treats this graph as an entire article, which it is not. In fact, if no articles used this graph then it would get deleted. This graph is not stand-alone content, POV discussions are not meaningful here. That is why I am removing your tag. --Surturz (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC) School children can and do take graphs like this from Wikipedia articles to use in their assignments and then the graph is the only part which is used in its entirety exactly as it is. If they use text from the article they have to paraphrase it in their own words, but they are not required to alter graphics and seldom do. I have flagged the issue on the pages which link to the image and would really appreciate it if you would leave the tag there for a few days. I am only asking for a few more opinions. I do not believe in tagging articles or files as a means of degrading them, in fact if you look at my contribution history I think you will see I have removed more tags than I have put up. I am putting it back for now, please play nice and leave it there till the 27th. If no one else has responded by then I will not argue, OK? Djapa Owen (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I agree with Djapa Owen - this graph implies that changes in Australian Government policies are the only thing which affects the arrivals of boats carrying refugees. The timeframe is somewhat problematic - the 'get tough' policies implemented last year have clearly not lead to a significant drop-off in arrivals, so the implication from the graph that such policies deter arrivals seems problematic. The factors which cause people to attempt to reach Australia through this fairly desperate means should also be noted. Alternately, we could take the approach which the Australian Parliamentary article this is sourced from took, and leave the Australian Government policies out entirely. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC) That would degrade the articles in which the graph is used. This image is used solely in articles discussing the Pacific Solution and Mandatory detention. It is entirely relevant and informative to have the policy start/stop dates on the graph for thos articles! The two of you should not persist in taking the graph out of its context, and then bring in your own personal views about pull and push factors to make your arguments. The articles within which the graph is used DO discuss many, many, factors other than these two policies. Please take the discussion to those articles. --Surturz (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Concur with Surturz. Take the discussion to the article, please! --Pete (talk) 09:11, 24 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've removed my contributions. Pulling an external discussion out of context into another article isn't the way things should happen. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 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 casual causal relationship - a rise in boat arrivals caused the govts of the day to implement the policies. It is a fringe view that boat arrival policies are completely unrelated to boat arrivals. We are not violating SYNTH because we are not asserting a causal relationship - only juxtaposing two things that are clearly related - boat arrivals and the policies that were enacted in response to those boat arrivals. --Surturz (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC) this link also links the policies with the arrivals, and demonstrates that it is meaningful to juxtapose the policies and boat numbers together. --Surturz (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I asume you are referring to where that document states "Boat arrival numbers in Australia have fluctuated significantly over the last 30 years in response to global events. With predictions that further instability in countries like Afghanistan will result in increased displacement in the coming years, it is likely that increased asylum flows into our region will continue for the foreseeable future."? Is that where it says nothing matters except detention policies? Djapa Owen (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 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? --Pete (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."[[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." in 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) Djapa, you are the one POV-pushing during an election period and have been violating WP:CANVASS and WP:3RR to push your fringe views. You are wilfully taking this image out of context and misrepresenting my arguments. --Surturz (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, the graph does include ALP policy (removing the Pacific Solution) and I do not object to adding a line for recent ALP changes. The only concern I have is calling the recent changes "Pacific Solution Mk II" because I do not think there is any justification to call it by that name. --Surturz (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Surturz, I do not believe I am pushing any POV. I re-raised the question by JulianL about whether push factors should be noted. Personally I am not sure how effectively that could be done considering the push factor events are so complex (for example would that also require marking the start of the conflict in Burma? how exactly would one summarise the recent history of Sri Lanka into one or two lines?). However I think we should have an open discussion of that question, election period or not. I feel it is a good idea to mark the recent ALP policy changes as was discussed at the start of this, and naturally my calling it Pacific Solutiion Mk II was meant as a joke. Something like "Return to off-shore processing" is probably sufficient wouldn't you say? As for the date, according to The Australian it was November 2012. It will be interesting to watch how these figures change over the next few years. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Concur with Surturz. The Gillard government's policy on boat arrivals cannot be taken out of context. She made it a big plank in her platform and it has been an ongoing saga. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 25 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) So we are to put POV events on what may or may not cause push factors with those of the left deciding which are the ones that stopped the boats and which of those increased the boats. Afghanistan and Iraq Wars... they stopped the boats. Sri Lankan War(which finished 3 years ago) is a Push factor. Quite ridiculous really. But there is a solution to this endless push-pull nonsense once and for all and that is asylum seeker application numbers worldwide directly from the UNHCR, heres one between 2001 and 2010 UNHCR Asylum Application Numbers I'm sure with a bit more searching I can find an updated one and we can overlay this over the top of the current graph and let the readers decide whether the Push Factor claim is the truth or a myth. Worldwide Asylum Seeker numbers actually peaked in 2002, the same year we had a single boat arrival after the introduction of the Pacific Solution. In 2010 the UNHCR recorded less applications than the previous year and around 40% down from 2002 numbers, yet boat arrivals to Australia increased from 2726 people in 2009 to almost triple that in 2010. These are facts. These are legitimate sources. These are real numbers. I welcome overlaying the UNHCR graph against the governments own boat arrival numbers and finally putting this Push Vs Pull rubbish to bed once and for all. Crocodile2009 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Crocodile2009 you have missed the vast majority of this discussion because it was held on the Julia Gillard page in stead of here, and the general agreement was to argue that the push factors were too complex to list on a graph, but that if the initial start and stop of off shore processing is marked then its re-introduction should be too. However the end result was to remove the graph from the article not fix the graph. In response to your suggestions here, saying that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars stopped boats is simply ridiculous. On the face of it comparing the figures here to global figures seems logical, but if you look into it a bit more you will find that the vast majority of refugee movement over the last two decades has been between eastern and western Europe and between Africa and Europe. If you can produce current figures for the Asia Pacific that might be useful here. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Well theres the problem, which war events are meant to be the ones to list on the graph and which to ignore? Boat arrivals significantly decreased after 2001, the same year as the war in Afghanistan. In 2002, boat arrivals numbered only 1 person. In 2003 the year of the Iraq War boatpeople numbers continued to stay at extremely low numbers. Then in 2009 a year after the Pacific Solution was abolished we had the end of the Sri Lankan war and boat people numbers increased significantly. But not from Sri Lanka... Afghanistan. See the problem with this? We might as well put the death of Michael Jackson on the graph if we go down that path. This graph is specifically about boat people arrival numbers and shows at different points government policy changes. It at no point attempts to force the reader to make a link between the numbers and those policies(both Labor and Coalition) that is entirely up to the reader. Crocodile2009 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC) You did not read what I wrote about the discussion elsewhere did you Croc? The agreement elsewhere was not to attempt to cover the push factors, so why rehash the whole argument here? The assertion that the graph simply presents the two sets of data but does not imply any correlation between them is ridiculous. Why bother with such a hollow argument? If there is no relation between them do not present them together. Please go read [the other discussion]. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:42, 7 July 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) Surturz, I do not have the time nor the expertise to do that, and basically I thought this discussion had played out on the other discussion page a while ago. If you read what I wrote above I have agreed with the consensus at Talk:Julia Gillard that including detail on push factors is probably too complex to work, but then you know that because you were part of that discussion. As I said there I think it may improve the image to add in the reintroduction of off shore processing in 2012, but I am not a graphing guru like you. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)