Talk:Immigration to Australia: Difference between revisions

{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1]] up to December 2007. [[/Archive 2]]}}

 

==Immigration and Economics==

 

I removed this sentence ''' "Battlers" is a term that describes native [[working-class]] people in Australia who cannot afford education for their children to the extent [[immigrants]] can, and hence learn less money and have lower rates of health <ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/08/28/eddavis_ed3__0.php</ref>. This is mostly due to government policies.'''. (a) the term as understood means struggling people generally, (b) immigrants are certainly not advantaged over native-born Australians in terms of accessibility to HECS, education etc and (c) the IHT article cited makes no reference to your definition of "battler" or the alleged disadvantage they suffer. It is dishonest to put your words into the mouths of more established writers. [[User:Kransky|Kransky]] ([[User talk:Kransky|talk]]) 05:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

:: "Battlers" aside, I would like to see this article thoroughly reviewed for POV-pushing. Wikipedia doesn't exist to propagandize for Australia's immigration industry. [[User:ZwickauDeluxe|ZwickauDeluxe]] ([[User talk:ZwickauDeluxe|talk]]) 18:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Agreed, the article has tendentious and irrelevant writing from all political sides and lacks objectivity and clarity. [[User:Kransky|Kransky]] ([[User talk:Kransky|talk]]) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

</ul>

 

 

 

:::It should be deleted. The section is a) future oriented (" New Zealanders will keep on coming ") such that it violates the Wiki rule against crystal balls and b) is poorly sourced ("it was thought that..." means who???) and c) is heavily loaded with nativism ("The unregulated New Zealand flow is leaving a gaping hole in these efforts." ) [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 10:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

::::In my opinion, quotes should be exempt from these rules, I guess there are already many quotes in wikipedia that are future oriented. A quote is what somebody says, that person may say future oriented things. But I imagine that all the criticisms of this text are directed to the fact that the ideas presented in it are being given too much importance and the opposing ideas not. Well, first, I have not found the opposite view on the Internet, so I can not write it here, if you know it then enter it here. Second, if you do not have sources that tell the contrary opinion then we could put a notice in the main article near the text so if any reader knows these sources then that reader could add them here. That may be what it should have been right for Nick-D to have done (to put a notice requesting additional sources) rather than removing the entire text. Third, I will think better if making this quote shorter is a good idea. Finally, I guess you can not deny that this text provides some more useful information that was not present in the article before, right? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Abcdudtc|Abcdudtc]] ([[User talk:Abcdudtc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Abcdudtc|contribs]]) 13:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

 

== 1969-70 ==

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

 

 

== External links modified ==

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

 

 

== External links modified ==

== Quality of Sources ==