Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 2 December 2013

Australia: Politics Unassessed

Operation Sovereign Borders is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Clumsy edits by User:Crocodile2009 supported by abusive or no Edit summaries

User:Crocodile2009 is Edit warring over some very clumsy edits he has made, supporting them with either abusive or non-existent Edit summaries. He has removed perfectly good sources, and combined multiple, independent events into one as if they happened at the same time. He is openly displaying a bias, and abusing me for an assumed political position.

I need him to come here to discuss these matters. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to back up the claims: 1. The Entire Indonesian Government is against Operation Sovereign Borders 2. Weekly briefings on Operation Sovereign Borders wasn't going to happen. 3. That the foreign minister of Indonesia did not later blame a clerical error for the release of their meeting. The edits previous to yours, and after mine were balanced and facts based not POV. And yes I'm accusing you of bias, you have a history mate. Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything you removed was supported by relaible sources. You actually removed some of these source, which is unacceptable, and added unsourced content - the alleged clerical error. (If you have a good source for that, feel free to add it.) We depend on what reliable sources say. Sourced content belongs in the article. Other content doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of a contentious issue but let's try and work out a compromise. -Keepdry (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To whom was that platitude directed? I have done nothing but defend a well sourced article against a cowboy who just removes sources he doesn't like, changes reality, and abuses me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sentence 1: "Since appointment of the Abbott Government, the Office of the Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, has stopped releasing information on asylum seeker boat arrivals." is totally and absolutely contradicted by sentence 2: "It later announced it would hold a weekly media briefing." which was new information. Sentence 1 should be therefore REMOVED. There was no merging of information, there was a complete rewrite of the sentence and you have undone it because of your BIAS. Crocodile2009 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Directed towards all editors involved. I don't want this article to be marred by partisan bickering. -Keepdry (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap. My contributions are NOT partisan. It's obvious whose are, and whose edits are also somewhat incompetent. Name the culprit. Edit summaries make it obvious who it is. So don't pretend everyone is at fault just because one bigot arrives on the scene and is treated a little brutally by non-partisan editors. Niceness has little impact on some. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources

My edit was undone because I had only cited Bolt; however, there appear to be a large number of secondary sources cited on this page. In the interest of balance, we should either have all or none of these. Judgements about their reliability alone should be substantiated, but I don't have a problem with deleting secondary sources with text if the content is clearly untrue. wvdveer —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Illogical content in the Outcomes section

Bringing it here to avoid further edit warring:

wvdveer is using a comparison of figures between November a year ago, and last month, to "prove" that the new government's policies are working. For more than half of that period the previous government's polices were in place, so the numbers don't support his point at all. I am making no comment on whether the polices are working or not. Just saying the the chosen period is not the right one to support that point. We would need figures for just the period the new government's policies have been in place, with an allowance for the lag in impact of policies of the old government, some of which would have impacted this new period. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The comparison between two Novembers is needed to account for the seasonal variation in IMAs. It is not a particularly biased choice, as there are higher and lower months between November 2012 and the introduction of OSB.

These numbers are "flows", not "stocks", and there appears to be little serial correlation between months. So, there is little need to look at the intervening period between the two Novembers for causality. November 2013 was a full month where OSB was in operation, and November 2012 was a full month where another policy was in operation.

To cover the causality concern, I used "has seen" rather than "has resulted in".

wvdveer —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What does "has seen" mean? It doesn't make much sense to me. You still appear to be wanting to suggest that there is causality. Those figures simply don't tell us. I still don't see the point in using them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: When you next click "Edit", note my use of the : symbol to indent our posts, and please use the ~~~~ string to sign and date your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why won't you discuss this here before making changes? Just mentioning Abbot's claim, from a source whose headline even reads "Both sides claim credit for slowing boat arrivals" is being a bit silly. And I must draw your attention to Misplaced Pages's Three-revert rule rule. It's why I'm trying to discuss this here rather than keeping on editing the article in breach of it. Please take heed. And again, Andrew Bolt will never be accepted as an independent, reliable source. He is paid to publish outrageous opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The normal protocol is as follows: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add." Unlike yourself, I have done this, including further changes in response to your comments. There is no need to delete a citation to correct information.Wvdveer (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The normal protocol says to discuss issues on the Talk page, rather than just editing away willy-nilly, using outrageous, misrepresentational Edit summaries. And I will never apologise for pointing out that Andrew Bolt's blog is a crappy source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have to admit, this is completely Boltian statistical analysis and logic! The maximum temperature on 30 November 2012 was 27°, the maximum temperature on 30 November 2013 was 19°, ∴ the earth is cooling! I certainly agree that we should show statistics of boat arrivals before and during OSB, but I think it's a bit too early to be drawing conclusions, and it is completely statistically invalid to infer a percentage change from two arbitrary points like this with no context. --Canley (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would expect boat arrivals to be Poisson distributed and the number of IMAs per boat to be normally distributed. There were 43 boat arrivals in November 2012. 20 occurences are generally regarded as sufficient to calculate a confidence interval for the Poisson distribution, see http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~rc141/f78sc/notes07.pdf . The November 2013 figure of 5 boats is 5.8 standard deviations below this, a highly significant result.Wvdveer (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thirty arbitrary points in a row, surely? I think the comparison is valid, but drawing conclusions from an opinion piece is going a little too far - we need a more authoritative source. There are actually two comparisons that need to be made, the first is with the Gillard regime, and the second is with Rudd II, whose PNG Solution was having an effect before the beginning of OSB. I'd like to see a longer timespan used for month by month figures - obviously this isn't something like the Pacific Solution where the effect was immediate and dramatic. --Pete (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A three-way comparison between Gillard, Rudd II and OSB would be useful, please go ahead and add it!Wvdveer (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Given that Rudd II wasn't in office in a November, it is impossible to find any one month that is common to all three. I was thinking more along the lines of a month by month record for (say) the period from September 2013, updated weekly as new figures are released. On that note, the ABC provides a good record of illegal arrivals since the election, but I haven't found a good source for before that date, though the numbers are certainly around. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The summaries of the OSB weekly briefings are here on the Customs website. From 2011 to 2013, DIAC used to publish Asylum Statistics, but detailed by quarter not month, and it goes up to July 2013. These are kind of primary sources so it's great the ABC is doing a list, but they would be relying on the same data from the weekly briefings I suppose. There's probably a 2.5 month gap though between July and 18 September... I'm sure some shock jocks were keeping track, but would be great to have a non-opinionated source. --Canley (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Just updating - we have a good source for that 90% figure, the Prime Minister. And the Opposition spokesman is claiming a 40% reduction from Gillard to Rudd. Looks like both sides are well-sourced. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that, two sourced statements from opposing sides—their stats may be questionable but it's referenced they said them. Thanks for adding the table, I just made a quick correction to the November boat numbers (5 instead of 3). --Canley (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The ABC's list was a bit confusing. Re the figures before OSB, I waded through the DIAC site and emerged little better informed than before. I found a few blogs and things that were keeping track from the daily announcements; there are a few folk obsessed with this issue and they are reliable enough, if we kind of aggregate them, I suppose, but still my heart yearns for something with a government seal on it, rather than some guy beavering away on the dining room table at three in the morning. --Pete (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Unassessed Australia articles
• Unknown-importance Australia articles
• Unassessed Australian politics articles
• Unknown-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles