Talk:Pacific Solution

message: 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.  
Regards, Ben Aveling 03:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cost of the pacific solution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: Please explain why thie link from 'transportation' to 'penal transportation' is being undone...???? Paki.tv 02:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  OK I take the point. The claim is verging on OR ... Paki.tv 04:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found a reference. Hope thats OK with you ;> Paki.tv 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  OK yes, sorry - I've changed the definition - How now? Paki.tv 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please discuss changes firstPaki.tv 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transportation and penal transportation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: It is not 'clearly false'. Correlation is not causation. 27.32.126.190 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: A discussion is underway at  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This discussion should go at the talk page of the image as it is used in a number of articles dealing with the subject.      Djapa Owen (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boat Arrivals image POV 

message: 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)
replies: text: Are you saying the claim isn't true? If not, why not? Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paul Kelly assertion biassed? 

message: 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[], "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SIEVs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Nauru....concerned 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC Not Stated Properly 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No RFC to respond to 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article cited in support of the "1200 deaths" figure actually says:
"The best available data appears to put those estimates at closer to 1100."
It also notes that on that data
"Combining the data from these two online sources also shows that under Coalition governments between 400 and 760 people died en route to Australia."
And notably, if you read that link "A spokesperson for Mr Dutton said the figure of 1200 referred to the number of refugees who drowned at sea under Labor but said those figures, or any detail on them, were not publicly available online. The spokesperson also directed The Conversation to Monash University’s Australian Border Deaths Database."
The fact that the government will not release the actual figures, but instead will just point people to a university database, surely makes its claims pretty bloody dubious.
Anyway, the citation provided is prepared to go with "1100", noting the only source is two websites. The second of those websites, the SIEVX one, is counting drownings not in Australia's migration zone, such as just off the coast of Malaysia. http://sievx.com/articles/background/DrowningsTable.pdf
Until or unless a more credible source is located, then, the figure should be "1100" and, for context, it should note that 
(a) this is an estimate, because the government will not release figures;
(b) the government has not released figures regarding drownings in Australia's migration zone, or in the region, under the new policy;
(c) even the estimate of 1100 comes with an estimate of 400-760 deaths under the Coalition's policy.
I'm not sure why they get the benefit of the doubt on their implication (although never explicitly stated, you'll note) that the drownings have stopped.
Garth M (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1200 deaths" claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pacific Solution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041014060834/http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/pacificsolution/ to http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/refugees/pacificsolution/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As far as I can see, the PNG solution article could quite easily appear as a section in this article. There's already a multiplicity of articles relating to asylum seekers and Australia and I don't really see any value in the stand-alone PNG solution article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I came here looking for info on who coined the name. But that doesn't seem to be included. Does anyone know, and if so, can they add that please? Irtapil (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  who named it?