Talk:Economic impact of immigration to Canada

message: Does this article even mention any positive economic/social contributions that immigration has done to Canada? The article should argue the pros and cons of immigration, not simply stating the costs of it. (unsigned: User:Anothertruthteller)
:Any positive contribution statistics would be a welcome addition to the article.  Please identify them either in the article or here on the talk page.  Thanks.  Deet 12:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive impacts 

message: Curly Turkey, how would anyone know what even in the sources?  Most of the sources quoted that suggest economic benefits are all "unclickable" references.  I realize that doesn't make them bad, but is is unfortunate compared to clickable links, and it has allowed for potential selective interpretation by the original contributors using the references without easy double-checking.  To then come along and bully other edits that try to balance the language is the reason nobody wants to edit wikipedia anymore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.65.71 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, I'm talking about having changed the line "86.9% of Canadian exports go to the United States" to "However, 86.9% of Canadian exports go to the United States, from which relatively fewer people leave to come to Canada".  Just where is this information coming from?  Certainly not the referenced source, which is now a dead link.  Further, how does this information (having magically appeared from nowhere) create more "balance"?  That's only one of the mass of changes, which are all over the place.  How about "The well established libertarian think tank Fraser Institute..."  Why was "well established" added?  To create more "balance"?  Seriously?!?  And why was the reference to "The Impact of Immigrants on Canada's Treasury" removed?  Was it unreliable?  Can't tell, because it was removed without any explanation.  Where did "Recent immigrants are also less likely to make use of subsidized housing than native Canadians of the same income level" go, and why?  Some of the other portions of the edit do seem to bring in more neutral wording, but as a whole, I having trouble seeing it as merely an attempt to bring "balance".  CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 12:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right... the 86% figure is high.  The better figure is 73.3%  However, this still shows just how dumb the original point was. 73% is way out of whack with the number of American immigrants to Canada, and is probably one of the least diversified export profiles of any country in the world.  It just shows how ridiculous that entire section is... why haven't you deleted the entire section... must have been the great info in the source used for it... too bad none of the rest of us can read it as it is unclickable.  Most stuff from the pro-impact side of this article is similarly flaky and its sources are usually obscure university studies by students using simplistic methodologies and are not from serious sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.65.71 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Just finished reading the article and noticed a lot of bias towards the positive effects and against the negative effects of immigration. The author mentions a study that found a net benefit from immigration but fails to mention its name or who wrote it and then mentions another outdated one from 20 years ago. They then go on to make comments on the recent Fraser institute report and discredit it by calling them right wing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.90.21 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: bias

message: Dr. Steinhardt has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Steinhardt has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Facchini, Giovanni & Steinhardt, Max, 2011. "What Drives U.S. Immigration Policy? Evidence from Congressional Roll Call Votes," CEPR Discussion Papers 8299, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Steinhardt's comment on this article 

message: The new additions to the lead read like a personal essay. The thesis seems to be:
:"the two conflicting narratives that exist in Canada is one of politicians that higher immigration levels helps to increase economy (GDP) and the other of economists that say it decreases GDP per capita "
This isn't referenced, and it can't be because it isn't true. On the economic side there is a consensus to the benefits of immigration. The concern tends to come from the political side. - SimonP (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if it is true, it's riddled with grammatical error. The whole article is, which concerns me. It's hardly of a neutral tone as well. Arctinius (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions to the lead 

message: Shouldn’t this be part of the page? 2607:FEA8:5362:1E00:C81A:8754:14B2:F3E9 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration’s impact on housing availability and cost 

message: The grammar in the opening section is off, not to mention its general weirdness (long sections attributed to unnamed figures like 'an award-winning Canadian journalist" and "an ex-policy maker") 2604:3D08:7074:9200:F143:DCBC:CF49:45F1 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page doesn't look like it was written by a native English speaker 

message: Hello everyone. I have added a rewrite cleanup tag to this article because, in its present state, it presents multiple issues.
=== Grammar ===
There are numerous and consistent issues with grammar in this article. Example sentences include:
* "Increased immigration numbers and the associated soaring housing prices has significantly contributed to the rise of inflation in 2021 to the highest in 18 years." The tense is the wrong grammatical person.
* "Canada is one of the top Western countries that accepts most immigrants per capita." The "the" article is missing and the overall sentence is extremely vague in terms of meaning.
=== Tone issues ===
Several sentences read like a high school essay with severe tone issues that are not appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Here are some examples:
* "An award-winning Canadian journalist revealed the poor preparedness for receiving immigrants in swathes, aligning with Canada's historic need for a "servant class" and "cheap labor" for the bourgeoisie and owning class."
* As a part of the process, by default, the government systematically forces a majority of immigrants into vulnerable positions and economic disenfranchisement." This statement is very reaching, considering the two sources are an opinion piece and a single Minister's comments.
*"An article by an ex-policy maker states that Canada is rooting for the low-wage-low-productivity model of competitiveness that it has been locked in from the mid-1980s with this aggressive immigration targets." This is uncited.
:Shows as cited: https://ppforum.ca/publications/don-wright-middle-class/
* "A problematic approach per Paul Krugman in long term, he considers throwing more cheap labour at problems without a significant increase in productivity will affect a country's ability to improve its standard of living over time." This is a comma splice, but also not of professional tone for Wikipedia.
* "The article further observes that..." Again, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I could go on and on about this but there are a lot of severe issues that need fixing at a level of depth that I'm not entirely comfortable fixing myself. The rest of the article is somewhat better but it still suffers from generalized statements that are uncited and of somewhat dubious tone. The grammar should certainly be improved, and the sources need updating in some spots. I am not trying to be judgmental here. The article could use a few sets of eyes from native speakers, as it somewhat reads as though perhaps a non-native speaker made significant edits with some mistakes. Arctinius (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup rewrite tag 

message: Several sentences read like a high school essay with severe tone issues that are not appropriate for encyclopedic inclusion. Here are some examples:
* "An award-winning Canadian journalist revealed the poor preparedness for receiving immigrants in swathes, aligning with Canada's historic need for a "servant class" and "cheap labor" for the bourgeoisie and owning class."
* As a part of the process, by default, the government systematically forces a majority of immigrants into vulnerable positions and economic disenfranchisement." This statement is very reaching, considering the two sources are an opinion piece and a single Minister's comments.
*"An article by an ex-policy maker states that Canada is rooting for the low-wage-low-productivity model of competitiveness that it has been locked in from the mid-1980s with this aggressive immigration targets." This is uncited.
:Shows as cited: https://ppforum.ca/publications/don-wright-middle-class/
* "A problematic approach per Paul Krugman in long term, he considers throwing more cheap labour at problems without a significant increase in productivity will affect a country's ability to improve its standard of living over time." This is a comma splice, but also not of professional tone for Wikipedia.
* "The article further observes that..." Again, this is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I could go on and on about this but there are a lot of severe issues that need fixing at a level of depth that I'm not entirely comfortable fixing myself. The rest of the article is somewhat better but it still suffers from generalized statements that are uncited and of somewhat dubious tone. The grammar should certainly be improved, and the sources need updating in some spots. I am not trying to be judgmental here. The article could use a few sets of eyes from native speakers, as it somewhat reads as though perhaps a non-native speaker made significant edits with some mistakes. Arctinius (talk) 07:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone issues